ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUTE’S GEOPHYSICAL-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE KERGUELEN PLATEAU, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2020

Submitted by:

Submitted to:

30 September 2019 LGL Reference: FA0195

LGL Limited, environmental research associates ❖ 388 Kenmount Road, St. John’s, NL A1B 4A5 ❖ Tel 709-754-1992/Fax 709-754-7718

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUTE’S GEOPHYSICAL-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE KERGUELEN PLATEAU, JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2020

Prepared by

Meike Holst, Valerie D. Moulton, Bruce D. Mactavish, and Gemma Rayner

LGL Ltd., environmental research associates 388 Kenmount Road, PO Box 13248, Stn. A St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador A1B 4A5 Canada

Prepared for

Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research Am Alten Hafen 26 27568 Bremerhaven Germany

30 September 2019 LGL Reference FA0195

Suggested format for citation:

Holst, M., V.D. Moulton, B.D. Mactavish, and G. Rayner. 2019. Environmental Impact Assessment of Alfred Wegener Institute’s Geophysical-Geological Survey of the Kerguelen Plateau, January–February 2020. LGL Rep. FA0195. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, Canada, for Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven, Germany. 56 p. + appendix.

Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures ...... iv List of Tables ...... v 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Purpose and Objectives ...... 1 3.0 Regulatory Setting ...... 1 4.0 Description of Activities ...... 2 4.1 Location and Timing ...... 2 4.2 Research Vessel ...... 4 4.3 Survey Equipment ...... 4 4.3.1 Bathymetric Echosounder ...... 4 4.3.2 Sediment Echosounder ...... 4 4.3.3 Coring Equipment ...... 4 4.3.4 Airgun and Streamer ...... 6 5.0 Alternatives ...... 7 5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...... 7 5.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 7 5.2.1 Alternative E1: Alternative Location ...... 7 5.2.2 Alternative E2: Alternative Timing ...... 8 6.0 Physical Environment ...... 8 7.0 Sensitive Marine Areas ...... 8 8.0 Biological Environment ...... 9 8.1 Marine Mammals ...... 9 8.2 Marine Reptiles ...... 12 8.3 Marine-associated Birds ...... 12 8.4 Marine Fish ...... 15 8.5 Marine Invertebrates ...... 16 9.0 Socio-economic Environment ...... 17 10.0 Effects Assessment ...... 17 10.1 Mitigation and Monitoring ...... 17 10.1.1 Marine Mammals ...... 18 10.1.2 Fishing Vessels ...... 19 10.2 Potential Effects on Marine Mammals ...... 19 10.2.1 Echosounders ...... 20 10.2.1.1 Hearing Impairment ...... 20 10.2.1.2 Disturbance Effects ...... 21 10.2.2 Airgun Use ...... 22 10.2.2.1 Hearing Impairment ...... 23 10.2.2.2 Disturbance Effects ...... 25 10.2.2.3 Masking ...... 29 10.2.3 Other Possible Effects of Seismic Surveys ...... 30 10.3 Potential Effects on Birds ...... 31

ii

10.4 Potential Effects on Marine Fish and Invertebrates ...... 32 10.4.1 Echosounders ...... 32 10.4.2 Airgun Use ...... 33 10.4.2.1 Marine Invertebrates ...... 33 10.4.2.2 Marine Fish ...... 35 10.4.3 Coring ...... 36 10.5 Potential Effects on Commercial Fisheries ...... 36 10.6 Potential Effects of Waste Discharges ...... 37 10.7 Cumulative Effects ...... 37 11.0 Reporting ...... 37 12.0 Summary ...... 37 13.0 Literature Cited ...... 38 Appendix A: Profiles of Marine Mammals, Marine-Associated Birds, or Fishes Listed as Threatened or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act that could occur within or near the Study Area .. A-1

iii

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Location of AWI’s study area on the Kerguelen Plateau...... 3 Figure 2. Survey vessel R/V Sonne...... 5 Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of a multibeam echosounder swath...... 5 Figure 4. Principals of seismic surveying...... 6 Figure 5. Airgun array tow configuration...... 6 Figure 6. Vertical tow configuration of the array...... 7

iv

List of Tables

Page

Table 1. Marine mammals that could occur within or near the AWI study area on the Kerguelen Plateau during January and February 2020...... 10 Table 2. Marine-associated birds listed as threatened or migratory under the EPBC Act that may occur within or near the AWI study area during January–February 2020...... 13 Table 3. Additional marine-associated birds designated as marine species under the EPBC Act that may occur within or near the AWI study area during January–February 2020...... 14 Table 4. Listed fish species under the EPBC Act that could occur within or near the AWI study area during January–February 2020...... 16 Table 5. Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) onset thresholds for various marine mammal hearing groups...... 24

v

1.0 Introduction

The Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) for Polar and Marine Research and its collaborators are proposing to conduct a geophysical and geological survey to investigate the Kerguelen Plateau Drift Deposits in the southern Indian Ocean/Southern Ocean. Expedition SO 272 would employ the research vessel (R/V) Sonne and would be conducted by a team of academic scientists from ~19 January to 23 February 2020. Survey equipment would include bathymetric and sediment echosounders, corers, and an array of 4-GI airguns and a hydrophone streamer. AWI has requested that LGL Limited prepare this environmental impact assessment (EIA) to provide an overview of the biophysical and socio-economic setting, the potential effects of the study on the local environment and its users, and mitigation and monitoring measures.

2.0 Purpose and Objectives

Located in a key region in the southern Indian Ocean, the complex topography of the Kerguelen Plateau, one of the world’s largest large igneous provinces, has a strong influence on pathways of water masses within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) and the Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW). Topographic highs like the Williams Ridge at the Kerguelen Plateau reduce the flow of water masses leading to the deposition of thick sediment packages. Gaps and narrow passages in contrast lead to erosion and non-deposition. In the Cenozoic era, significant modifications in pathways and intensity of those water masses were caused by the tectonic development of the Kerguelen Plateau as well as the opening of the Tasman Gateway, Drake Passage, and major global climatic changes. In the Kerguelen Plateau region, all of these changes are explicitly well documented in the formation of sedimentary structures, e.g., sediment drifts, supposedly at very high resolution.

The proposed geophysical-geological study of the central Kerguelen Plateau would examine these sedimentary structures using high-resolution seismic reflection data, and in combination with geological information obtained from Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Sites 747–751, would provide new insights into the evolution and dynamics of the ACC and AABW in the southern Indian Ocean. New high-quality seismic data from the Labuan and Ragatt Basin area would allow the study of interactions of climatic and tectonic changes of the last 66 million years and provide important information on the formation and dynamics of the Antarctic ice sheet due to the unique location of the Kerguelen Plateau. The seismic survey is complemented by geological sampling to enable dating of reflections terminating at the seafloor where no ODP drill holes exist. The study would also collect critical pre-site survey data for the preparation of an International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) proposal.

3.0 Regulatory Setting

A small portion of the activities (~10% of the seismic survey) are planned to occur within the Australian Whale Sanctuary. Within Australian waters, all whales, dolphins, and porpoises are protected under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. Under the EPBC Act it is an offence to kill, injure, or interfere with a cetacean (Commonwealth of

1

Australia 2019a). Although the proposed action is very unlikely to injure or kill a cetacean, some cetaceans may be incidentally harassed during the study by various project activities, in particular airgun sounds. A referral is therefore being sought under the EPBC Act. Activities that might harass cetaceans require a permit under the EPBC Act (Commonwealth of Australia 2019a), and a cetacean permit will be submitted for the proposed activities. Additionally, EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales: industry guidelines will be followed (Commonwealth of Australia 2008).

4.0 Description of Activities

A total of ~5780 km (~3120 n.mi.) of 2-D multichannel seismic (MCS) reflection surveys would be conducted over the area of the Kerguelen Plateau. Seismic acquisition would occur along 13 profiles (Figure 1). The exact location of the profiles has not been finalized and is likely to change according to weather, etc. The MCS recording equipment consists of a 3-km long hydrophone streamer for data recording and an array of 4 GI-airguns with a total volume of 9.6 L (600 in3) as the seismic source. Both the airgun array and streamer would be towed from the stern of the research vessel, with the airgun array towed on the port side of the vessel. During airgun operations, the vessel moves with a speed of ~5–5.5 knots.

A Kongsberg multi-beam swath echosounding system would be used along the entire ship track for recording water-depths. A parametric sediment-echosounding system Atlas Parasound DS P-70 (by STN Atlas Elektronik) would be used along the entire ship track for imaging the top 10–100 m of the sedimentary cover. Multibeam bathymetric recordings and sub-bottom profiling would be conducted on all seismic profiles and transit tracks. In addition, sediment samples would be collected from the seafloor, using a gravity corer and multicorer. Up to two sampling locations could occur within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Australia. Cores would be taken in agreement with Dr. April Abbott from Macquarie University, Australia.

4.1 Location and Timing

The study would occur in the southern Indian Ocean on the Kerguelen Plateau in an area bounded by the following coordinates: 59° S, 70° E; 54.5° S, 70° E; 52° S, 83° E; and 57°S, 88° E (Figure 1). The majority of the study would occur in International Waters, but a small proportion (~10% of seismic survey effort) would occur within the EEZ of Australia around the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI). Water depths in the study area range from approximately 500–5100 m. The study is planned to occur from ~19 January to 23 February 2020. Seismic surveying would occur over ~25 days, and coring would take place for ~6.5 days, with the remainder of the days consisting of equipment deployment/retrieval, and contingency (weather) days. R/V Sonne is expected to depart Port Louis, Mauritius, on 12 January 2020 for transit to the survey area. After completion of the seismic survey and geological sampling, the vessel would transit to Cape Town, South Africa, for arrival on 3 March 2020.

2

Figure 1. Location of AWI’s study area on the Kerguelen Plateau.

3

4.2 Research Vessel

The German flagged R/V Sonne would be used during the survey (Figure 2). R/V Sonne is operated by the University of Hamburg’s Institute for Geology and is owned by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany. R/V Sonne was built in 2014 and is ~118 m long, with a beam of 20.6 m, and a draft of 6.6 m; the gross tonnage is 8554 t. It is a diesel-electric ship; the main engines have a power output of 6480 kW. The vessel has maximum speed of ~12 knots and a range of 7500 n.mi. During airgun operations, the vessel would travel at a speed of ~5 knots. R/V Sonne can accommodate a maximum of 70 persons (32 crew/40 scientists). The vessel would be approved for operation within Australian waters.

4.3 Survey Equipment

As noted above, AWI would operate echosounders, collect core samples, and use a 4-GI airgun array to acquire data necessary to address the study objectives. Specifications of the survey equipment are provided below.

4.3.1 Bathymetric Echosounder

AWI would use multibeam echosounder (MBES) Kongsberg EM 122, with an operational frequency of 12 kHz. The MBES is located on the hull of the research vessel and operates by emitting a narrow fan of multiple acoustic beams (191/ping) to characterize the seafloor (Figure 3). The system operates at a high frequency with pulse lengths of 2 ms, 5 ms, and 15 ms, creating narrow beam widths with an emitting angle of 2 x 2°. The beam swath provides vertical coverage for a 100°–200° sector in the plane perpendicular to the towing direction. The beam pattern of a multibeam system is highly anisotropic (directionally dependent), with most acoustic energy emitted in the across-track direction. The system is calibrated for water velocity and salinity by performing occasional measurements with a lowered conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) sensor.

4.3.2 Sediment Echosounder

The sediment echosounder (also referred to as a sub-bottom profiler) would be the Atlas Parasound DS P-70 model. Its primary operational frequencies range from 18–22 kHz, and its secondary frequency range is 2.5–5.5 kHz. The pulse length is 22 ms. It is mounted on the hull of the research vessel and is used to map the structure of seabed sediments. Like the MBES, it has a downward directed and narrow beam width (4.5°).

4.3.3 Coring Equipment

At each of anticipated 16 coring stations, AWI would use up to two types of corers to acquire core samples of different sizes: (1) a multi-corer with a penetration weight of 250 kg would acquire up to 10 single 1-m cores with a 10-cm diameter; and (2) a gravity corer with a penetration weight of 1500 kg would acquire long cores (up to 12 m) with a 12-cm diameter. Each corer would contact the ground/sediment for <10 minutes. The time on station (i.e., when the vessel is stationary) would vary from 3–8 hours, depending on the water depth.

4

Figure 2. Survey vessel R/V Sonne.

Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of a multibeam echosounder swath. [Source: www.simrad.com]

5

4.3.4 Airgun and Streamer

AWI will collect geophysical data in the offshore survey areas using a 4-GI gun array and one 3-km long hydrophone streamer to record the acoustic signals. The method is a standard near-vertical seismic reflection technique, where the seismic wavefield generated from airguns is reflected from sub-bottom geological layers/structures and recorded from a towed seismic streamer/cable (Figure 4). Each GI gun has a volume of 2.4 L (150 in3) and the total volume of the array is 9.6 liters (600 in3). Two GI guns are towed parallel to each other 1-m apart and form a sub-cluster (Figure 5). The array consists of two such clusters towed 3 m apart, at a tow depth of 2–3 m (Figure 6). Both the airgun array and streamer will be towed 15 m behind the stern of the vessel. The airgun array would be activated every 10 seconds and the air pressure applied to the airguns is 200 bar. The source signal of the array has a spectral peak level at 75–125 Hz. Based on a similar-sized sources, the source level is expected to be ~235 dB µPa @ 1 m, zero-to-peak or 241 dB µPa @ 1 m, peak-to-peak (see Richardson et al. 1995). The airgun array to be used during this study is much smaller than arrays used during conventional seismic exploration surveys.

Figure 4. Principals of seismic surveying.

Figure 5. Airgun array tow configuration.

6

Figure 6. Vertical tow configuration of the array.

A Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) system is built into the streamer (i.e., QuietSeaTM from Sercel) and accompanying software allows for the detection of marine mammal vocalizations. The system uses the SEALTM interface to detect vocalizations in the seismic data from 10–200 Hz, and dedicated streamer and auxiliary modules to detect vocalizations in the 200 Hz to 96 kHz bandwidth.

5.0 Alternatives

5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

An alternative to conducting the proposed activities is the “No Action” alternative, i.e., do not conduct the research activities. If the research was not conducted, the “No Action” alternative would result in no disturbance to marine mammals attributable to the proposed activities. However, valuable data about the marine environment would be lost. Research that would contribute to our understanding of the evolution and dynamics of the ACC and AABW in the southern Indian Ocean would not be collected. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose for the proposed activities. Although the No-Action Alternative is not considered a reasonable alternative because it does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, it is included here.

5.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

5.2.1 Alternative E1: Alternative Location

The Kerguelen Plateau, one of the world’s largest Large Igneous Provinces, has a strong influence on pathways of water masses within the ACC and AABW. Topographic highs at the Kerguelen Plateau reduce the flow of water masses leading to the deposition of thick sediment packages; gaps and narrow passages in contrast lead to erosion. In the Cenozoic era, significant modifications in pathways and intensity of those water masses were caused by the tectonic development of the Kerguelen Plateau as well as the opening of the Tasman Gateway, Drake Passage, and major global climatic changes. In the Kerguelen Plateau region, all of these changes are explicitly well documented in the formation of sedimentary structures, e.g., sediment drifts, supposedly at very

7

high resolution. Thus, this location is ideally suited for the proposed study to examine the evolution and dynamics of the ACC and AABW in the southern Indian Ocean.

5.2.2 Alternative E2: Alternative Timing

The ship time is allocated from the German Research Vessel Review Panel. If the study cannot be conducted during the time allocated, it would be equivalent to the “No Action” alternative, as the study could not take place at another time. Geological data of scientific value and relevance increasing our understanding of the evolution and dynamics of water masses in the southern Indian Ocean would not be collected. The collection of new data, interpretation of these data, and introduction of new results into the greater scientific community and applicability of these data to other similar settings would not be achieved, which would be a great loss to the scientific community.

6.0 Physical Environment

The Kerguelen Plateau is the largest volcanic plateau in the Southern Ocean (Geoscience Australia 2019). It extends in a northwest-southeast direction for 2200 km, with water depths ranging from 1000–4000 m (Geoscience Australia 2019). The position of the Kerguelen Plateau disrupts the deep circulation of the southern Indian Ocean (de Boer et al. 2003; Roquet et al. 2009). Deep water flows towards the east along the northern edge of the Kerguelen Plateau, and enters the Australian-Antarctic Basin via the Kerguelen-Amsterdam Passage (de Boer et al. 2003). The majority of the ACC current also flows around the northern edge of the Kerguelen Plateau, but some water also flows south of the plateau (Orsi et al. 1995).

The study area is located in Sub-Antarctic waters south of the Antarctic Convergence Zone in the southern Indian Ocean/Southern Ocean. The Antarctic Convergence is a frontal zone, located near 50°S (although its location changes seasonally), where cold water from the Southern Ocean flows under warmer, more saline, subantarctic water from the Indian Ocean (FAO 2011). The Southern Ocean is characterized by the ACC which flows eastward and clockwise-flowing gyres that contribute the East Wind Drift that flows westward along the coast of the Antarctic (FAO 2011). North of 55°S is an ice-free zone, and between 55–60°S is the seasonal pack-ice zone (FAO 2011). Upwelling in the convergence zone, especially in the seasonal pack-ice zone, leads to high productivity, in particular of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba (FAO 2011). Antarctic krill is a keystone species in the Southern Ocean, providing food for marine mammals, seabirds, and fish; it is currently not fished in FAO Area 58 where the survey would occur (FAO 2011). The EEZ of HIMI has a primary productivity of 312.32 mgCm-2day-1 (SeaAroundUs 2016). Productivity is much greater at the convergence zone than in adjacent waters of the ACC (de Baar et al. 1995).

7.0 Sensitive Marine Areas

The study area is located in subantarctic waters between the Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean and partially within the Australian Whale Sanctuary and the Indian Ocean Sanctuary (IOS). Commercial whaling severely depleted all the large whale populations in the Indian Ocean, and in 1979, the

8

International Whaling Commission (IWC) declared the Indian Ocean north of 55ºS a whale sanctuary; commercial whaling is prohibited in the IOS (IWC 2019). The Australian Whale Sanctuary provides year-round, seasonal or migratory habitat for cetaceans and provides protection for those species within Australian waters; it includes the waters from the 3 n.mi. state limit out to the edge of the EEZ of Australia as well as external territories (Commonwealth of Australia 2019a). All whales, dolphins, and porpoises are protected under the EPBC Act 1999, under which it is an offence to kill, injure, or interfere with a cetacean (Commonwealth of Australia 2019a).

The HIMI Marine Reserve is located ~200 km from the survey area. It was established in October 2002 under the EPBC Act and expanded in March 2014 (Commonwealth of Australia 2019b). It is managed by the Australian Antarctic Division (Commonwealth of Australia 2019b). This marine reserve covers ~71,200 km2 and includes Heard Island, the McDonald Islands, the 12 n.mi. territorial seas, and some parts extend out to the limit of the EEZ (Commonwealth of Australia 2019b). The HIMI Marine Reserve has great conservation significance; it is the only major subantarctic island group that is largely devoid of introduced species (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). The reserve provides important breeding habitat for birds and marine mammals, including listed species under the EPBC Act, as well nursery areas for fish (Commonwealth of Australia 2019b); Longhurst (2009) reported it was particularly important habitat for sperm whales. The marine environment has diverse benthic habitat that support corals and sponges among other invertebrates (Commonwealth of Australia 2019b).

8.0 Biological Environment

This section provides an overview of key biological components which may interact and possibly be affected by AWI’s survey activities.

8.1 Marine Mammals

According to de Boer et al. (2003), the subantarctic waters of the southern Indian Ocean are home to a diversity of cetaceans. At least 45 species of cetaceans occur in Australian waters, including 10 large whales, 20 small whales, 14 dolphins, and one porpoise (Commonwealth of Australia 2019c). Marine mammals that could occur in the study area include baleen and toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and pinnipeds typical of the subantarctic region. A total of 33 marine mammals could occur within or near the study area on the Kerguelen Plateau during January and February, including 8 baleen whale species, 18 odontocetes, and 7 pinnipeds (Table 1). Several of these species are listed as threatened under the Australian EPBC Act, including the endangered southern right and blue whales, and the vulnerable sei, fin, and humpback whales. The subantarctic fur seal is designated as endangered, and the southern elephant seal is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Both seal species are known to breed on Heard Island, along with the Antarctic fur seal; non-breeding leopard seals are known to haul out on Heard Island in the winter (Meyer et al. 2000). Information on the conservation status as well as the scientific name for each of the 33 marine mammal species is presented in Table 1. The species that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are profiled in Appendix A.

9

Table 1. Marine mammals that could occur within or near the AWI study area on the Kerguelen Plateau during January and February 2020.

Occurrence of Species EPBC Species Scientific Name IUCN4 CITES5 or Species Habitat1 Act3 Mysticetes Southern right whale Eubaleana australis Likely to occur EN, MI LC I Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata Rare MI LC I Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae May occur VU, MI LC I Antarctic minke whale Balaenoptera bonaerensis Likely to occur MI NT I Dwarf minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Likely to occur2 NCA LC I Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Likely to occur VU, MI EN I Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Likely to occur VU, MI VU I Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Likely to occur EN, MI EN I Odontocetes Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus May occur MI, K* VU I Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris May occur NCA LC II Arnoux’s beaked whale Berardius arnuxii May occur NCA DD I Shepherd’s beaked whale Tasmacetus shepherdi Rare NCA DD II Southern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon planifrons May occur MI^ LC I Gray’s beaked whale Mesoplodon grayi May occur NCA DD II Hector’s beaked whale Mesoplodon hectori May occur NCA DD II Andrew’s beaked whale Mesoplodon bowdonii Rare NCA DD II Strap-toothed beaked whale Mesoplodon layardii May occur NCA DD II Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus May occur NCA LC II Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus May occur NCA LC II Southern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis peronii May occur NCA LC II Hourglass dolphin Lagenorhynchus cruciger May occur NCA LC II Dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus cruciger Rare MI LC II Killer whale Orcinus orca Likely to occur MI DD II Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas May occur NCA LC II Spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica Likely to occur MI LC II Pinnipeds* Subantarctic fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis May occur EN LC II Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus gazelle Likely to occur2 NCA LC II Southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina May occur VU LC II Ross seal Ommatophoca rosii Rare NCA LC NL Crabeater seal Lobodo carcinophaga Rare NCA LC NL Leopard seal Hydrurga leptonyx Likely to occur2 NCA LC NL Weddell seal Leptonychotes weddellii Rare NCA LC NL * These pinnipeds are listed marine species under the EPBC Act (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). 1 Based on distribution maps from Commonwealth of Australia (2019d). “Rare” means that the distributional maps did not include HIMI or no distributional map was available, but based on Commonwealth of Australia (2014) and Jefferson et al. (2015), occurrence could be rare. Species that are not expected to occur in the study area at all are not included in Table 1. 2 Distributional map was not included for this species (Commonwealth of Australia 2019d), but based on available information, it could occur in the study area. 3 EPBC Act of Australia (Commonwealth of Australia 2014, 2019e). EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NCA = No Category Assigned; MI = Migratory (Commonwealth of Australia 2019f). * Category K (Insufficiently Known) assigned by Bannister et al. (1996) and Ross (2006). ^ Commonwealth of Australia (2014). 4 Codes for IUCN classifications (IUCN 2019). EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient. 5 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (UNEP-WCMC 2017). Appendix I = Threatened with extinction; Appendix II = Not necessarily now threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade is closely controlled; NL = Not Listed.

10

According to Bannister et al. (1996), the highly productive waters near the Antarctic Convergence around HIMI are important for cetaceans. Many marine mammals, particularly baleen whales, are considered seasonal visitors to the region. Right, blue, fin, sei, humpback, and minke whales migrate south to feed in Antarctic waters during the austral summer and migrate northward for the austral winter (de Boer et al. 2003). Migrating or foraging baleen whales as well as wide-ranging toothed whales could be encountered during the proposed study. During the Heard Island feasibility study in January–February 1991, marine mammal surveys were conducted in the HIMI Marine Reserve within 53–54°S and 74–75°E; during those surveys, sperm, minke, blue, fin, possible sei, Arnoux’s beaked, southern bottlenose, and long-finned pilot whales were seen as well as hourglass dolphins, Antarctic fur seals, and elephant seals (Bowles et al. 1994). Bannister et al. (1996), Meyer et al. (2000), and Ross (2006) also reported the occurrence of long-finned pilot whales and hourglass dolphins near Heard Island, as well as killer whales and spectacled porpoise. Strap-toothed beaked whale has stranded on Heard Island; no sightings of southern right whale dolphins have been made there (Bannister et al. 1996; Ross 2006).

Tynan (1997) also hypothesized that the productive waters of the southeastern edge of the Kerguelen Plateau provide a favourable foraging area for cetaceans, due to mixing of the water column as the ACC moves around the plateau, as well as other oceanographic features. During surveys of the southeastern Indian Ocean, the highest densities of cetaceans occurred on the southeastern edge of the Kerguelen Plateau (Tynan 1996, 1997). During a survey from December 1994 to January 1995, sightings of minke, humpback, and southern bottlenose whales were made within the proposed study area on the southeastern Kerguelen Plateau (Tynan 1996). Sperm and killer whales were also observed on the southeastern Kerguelen Plateau, but not within the study area; southern right and blue whales were sighted south of the study area (Tynan 1996). In addition, an Antarctic fur seal was seen northeast of the study area, and a leopard seal was observed south of the study area; subantarctic fur seals were not seen south of 47.45°S (Tynan 1996). After the moulting season, elephant seals equipped with data loggers traveled from the Kerguelen Islands through the proposed survey area during March 2004 en route to the Antarctic waters (Roquet et al. 2009). O’Toole et al. (2014) and Hindell et al. (2011) also reported elephant seals occurring in the survey area. Antarctic fur seals have also been reported in the study area (Hindell et al. 2011).

Kasuya and Wada (1991) reported on Japanese sighting records in the southern Indian Ocean during October–April 1965–1985. Sightings of sperm, killer, blue, fin, sei, humpback, and minke whales were made in the study area during December–March; southern right whales were seen in the study area during January–March. Mikhalev et al. (1981) also noted the presence of killer whales in and near the study area during December–March between 1961–1979.

During the IWC/IDCR (International Decade of Cetacean Research) Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale Assessment Cruises, 1978/79–1987/88, minke and fin whales were seen near the southern portion of the study area, and southern bottlenose whales and hourglass dolphins were observed in the southeastern portion of study (Kasamatsu et al. 1990). Humpback whales were sighted south and east of the study area, and long-finned pilot whales were seen in subantarctic waters near the study area but south of 60°S (Kasamatsu et al. 1990). During observations of cetaceans recorded from Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions (ANARE) and resupply vessels in the southern Indian Ocean during 1981–1990, minke, southern bottlenose, and killer whales were seen

11

south of the study area (Hodges and Woehler 1990). de Boer (2000) reported minke, fin, humpback, and sperm whales southwest of the study area between 60° and 65°S during summer of 1999/2000, and Thiele et al. (2000) recorded sightings of killer, minke, and humpback whales immediately south of the study area (63°–66°S) during summer of 1995/1996. MacLeod and Mitchell (2006) suggested that the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters south of 57.5°S are a key area for beaked whales, in particular southern bottlenose and Arnoux’s beaked whales which are commonly reported there.

Based on data from OBIS-SEAMAP (2019), Gorton (2011) reported fin and killer whales within and near the study area during the months of January, February, and March from 1998–2003; hourglass dolphins were seen just to the south in February 2002. Raymond (2011) reported sightings of common minke whales in the study area during March and long-finned pilot whales were sighted during October. A Cuvier’s beaked whale was observed west of the study area (Raymond 2011). Blue whales and fur seals were sighted north of the Kerguelen Islands during summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007).

In the Kerguelen Islands, sightings of several mysticetes have been made (Antarctic minke, blue, fin, sei, southern right, and humpback whales) along with several toothed whale species (long-finned pilot, strap-toothed beaked, killer, southern bottlenose, and sperm whales; southern right whale dolphin, hourglass dolphin, and spectacled porpoise (Borsa 1997; Robineau 1989; Gasco et al. 2019). In addition, fur seals, leopard seals, and southern elephant seals have been sighted (Gasco et al. 2019). Offshore waters of the Kerguelen shelf/Kerguelen-Amsterdam Passage/Southeast Indian Ridge (north of Heard Island) have had likely sightings of spectacled porpoise, sperm, fin, and minke whales (Robineau 1989). Southern right, Blainville’s beaked, killer, minke, and fin whales, and hourglass dolphins have been seen in the Kerguelen-Amsterdam Passage (de Boer et al. 2003). Long-finned pilot, minke, sei, sperm, fin, southern right, beaked, and humpback whales have been sighted along Southeast Indian Ridge (de Boer et al. 2003).

8.2 Marine Reptiles

Although several different species of sea snakes and sea turtles occur within Australian waters, none are expected to occur within the proposed study area on the Kerguelen Plateau. Under the EPBC Act, the leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles are listed as endangered, and the green and hawksbill turtles are listed as vulnerable. They are also listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act.

8.3 Marine-associated Birds

Seabirds that could occur near the study area include petrels, albatross, terns, and penguins. A number of these species are listed as threatened and/or migratory under the EPBC Act; three species are endangered and 10 are vulnerable (Table 2). Under the EPBC Act, a recovery plan has been released for albatrosses and giant petrels, which calls for ongoing population monitoring of the species at HIMI (Commonwealth of Australia 2011). Numerous other species are listed as marine species under the EPBC Act (Table 3), including four species of penguins that breed on Heard Island (king, southern rockhopper, macaroni, and gentoo penguin), and two species of non-breeding penguins (Adelie and chinstrap penguin) (Commonwealth of Australia 2014).

12

Table 2. Marine-associated birds listed as threatened or migratory under the EPBC Act that may occur within or near the AWI study area during January–February 2020.

Species Scientific Name EPBC Act1 IUCN2 CITES3 Wandering albatross* Diomeda exulans VU, MI VU NL Southern royal albatross Diomedea epomophora VU, MI EN NL Black-browed albatross* Thalassarche melanophrys VU, MI LC NL Indian yellow-nosed albatross Thalassarche chlororhynchos VU, MI EN NL Grey-headed albatross Thalassarche chrysostoma EN, MI EN NL Sooty albatross Phoebetria fusca VU, MI EN NL Light-mantled sooty albatross* Phoebetria palpebrata MI NT NL Southern giant petrel* Macronectes giganteus EN, MI LC NL Northern giant petrel Macronectes halli VU, MI LC NL Soft-plumaged petrel Pterodroma mollis VU LC NL Blue petrel Halobaena caerulea VU LC NL Grey petrel Procellaria cinerea MI NT NL White-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis MI VU NL White-bellied storm petrel Fregetta grallaria grallaria VU LC NL Wilson’s storm petrel* Oceanites oceanicus MI LC NL Heard Island Cormorant (Shag)* Leucocarbo atriceps nivalis VU LC NL Antarctic tern* Sterna vittata vittata VU LC NL * Species breeds on Heard Island (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). 1 EPBC Act of Australia (Commonwealth of Australia 2019e). EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; MI = Migratory (Commonwealth of Australia 2019f). All threatened and migratory species are also listed as marine species. 2 Codes for IUCN classifications (IUCN 2019). EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern. 3 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (UNEP-WCMC 2017). NL = Not listed.

HIMI are free from introduced predators and provide crucial breeding habitat in the middle of the vast Southern Ocean for a diversity of birds. The islands have been identified by BirdLife International as an Important Bird Area (IBA) because they support very large numbers of nesting seabirds including the endemic Heard Island cormorant (BirdLife International 2019). The highly productive waters of the Antarctic Convergence make this an important feeding area for birds (Bost et al. 2009). Delord et al. (2014) identified the eastern waters of the proposed survey area as a candidate IBA that is habitat for the white-chinned petrel and macaroni penguin.

Nineteen species of birds have been recorded as breeding on HIMI (Meyer 2000; Shirihai 2002; Commonwealth of Australia 2014), 18 of which could occur in the proposed survey area. All recorded breeding species, other than the Heard Island sheathbill (Chionis minor masicornis) are listed as marine species under the EPBC Act (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). Penguins are the most abundant birds on the islands. Nesting seabirds include: 80,000 pairs of king penguins, 16,000 pairs of Gentoo penguins, one million pairs of macaroni penguin, 10,000 pairs of southern rockhopper penguin, 500 pairs of light-mantled sooty albatross, 600 pairs of black-browed albatross, 2500 pairs of southern giant petrel, up to 100,000 pairs of South Georgian diving petrel, 1100 pairs of Heard Island cormorant, and 500 pairs of subantarctic skua (Woehler 2006; BirdLife International 2019). The king penguin population is the best studied seabird on Heard Island and has shown a dramatic increase since first recorded in 1947-1948, with the population doubling every five years or so for more than 50 years (Shirihai 2002). At least 27 seabird species are recorded as either non-breeding visitors or have been noted during at-sea surveys of the islands (Commonwealth of Australia 2014).

13

Table 3. Additional marine-associated birds designated as marine species under the EPBC Act that may occur within or near the AWI study area during January–February 2020.

Species Scientific Name EPBC Act1 IUCN2 CITES3 King penguin* Aptenodytes patagonicus MS LC NL Gentoo penguin* Pygoscelis papua MS LC NL Adelie penguin Pygoscelis adeliae MS LC NL Chinstrap penguin Pygoscelis antarcticus MS LC NL Southern rockhopper penguin* Eudyptes chrysocome MS VU NL Macaroni penguin* Eudyptes chrysolophus MS VU NL Southern fulmar Fulmarus glacialoides MS LC NL Antarctic petrel Thalassoica antarctica MS LC NL Cape petrel* Daption capense MS LC NL Kerguelen petrel Pterodroma brevirostris MS LC NL Mottled petrel Pterodroma inexpectata MS NT NL Great-winged petrel Pterodroma macroptera MS LC NL White-headed petrel Pterodroma lessonii MS LC NL Fulmar prion* Pachyptila crassirostris MS LC NL Antarctic prion* Pachyptila desolata MS LC NL Slender-billed prion Pachyptila belcheri MS LC NL Broad-billed prion Pachyptila vittata MS LC NL Fairy Prion Pachypitila turtur MS LC NL Snow petrel Pagodroma nivea MS LC NL Black-bellied storm petrel Fregetta tropica MS LC NL Grey-backed storm petrel Garrodia nereis MS LC NL South Georgian diving petrel* Pelecanoides georgianus MS LC NL Common diving petrel* Pelecanoides urinatrix MS LC NL Subantarctic skua* Catharacta lonnbergi MS LC NL South polar skua Catharacta maccormicki MS LC NL Kelp gull* Larus dominicanus MS LC NL Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea MS LC NL * Species breeds on Heard Island (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). 1 EPBC Act of Australia (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). MS = Listed marine species. 2 Codes for IUCN classifications (IUCN 2019). VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern. 3 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (UNEP-WCMC 2017). NL = Not listed.

A common greenshank (Tringa nebularia), a onetime accidental visitor to the islands, is a shoreline species.

According to Bedford et al. (2015), macaroni penguins forage in the proposed survey area during the summer breeding season. White-chinned petrels also occur throughout the study area during their summer breeding season (Péron et al. 2010; Delord et al. 2014). Hindell et al. (2011) reported the presence of black-browed albatross, king penguin, and macaroni penguin within the study area.

During ANARE and observations from resupply vessels in the southern Indian Ocean during 1981– 1990, a white-chinned petrel was seen to the southwest of the survey area and Antarctic terns were seen south of the study area (Hodges and Woehler 1990). During bird and marine mammals surveys to the north and west of the proposed survey area during summer (January to February 2004), three threatened seabird species were sighted to the north (Heard Island cormorant, Antarctic tern, sooty albatross) and six were sighted during observations to the north and west (wandering albatross, black-browed albatross, blue petrel, southern giant petrel, northern giant petrel, soft- plumaged petrel) (Hyrenbach 2007). In addition, non-threatened species sighted to the north of the survey area included the king penguin, southern rockhopper penguin, Adelie penguin, great-

14

winged petrel, subantarctic skua, south polar skua, and Cape petrel; Macaroni penguin, black- bellied storm petrel, Wilson’s storm petrel, slender-billed prion, Antarctic prion, fairy prion, broad- billed prion, light-mantled albatross, white-chinned petrel, Kerguelen petrel, white-headed petrel, and great-winged petrel were seen to the north and west of the proposed survey area (Hyrenbach 2007).

8.4 Marine Fish

The Kerguelen-Heard fish assemblage is dominated by subantarctic nototheniids, such as marbled notothen (Notohtenia rossii), grey rockcod (Lepidonotothen squamifrons), Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides), and channichthyids, such as mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari) and unicorn icefish (Channichthys rhinoceratus) (Williams and Duhamel 1994). Skates, such as Murray’s skate (Bathyraja murrayi), Eaton’s skate (B. eatoni), and Kerguelen sandpaper skate (B. irrasa) also appear to be common in the HIMI region (Williams and de la Mare 1995). On Banzare Bank, the northern portion of which is located within the study area, the main fish groups identified during bottom trawling included Macrouridae (rattails), Liparididae (snailfish), and Zoarcidae (eelpout) (Williams and Duhamel 1994). Green et al. (1998a) found that the rhombic lanternfish (Krefftichthys anderssoni) was the dominant fish in the diet of king and macaroni penguins, and Antarctic fur seals foraging within the Australian Fisheries Zone around Heard Island.

Model-based mapping of the assemblages of demersal fish on the Kerguelen Plateau showed that unicorn icefish, mackerel icefish, and grey rockcod were the most likely to occur on the Kerguelen Plateau; triangular rockcod (Gobionotothen acuta), toad notie (Lepidonotothen mizops), Antarctic armless flounder (Mancopsetta maculata), eelcods (Maraenolepis spp.), Eaton’s skate, and Antarctic horsefish (Zanclorhynchus spinifer) were characterized with a moderate occurrence (Hill et al. 2017). In general, the demersal fish assemblages examined were also representative of those within the HIMI Marine Reserve (Hill et al. 2017).

At least five species of sharks have been recorded in the Southern Ocean around the Kerguelen Islands, including the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), a dogfish of the genus Centroscymnus, as well as the more common porbeagle (Lamna nasus), lanternshark (Etmopterus granulosus), and Southern sleeper shark (Somniosus antarcticus) (Cherel and Duhamel 2004). The spiny dogfish and porbeagle shark are considered vulnerable on the IUCN Red list (IUCN 2019), and the porbeagle is listed on Appendix II of CITES (UNEP-WCMC 2017) and is considered a migratory species under the EPBC Act. In addition, the Southern dogfish (Centrophorus zeehaani) could also occur on the northern Kerguelen Plateau based on the distribution shown on Fishbase (2019).

During a 2006 survey within the Kerguelen Islands EEZ, Antarctic horsefish was the most abundant species, and Patagonian toothfish and unicorn icefish had the highest biomass (Duhamel and Hautecoeur 2009). The Kerguelen shelf provides habitat for an estimated 63 fish species, 19 of which are endemic (Duhamel et al. 1995; Duhamel and Hautecoeur 2009). Fishes in the suborder Notothenioidei (perch-like fishes) make up over half of the fish species and include mackerel icefish, marbled notothen, and grey rockcod (Duhamel et al. 1995). Commercially important fish species to the Kerguelen Islands include marbled rockcod (Muranolepis marmouratus), grey rockcod, mackerel icefish, unicorn icefish, Patagonian toothfish, bigeye grenadier (Macrourus carinatus), Southern

15

bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii), Eaton’s skate, and Kerguelen sandpaper skate (Duhamel and Hautecoeur 2009; Duhamel et al. 2011).

No threatened fish species listed under the EPBC Act occur in the study area, but several species that could occur there are considered conservation dependent, including Southern blue tuna and Southern dogfish (Table 4). Fish species may be listed as conservation dependent under the EPBC Act if the following are met: 1) the species is part of a specific conservation program and would become vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered if the program were to stop, 2) the species is part of a management plan that prevents the decline and supports the recovery of the population, 3) the management force is under a law of the Commonwealth, a state, or territory, and 4) the cessation of the management plan would adversely affect the conservation status of the species (TSSC 2018).

Table 4. Listed fish species under the EPBC Act that could occur within or near the AWI study area during January–February 2020.

Species Scientific Name EPBC Act1 IUCN2 CITES3 Southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii CD CR NL Southern dogfish Centrophorus zeehaani CD NL NL Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus MI VU II 1 EPBC Act (Commonwealth of Australia 2019e). CD = Conservation Dependent. 2 IUCN (2019). VU = Vulnerable, CR = Critically Endangered, NL = Not Listed. 3 CITES (2019); Appendix II. NL = Not Listed

8.5 Marine Invertebrates

Numerous species of marine invertebrates occur in the proposed study area. The colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni) has a circumpolar range and can be found along the western Kerguelen Plateau; it is an important prey item for sperm whales, Southern sleeper sharks, and to a lesser extent, Patagonian toothfish (Rosa et al. 2017). Histioteuthid and ommastrephid squid, as well as larger-sized cephalopods, also occur in the region and are prey for sharks (Cherel and Duhamel 2004). Shrimp species that are distributed along the Kerguelen Plateau include deep-sea shrimp and polar shrimp (Dambach et al. 2011). Lithodid crab species such as the Antarctic stone crab and Paralomis birsteini have been recorded on the Kerguelen Plateau during remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) surveys (Thatje et al. 2005, 2011). The brachyuran crab species Halicarcinus planatus uses the region during its reproductive season (Diez and Lovrich 2010). Of the benthic invertebrates, urchin species such as Brisaster antarcticus and Ctenocidaris nutrix are widely distributed along the Kerguelen Plateau (Féral et al. 2019), including in waters <1000 m around and north of HIMI (Meyer et al. 2000). The urchin Sterechinus diadema is endemic to the Kerguelen shelf, typically at depths up to 750 m (Diaz et al. 2011). There are no threatened marine invertebrate species listed under the EPBC Act.

16

9.0 Socio-economic Environment

The socio-economic environment in and near the study area is characterized primarily by commercial fishing activity. Commercial fishing in HIMI waters is managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) and the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Kleisner et al. 2015). Commercial fishing around HIMI focuses on Patagonia toothfish and mackerel icefish and could occur at any time of the year (Meyer et al. 2000; Patterson and Mazur 2018). Patagonia toothfish is caught by demersal longline, as well as demersal trawl; mackerel icefish are taken by demersal and midwater trawling (Patterson and Mazur 2018). The bycatch species, for which there are also limits, include skates, grey rockcod, unicorn icefish, and grenadiers (Macrourus spp.) (Patterson and Mazur 2018).

In 2012, fishing within the HIMI EEZ was limited, but included parts of the proposed study area (Burch et al. 2019). The main catch (~2.7–2.8 t) consisted of Patagonia toothfish from 2012–2014; other species caught in those years included mackerel icefish, unicorn icefish, grey rockcod, rattails (Macrourus sp.), Eaton’s skate, and other skates and rays; the total catch was <4000 t (SeaAroundUs 2016). During 2016–2017, 3357 t of Patagonian toothfish were caught and 557 t of mackerel icefish, during 63 trawl days between four vessels (Patterson and Mazur 2018). The EEZ of HIMI is included in Fishing Area 58 of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Catches (by weight) have been variable in FAO Area 58 between 1970 and 1990; after 1990, catches stabilized with <200,000 t of fish taken annually, with Patagonian toothfish dominating the catch (FAO 2011).

10.0 Effects Assessment

This section addresses the assessment of potential residual effects (i.e., those which may occur after mitigation measures are employed) of AWI’s project activities on marine mammals, marine-associated birds, fish, invertebrates, sensitive areas, and other ocean users. The mitigation measures and monitoring that would be employed are described below.

10.1 Mitigation and Monitoring

Two Marine Mammal Observers (MMO) would be on the research vessel to conduct environmental monitoring and to implement mitigation measures in conjunction with designated AWI crew members. The key responsibilities of MMOs are as follows:

a. Implementation of MMO protocols established for the project; b. Record and compile daily marine mammal observations; and c. Inform AWI bridge crew of fishing vessel/gear observed and any other potential obstructions observed in the vessel path.

17

10.1.1 Marine Mammals

AWI would implement the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements as outlined in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales: industry guidelines (Commonwealth of Australia 2008). Where more conservative, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) guidelines (JNCC 2017) would be followed to further minimize any environmental impacts on marine mammals. The key mitigation measures and monitoring commitments are summarized below. As used below, and in EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1, the term ‘whales’ includes baleen whales and larger toothed whales, such as sperm, killer, pilot, and beaked whales. ‘Whales’ does not include smaller dolphins or porpoises. According to the EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1, as no acoustic modelling was conducted for AWI’s 4-GI airgun array, the precaution zones would be as follows: (1) observation zone 3+ km horizontal radius from the acoustic source; (2) low power zone 2 km radius from the acoustic source; and (3) shut-down zone 500 m radius from the acoustic source. As the likelihood of encountering whales is expected to be low in the study area, Part A. Standard Management Procedures as outlined in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 would be followed as summarized below and augmented with JNCC guidelines, where appropriate.

Here, the use of a 2-km radius for the lower power zone is a precautionary measure as no acoustic modelling was done for the 4 GI airgun array. However, based on previous modelling for a 750 in3 array (3x250 in3) with a source level of 220.3 dB re 1µPa2·s @ 1 m (Sound Exposure Level, SEL) (Matthews et al. 2018), the 160 dB SEL distance for a 600 in3 towed array is likely to be <700 m. Thus, the received SEL for each shot of the 4 GI airgun array is not expected to exceed 160 dB re 1µPa2·s for 95% of seismic shots at 1 km.

1. Delay ramp up if a marine mammal is detected inside the 1 km low power zone during a 60-minute monitoring period prior to ramp up. A minimum ramp up delay of 20 minutes will be utilized. 2. Ramp up (i.e., gradual increase in pressure) of the airgun array would occur over a 30-minute period. The shut-down (500-m) and low power (1-km) zones apply if a whale is seen during ramp up. 3. The airgun array will be powered down to the lowest possible setting if a whale is observed within or about the enter the 1 km low power zone around the operating airgun array. 4. The airguns will be shut down if a whale is observed within the 500 m shut-down zone. 5. Ramp up can recommence after whale mitigation if the animal is observed to move outside the low power zone or 30 minutes have passed since the last sighting. 6. In periods of low visibility, ramp up can commence provided there have not been 3 or more whale-instigated shut downs during the preceding 24-hour period; or the vessel has been in the vicinity (~10 km) of the start up position for at least 2 hours (under good visibility conditions) within the preceding 24-hour period and no whales have been sighted. 7. During line changes, airgun operation will cease if turns are expected to take longer than 40 minutes. If line changes can be completed within 40 minutes, the airgun source can keep operating at a reduced power of 180 in3 or less and the shot point interval is

18

increased but not to exceed 5 minutes. The power will be increased and the shot interval decreased during the final 10 minutes of the line change. 8. The MMOs will be tasked with visual monitoring of a 3 km observation zone during all daylight hours when the airgun is active and during pre-ramp up watches as well as all other daylight hours. Each MMO will work a maximum shift of 12 hours per day, but will not conduct more than 8 hours of visual watches per day; each watch will not exceed 4 hours. 9. AWI will use the QuietSea modules (i.e., Passive Acoustic Monitoring, PAM) deployed on the streamer and accompanying QuietSea software to monitor for marine mammal vocalizations during the pre-ramp up watch (i.e., during periods with and without good visibility). If in the judgement of the PAM operator, a marine mammal vocalization is detected within the shut down or low power zones, ramp up will be delayed for a minimum of 30 minutes since the last vocalization detection inside the zone. 10. In the unlikely event that a marine mammal is seen in distress or injured near the seismic vessel, and it is deemed to be as a result of the proposed activities, the airgun array will be shut down immediately and a Notification of Activities Affecting Cetaceans will be submitted to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Commonwealth of Australia 2019g).

10.1.2 Fishing Vessels

AWI bridge crew and/or the MMO will undertake marine radio contact with fishing vessels in the vicinity of research activities to discuss interactions and resolve any problems that may arise at sea. AWI is committed to avoiding interfering with fishing activity.

10.2 Potential Effects on Marine Mammals

Marine mammals in and near the study area would be exposed to underwater sound from the research vessel and its survey equipment including the echosounders and airguns. The effects of sounds from airguns and other sources could include one or more of the following: masking of natural sound, behavioural disturbance, and at least in theory, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, and non-auditory physical or physiological effects (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Gordon et al. 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007; Southall et al. 2007; Erbe 2012; Erbe et al. 2016; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017; Weilgart 2017a). Although the possibility cannot be entirely excluded, it is unlikely that the proposed survey would result in any cases of temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or any significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. If marine mammals encounter a survey while it is underway, some behavioural disturbance could result, but this is predicted to be minimal, localized, and short-term. Potential effects are summarized below; as masking is not expected during echosounder use, it is described in Section 10.2.2.

19

10.2.1 Echosounders

An MBES is a mapping sonar system that transmits sound energy to the ocean floor and analyzes the returning signals to collect bathymetric data. Sounds from the MBES are emitted in very short pings, occurring once every 5–20 s for approximately 2–15 ms. The beam is narrow (1–4°) in the fore-aft extent and wide (150°) in the cross-track extent. Each ping consists of several successive fan-shaped transmissions (segments) at different cross-track angles. In association with biological effects, sonars such as MBES systems with narrowband tonal or swept-tonal signals and long enough signals (relative to the frequency for there to be many cycles during the duration of one ping) are classified as non-impulsive (Southall et al. 2007).

There has been some attention given to the effects of MBES on marine mammals, as a result of an independent scientific review panel linking the operation of an MBES to a mass stranding of melon-headed whales (Southall et al. 2013) off Madagascar. During May–June 2008, ~100 melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) entered and stranded in the Loza Lagoon system in northwest Madagascar at the same time that a 12-kHz MBES survey was being conducted ~65 km away off the coast. In reviewing available information on the event, the review panel concluded that the Kongsberg EM 120 MBES was the most plausible trigger of the stranding. It should be noted that this event is the first known marine mammal mass stranding closely associated with the operation of an MBES. In association with this determination, it was identified that an unequivocal conclusion on causality of the event was limited because of a lack of information about the event and a number of potentially contributing factors. Additionally, the independent review panel report indicated that this incident was likely the result of a complicated confluence of environmental, social and other factors that have a very low probability of occurring again in the future, but recommended that the potential be considered in environmental planning.

Given that the AWI offshore study area is located at least 270 km from coastal areas where cetaceans could potentially strand, the likelihood of a stranding event is considered quite low. Unlike the stranding of melon-headed whales in Madagascar, where whales moved from their pelagic habitat into a nearby unfamiliar location that is considered unsuitable habitat (a lagoon system), the study area is located far enough from the coast that potential disturbance to cetaceans as a result of MBES usage is considered very unlikely to result in a stranding event.

10.2.1.1 Hearing Impairment

Animals exposed to strong sounds could incur a temporary threshold shift (TTS) in hearing or a permanent threshold shift (PTS) if sounds are strong enough. However, narrowband tonal or swept-tonal sounds such as those from MBES systems do not have the sudden rise time characteristic of impulse sounds (like those from an airgun) and as such are considered to have a reduced potential for causing hearing damage. Additionally, given that many cetaceans are expected to exhibit at least localized avoidance of the survey vessel, cetaceans including species listed under the EPBC Act within the study area, are unlikely to be exposed to levels of sound from the MBES high enough to cause hearing impairment. In addition to the non-impulse character, MBES signals have other properties that reduce their potential for biological effects on marine mammals which include the following:

20

(a) Though the transmitted MBES signals have high source levels, the sound transmitted in any one direction is of short duration, which limits the total energy content of the sound signal received by any animal.

(b) An MBES sound source is normally in motion, so an animal at a specific location will typically receive strong signals from only one or a few sequential pings; the cumulative sound exposure would likely not be great enough to result in any hearing impairment. An exception could occur if the animal is moving in parallel with the sound source, or keeping pace with it.

(c) Animals close to the transducer could potentially receive the strongest sounds, but such animals are not likely to be in the narrow beam for long enough to receive more than a single strong ping.

Based on acoustic modelling of an MBES Kongsberg EM® 302 using thresholds from Southall et al. (2007), an assessment determined that marine mammals would have to be within 10 m of the source to incur a TTS in hearing and even closer to the MBES (within several metres) or receive multiple pings to be exposed to sound levels thought to potentially cause a PTS in hearing (LGL 2014).

The chance of an animal remaining within the vicinity of the moving ship and receiving more than 1 or 2 pings is considered unlikely. Marine mammals that encounter the MBES are unlikely to be subjected to repeated pings because of the narrow fore-aft width of the beam. They will receive only limited amounts of energy because of the short duration of individual pings. Animals close to the ship (where the beam is narrowest) are especially unlikely to be ensonified for more than one or two pings. Similarly, Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through the area of exposure when an MBES emits a ping is small. The animal would have to pass the transducer at close range and be swimming at speeds similar to the vessel in order to receive the multiple pings that might result in sufficient exposure to cause TTS. Burkhardt et al. (2008) also reported that cetaceans are very unlikely to incur PTS from operation of scientific sonars such as a MBES on a ship that is underway.

MBES sounds are judged to have negligible to minor hearing impairment effects on marine mammals and the potential for effects will occur over a short duration (<1 month) and will be confined to a localized area very close to the survey vessel (within ~10 m). Therefore, hearing impairment residual effects on marine mammals are judged to be not significant. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is high. Impacts from the sediment echosounder (i.e., sub-bottom profiler) are appropriately considered in association with the assessment of the MBES.

10.2.1.2 Disturbance Effects

There is no available information on marine mammal behavioural response to MBES sounds (Southall et al. 2013). Much of the literature on marine mammal response to sonars relates to the types of sonars used in naval operations, including low-frequency, mid-frequency, and

21

high-frequency active sonars (see review by Southall et al. 2016). However, the MBES that AWI would use is quite different than naval sonars. Ping duration of the MBES is very short relative to naval sonars. Also, at any given location, an individual marine mammal would be in the beam of the MBES for much less time given the generally downward orientation of the beam and its narrow fore-aft beamwidth; naval sonars often use near-horizontally-directed sound. In addition, naval sonars have higher duty cycles. These factors would all reduce the sound energy received from the MBES relative to that from naval sonars.

Deng et al. (2014) measured the spectral properties of pulses transmitted by three 200-kHz echosounders and found that they generated weaker sounds at frequencies below the center frequency (90–130 kHz). These sounds are within the hearing range of some marine mammals, and the authors suggested that they could be strong enough to elicit behavioural responses within close proximity to the sources, although they would be well below potentially harmful levels. Hastie et al. (2014) reported behavioural responses by gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) to echosounders with frequencies of 200 and 375 kHz. Short-finned pilot whales (G. macrorhynchus) increased their heading variance in response to an EK60 echosounder with a resonant frequency of 38 kHz (Quick et al. 2017), and significantly fewer beaked whale vocalizations were detected while an EK60 echosounder was active vs. passive (Cholewiak et al. 2017).

Although information on the effects of MBES sounds on marine mammals is mostly lacking, there could be behavioural or disturbance effects on these animals. The operational frequencies of the MBES and sediment echosounder overlap with the hearing frequencies of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Responses of free-ranging cetaceans to military sonars appear to vary by species, circumstance, and behavioural state; some individuals show temporary avoidance behaviour whereas others do not appear to respond overtly to exposures (Southall et al. 2016). Impacts of operating sonars on most marine mammals are likely to be related to disturbance and are expected to be negligible to minor, short-term, and limited to distances of a few km from the ship given the brief duration of exposure. Based on acoustic modelling of a Kongsberg EM® 302 MBES, it was estimated that the distance where behavioural responses would occur would be up to 2 km from the MBES (LGL 2014).

Based on these considerations, sounds from the MBES are judged to have minor disturbance effects on marine mammals, over a short-term duration (i.e., <1 month) and a limited geographic extent (several kilometres). Impacts from the sediment echosounder (i.e., sub-bottom profiler) are appropriately considered in association with the assessment of the MBES. Therefore, residual effects related to disturbance from echosounders, are judged to be not significant for marine mammals. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is medium to high.

10.2.2 Airgun Use

This section provides an overview of the effects literature for marine mammals expected in the study area regarding the potential effects such as hearing impairment, disturbance, and masking. It is important to note that most effects literature for seismic sound have involved studies of large airgun arrays. Non-auditory physical effects from exposure to loud sounds are also theoretically a possibility, including stress-induced and other physiological changes and tissue damage, which could lead to strandings. Ten cases of cetacean strandings in the general area where a seismic

22

survey was ongoing have led to speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings (Castellote and Llorens 2016). Additionally, an analysis of stranding data found that the number of long-finned pilot whale strandings along Ireland’s coast increased with seismic surveys operating offshore (McGeady et al. 2016). However, there is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large, let alone small arrays of airguns.

10.2.2.1 Hearing Impairment

It is possible that marine mammals that occur very close to the operating airguns could experience auditory injury (i.e., PTS). When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). Physical damage to a mammal’s hearing apparatus can occur if it is exposed to sound impulses that have very high peak pressures, especially if they have very short rise times (e.g., Morrell et al. 2017). However, the impulsive nature of sound is range-dependent, becoming less harmful over distance from the source (Hastie et al. 2019). Furthermore, there is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal. Morell et al. (2017) examined the inner ears of long-finned pilot whales after a mass stranding in Scotland and reported damage to the cochlea compatible with over-exposure from underwater noise; however, no seismic surveys were occurring in the vicinity in the days leading up to the stranding.

Although TTS has been demonstrated and studied in certain captive odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds, including airguns (reviewed by Southall et al. 2007; Finneran 2015), there has been no specific documentation of TTS let alone permanent hearing damage, i.e., PTS, in free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses during realistic field conditions. Given the possibility that some mammals close to an airgun array might incur at least mild TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Gedamke et al. 2011).

Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals (Southall et al. 2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as airgun pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a Sound Pressure Level (SPL, peak pressure basis) and probably >6 dB higher (Southall et al. 2007). The low-to-moderate levels of TTS that have been induced in captive odontocetes and pinnipeds during controlled studies of TTS have been confirmed to be temporary, with no measurable residual PTS (Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002, 2005; Nachtigall et al. 2003, 2004). However, prolonged exposure to sound strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals (Kryter 1985). Southall et al. (2007, 2019) and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2016, 2018) estimated that received SPLs would need to exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB, on a SEL basis, for there to be risk of PTS.

23

The PTS onset dual criteria proposed by NMFS (2016, 2018) are shown in Table 5. When these criteria were applied to a large 36-airgun source array used by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, New York, the shut down zones were <500 m (NMFS 2019). When the criteria were applied to a 750 in3 array, the distances to the thresholds were ≤140 m (Matthews et al. 2018). However, these criteria are based on limited underlying data and numerous assumptions. Also, data have been published indicating that, at least for non-pulse sounds, the “equal energy” model is not entirely correct―that is, effects may not be directly related to the total received energy (Finneran 2012). TTS and presumably PTS thresholds likely depend somewhat on the duration over which sound energy is accumulated, the frequency of the sound, whether or not there are gaps in sound, and probably other factors (Ketten 1994, 2012; Finneran 2012, 2015). PTS effects may also be influenced strongly by the health of the receiver’s ear. Several studies have also shown that some marine mammals can decrease their hearing sensitivity in order to mitigate the impacts of exposure to loud sounds (e.g., Nachtigall et al. 2018).

Table 5. Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) onset thresholds for various marine mammal hearing groups.

Low- Mid- High- Phocid Otariid Hearing Group frequency frequency frequency Pinnipeds Pinnipeds Cetacean Cetacean Cetacean Underwater Underwater

SELcum Threshold (dB) 183 185 155 185 203

Peak SPLflat Threshold (dB) 219 230 202 218 232

It is unlikely that an odontocete (in particular, mid-frequency odontocetes) would remain close enough to a large airgun array for sufficiently long to incur PTS. There is some concern about bowriding odontocetes, but for animals at or near the surface, auditory effects are reduced by Lloyd’s mirror and surface release effects. The presence of the vessel between the airgun array and bowriding odontocetes could also, in some but probably not all cases, reduce the levels received by bowriding animals (e.g., Gabriele and Kipple 2009). The TTS (and thus PTS) thresholds of low-frequency cetaceans is expected to be lower than for other marine mammals. If so, TTS and potentially PTS, may extend to a somewhat greater distance for those animals. Again, Lloyd’s mirror and surface release effects will ameliorate the effects for animals at or near the surface.

The TTS (and thus PTS) thresholds of baleen whales are unknown but, as an interim measure, assumed to be no lower than those of mid-frequency cetaceans (odontocetes). Also, baleen whales generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, so it is unlikely that a baleen whale could incur PTS from exposure to airgun pulses. Although pinnipeds are also likely to avoid an operating airgun source to some extent, there may be an increased potential of phocids to incur TTS (or PTS), as the extent of avoidance may not be as great as for other marine mammals, such as mid- and low-frequency cetaceans.

It is unlikely that a marine mammal would remain close enough to a large airgun array for sufficiently long to incur TTS, let alone PTS. However, Gedamke et al. (2011), based on preliminary simulation modeling that attempted to allow for various uncertainties in assumptions and

24

variability around population means, suggested that some baleen whales who occur within 1 km or more of a seismic vessel could experience TTS. Nowacek et al. (2013) concluded that seismic airguns have a low probability of directly harming marine life, except at close range.

Although it is unlikely that airgun operations during most seismic surveys (especially those using a small airgun array) would cause PTS in any marine mammals, caution is warranted given

• the limited knowledge about sound-induced hearing damage in marine mammals, particularly baleen whales and pinnipeds; • the seemingly greater susceptibility of certain species to TTS and presumably also PTS; and • the lack of knowledge about TTS and PTS thresholds in many species.

The avoidance reactions of many marine mammals, along with commonly-applied monitoring and mitigation measures (visual and passive acoustic monitoring, ramp ups, and shut down zones) would reduce the already-low probability of exposure of marine mammals to sounds strong enough to induce PTS. In addition, the use of a 500-m shut down zone for AWI’s survey is considered precautionary, given that the shut down zone for a large array is <500 m.

With mitigation measures in place, airgun sound is judged to have negligible to minor hearing impairment effects on marine mammals and the potential for effects would occur over a short duration (<1 month) and would be confined to a localized area close to the operating airguns. Therefore, hearing impairment residual effects from airgun sound on marine mammals are judged to be not significant. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is high.

10.2.2.2 Disturbance Effects

Behavioural responses of marine mammals to sound are difficult to predict and depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and numerous other factors (Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007; Ellison et al. 2012, 2018). If a marine mammal changes its behaviour or is displaced by a small distance in response to underwater sound, the impacts are unlikely to be biologically important to the individual, let alone the stock or population (e.g., New et al. 2013a). However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for an extended period of time, impacts on individuals and populations could be serious (New et al. 2013b; Nowacek et al. 2015; Forney et al. 2017; Farmer et al. 2018).

Mysticetes.—Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable. Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to airgun pulses at distances beyond a few kilometers, even though the sound levels from airgun pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to much longer distances. However, studies done since the late 1990s of migrating humpback and bowhead whales show reactions, including avoidance, that sometimes extend to greater distances than documented earlier. Avoidance distances often exceed the distances at which boat-based observers can see whales, so observations from the source vessel can be biased. Observations over broader areas may be needed to determine the range of potential effects of some large-source seismic surveys where effects on cetaceans may extend to considerable distances

25

(Richardson et al. 1999; Bain and Williams 2006; Moore and Angliss 2006). Longer-range observations, when required, can sometimes be obtained via systematic aerial surveys or aircraft-based observations of behaviour (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986, 1999; Miller et al. 1999, 2005; Yazvenko et al. 2007a,b) or by use of observers on one or more support vessels operating in coordination with the seismic vessel (e.g., Smultea et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2007). However, the presence of other vessels near the source vessel can, at least at times, reduce sightability of cetaceans from the source vessel (e.g., Beland et al. 2009), thus complicating interpretation of sighting data.

Some baleen whales show considerable tolerance of seismic pulses. However, when the pulses are strong enough, avoidance or other behavioural changes become evident. Because responsiveness is variable and the responses become less obvious with diminishing received sound level, it is difficult to determine the maximum distance (or minimum received sound level) at which reactions to seismic become evident and, hence, how many whales are affected. Responsiveness depends on the situation (Richardson et al. 1995; Ellison et al. 2012).

Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have determined that received levels of pulses in the 160–170 dB re 1 Parms range seem to cause obvious avoidance behaviour in a substantial fraction of the animals exposed (Richardson et al. 1995). In many areas, sound from seismic airgun pulses diminish to these levels at distances ranging from 4–15 km from the source. A substantial proportion of the baleen whales within such distances may show avoidance or other strong disturbance reactions to the operating airgun array. However, in other situations, various mysticetes tolerate exposure to full-scale airgun arrays operating at even closer distances, with only localized avoidance and minor changes in activities. At the other extreme, in migrating bowhead whales, avoidance often extends to considerably larger distances (20–30 km) and lower received

SPLs (120–130 dB re 1 μParms). Also, even in cases where there is no conspicuous avoidance or change in activity upon exposure to sound pulses from distant seismic operations, there are sometimes subtle changes in behaviour (e.g., surfacing–respiration–dive cycles) that are only evident through detailed statistical analysis (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986; Gailey et al. 2007; Robertson et al. 2013).

Responses of humpback whales to seismic surveys have been studied during migration, on summer feeding grounds, and on winter breeding grounds. Off Western Australia, McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a,b) found that avoidance reactions by humpback whales began at 5–8 km from the airguns, and those responses kept most pods ~3–4 km from the operating seismic vessel. There was localized displacement during migration of 4–5 km by traveling pods and 7–12 km by more sensitive resting pods of cow-calf pairs; however, some individual humpback whales, in particular males, approached within 100–400 m.

Dunlop et al. (2015) reported that migrating humpbacks in Australia responded to a vessel operating a 20 in3 airgun by decreasing their dive time and speed of migration; however, the same responses were reported during control trials without an operating airgun, suggesting that humpback whales responded to the vessel rather than the airgun. A ramp up was not superior to trigger humpbacks to move away from the ship compared to a source at a higher level of 140 in3; however, an increase in distance from the airgun(s) was noted for both sources (Dunlop et al. 2016a). Avoidance was also shown when no airguns were active, indicating that the presence of the vessel itself had affected the

26

response (Dunlop et al. 2016a,b). In general, the results showed that humpbacks were more likely to avoid small airgun sources (20 and 140 in3) within 3 km and received levels of at least 140 dB re 1 μPa2 · s (Dunlop et al. 2017a). Responses to ramp up and use of a large 3130 in3 array elicited greater responses in humpbacks when compared with small arrays (Dunlop et al. 2016c). Humpbacks deviated from their southbound migration when they were within 4 km of the active large airgun source, where received levels were >130 dB re 1 μPa2 · s (Dunlop et al. 2017b, 2018).

Cerchio et al. (2014) suggested that the breeding display by humpbacks off Angola could be disrupted by airgun sounds, as singing activity declined with increasing received levels. Singing fin whales in the Mediterranean moved away from an operating airgun array, and their song notes had lower bandwidths during periods with vs. without airgun sounds (Castellote et al. 2012). Similarly, some other cetaceans are known to change their calling rates, shift peak frequencies, or otherwise modify their vocal behaviour in response to increased noise from seismic surveys (e.g., Di Iorio and Clark 2010; Parks et al. 2011, 2012, 2016a,b; Blackwell et al. 2015; Robertson et al. 2017).

Various species of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, fin, and minke whales) have been seen in areas ensonified by airguns. Sightings from seismic vessels using large arrays off the U.K. from 1994–2010 showed that the detection rate for minke whales was significantly higher when airguns were silent; however, during surveys with small arrays, the detection rates were similar during seismic and non-seismic periods (Stone 2015). Sighting rates for fin and sei whales were similar when large arrays of airguns were operating vs. silent (Stone 2015). All baleen whales combined tended to exhibit localized avoidance, remaining significantly farther (on average) from large arrays (~1.5 km) during seismic operations compared with non-seismic periods (~1 km). Detection rates of humpbacks were similar during seismic and non-seismic periods, although sample sizes were small (Stone 2015).

Mitigation measures for seismic surveys, especially nighttime seismic surveys, typically assume that many marine mammals (at least baleen whales) tend to avoid approaching airguns, or the seismic vessel itself, before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of injury. This assumes that the ramp-up procedure is used when commencing airgun operations, to give whales near the vessel the opportunity to move away before they are exposed to sound levels that might be strong enough to elicit TTS. Single-airgun experiments with three species of baleen whales show that those species typically do tend to move away when a single airgun is activated nearby, which simulates the onset of a ramp up. The three species that showed avoidance when exposed to the onset of pulses from a single airgun were gray whales, Eschrichtius rubustus (Malme et al. 1984, 1986, 1988); bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus (Richardson et al. 1986; Ljungblad et al. 1988); and humpback whales (Malme et al. 1985; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a,b). In addition, results from Moulton and Holst (2010) showed that, during operations with a single airgun and during ramp up, blue whales were seen significantly farther from the vessel compared with periods without airgun operations.

Data on short-term reactions by cetaceans to impulsive noises are not necessarily indicative of long-term or biologically significant effects. It is not known whether impulsive sounds affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. Castellote et al. (2012) reported that fin whales avoided their potential winter ground for an extended period of time (at least 10 days) after seismic operations in the Mediterranean Sea had ceased. However, bowhead

27

whales have continued to travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer despite seismic exploration in their summer and autumn range for many years (Richardson et al. 1987), and their numbers have increased notably (Muto et al. 2019). Bowheads also have been observed over periods of days or weeks in areas ensonified repeatedly by sound from seismic airgun pulses (Richardson et al. 1987; Harris et al. 2007). However, it is generally not known whether the same individual bowheads were involved in these repeated observations (within and between years) in strongly ensonified areas.

Similarly, gray whales have continued to migrate annually along the west coast of North America despite intermittent seismic exploration (and much ship traffic) in that area for decades (Appendix A in Malme et al. 1984; Richardson et al. 1995), and there has been a substantial increase in the population over recent decades (Carretta et al. 2019). Similarly, Johnson et al. (2007), Bröker et al. (2015), and Gailey et al. (2016) reported no displacement of western Pacific population of gray whales from their feeding grounds during seismic surveys in 2001 and 2010, but preliminary data collected during a seismic program using a large array in 2015 showed some displacement and responses to lower sound levels than expected (Gailey et al. 2017; Sychenko et al. 2017).

Pirotta et al. (2018) used a dynamic state model of behaviour and physiology to assess the consequences of disturbance (e.g., seismic surveys) on whales (in this case, blue whales). They found that the impact of localized, acute disturbance (e.g., seismic surveys) depended on the whale’s behavioural response, with whales that remained in the affected area having a greater risk of reduced reproductive success than whales that avoided the disturbance. Chronic, but weaker disturbance (e.g., vessel traffic) appeared to have less effect on reproductive success. Nonetheless, in the absence of some unusual circumstances, the history of coexistence between seismic surveys and baleen whales suggests that brief exposures to sound pulses from any single seismic survey, and especially the low-energy AWI survey, are unlikely to result in prolonged disturbance effects.

Odontocetes.—Dolphins and porpoises are often seen by observers on active seismic vessels, occasionally at close distances (e.g., bowriding). However, some studies have shown localized avoidance by delphinids (e.g., Stone 2015; Moulton and Holst 2010; Monaco et al. 2016). In most cases, the avoidance radii for appear to be small (1 km or less), and some individuals show no apparent avoidance. However, beluga whales summering in the Canadian Beaufort Sea showed larger-scale avoidance, tending to avoid waters out to 10–20 km from operating seismic vessels (e.g., Miller et al. 2005). Similarly, harbour porpoise also tend to be quite responsive to seismic sounds (Thompson et al. 2013; Stone 2015; Kok et al. 2017). In contrast, recent studies show little evidence of conspicuous reactions by sperm whales to airgun pulses, contrary to earlier indications (e.g., Winsor et al. 2017). Detection rates for sperm whales were similar when large arrays of airguns were operating vs. silent; however, during surveys with small arrays, the detection rate was significantly higher when the airguns were not in operation (Stone 2015). Sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico showed no avoidance behaviour upon exposure to airgun sound, but foraging behaviour appeared to be altered (e.g., Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009; Tyack et al. 2009). Preliminary data from the Gulf of Mexico has also shown a correlation between reduced sperm whale acoustic activity and periods with airgun operations (Sidorovskaia et al. 2014).

There are almost no specific data on responses of beaked whales to seismic surveys, but it is likely that most if not all species show strong avoidance or change their behaviour (e.g., Würsig et al. 1998;

28

Pirotta et al. 2012). There is increasing evidence that some beaked whales may strand after exposure to strong sound from sonars. Whether they ever do so in response to seismic survey sound is unknown. Northern bottlenose whales seem to continue to call when exposed to pulses from distant seismic vessels (e.g., Simard et al. 2005).

Overall, odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for some mysticetes. However, other data suggest that some odontocetes species, including beluga whales and harbour porpoises, may be more responsive than might be expected given their poor low-frequency hearing. Reactions at longer distances may be particularly likely when sound propagation conditions are conducive to transmission of the higher-frequency components of airgun sound to the animals’ location (DeRuiter et al. 2006; Goold and Coates 2006; Tyack et al. 2006; Potter et al. 2007). Avoidance responses by delphinids tend to occur at shorter distances than those for mysticetes. As behavioural responses are not consistently associated with received levels, some authors have made recommendations on different approaches to assess behavioural reactions (e.g., Gomez et al. 2016; Harris et al. 2017).

Pinnipeds.—Visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behaviour. Monitoring studies show that many pinnipeds do not avoid the area within a few hundred metres of an operating airgun array (e.g., Stone 2015). However, some other studies have shown that some seals do show localized avoidance of operating airguns (e.g., Moulton and Lawson 2002; Miller et al. 2005). The limited nature of this tendency for avoidance is a concern. It suggests that one cannot rely on pinnipeds to move away, or to move very far away, before received levels of sound from an approaching seismic survey vessel approach those that may cause hearing impairment (see above). Lalas and McConnell (2015) made observations of New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) from a seismic vessel operating a 3090 in3 airgun array; however, the results from the study were inconclusive in showing whether New Zealand fur seals respond to seismic sounds.

Summary.—With mitigation measures in place, sounds from the airguns are judged to have minor disturbance effects on marine mammals, over a short-term duration (i.e., <1 month) and a limited geographic extent (several kilometres). Therefore, residual effects related to disturbance from the airgun, are judged to be not significant for marine mammals. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is medium.

10.2.2.3 Masking

Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large airgun arrays) on marine mammal vocalizations and other natural sounds are expected to be limited. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. However, it is common for reverberation to cause elevation of background sound levels between airgun pulses (e.g., Gedamke 2011; Guerra et al. 2011, 2016; Klinck et al. 2012; Guan et al. 2015) or in exceptional situations, reverberation can occur for much or all of the interval between pulses (e.g., Simard et al. 2005; Clark and Gagnon 2006), which presumably reduces the detection range of calls and other natural sounds to some degree. Masking of baleen whale

29

vocalizations during seismic surveys has been suggested by numerous authors (e.g., Gedamke 2011; Nieukirk et al. 2012; Blackwell et al. 2013; Tenessen and Parks 2016; Wittekind et al. 2016; Dunlop 2018).

Some baleen and toothed whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and their vocalizations can usually be heard between the pulses (e.g., Castellote et al. 2012; Nieukirk et al. 2012; Thode et al. 2012; Cerchio et al. 2014; Sciacca et al. 2016). As noted above, some cetaceans modify their vocal behaviour in response to airgun sound by changing their calling rates or shifting their peak frequencies, likely to minimize masking. The hearing systems of baleen whales are undoubtedly more sensitive to low-frequency sounds than those of small odontocetes (e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2014). The sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at higher frequencies than are the dominant components of airgun sounds, thus limiting the potential for masking. In general, masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be minor, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses.

10.2.3 Other Possible Effects of Seismic Surveys

Other possible effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals include masking by vessel noise, disturbance by vessel presence or noise, and injury or mortality from collisions with vessels. Low levels of high-frequency sound from ships have been reported to elicit responses in harbour porpoise (Dyndo et al. 2015) and increased levels of ship noise also have also been shown to affect foraging by porpoise (Teilmann et al. 2015; Wisniewska et al. 2018). Ship noise, through masking, can reduce the effective communication distance of an animal (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Clark et al. 2009; Jensen et al. 2009; Gervaise et al. 2012; Hatch et al. 2012; Rice et al. 2014; Dunlop 2015; Erbe et al. 2016; Jones et al. 2017; Putland et al. 2017; Cholewiak et al. 2018). The frequency and duration of the masking sound, the strength, temporal pattern, and location of the introduced sound affect the extent of the masking (Branstetter et al. 2013, 2016; Finneran and Branstetter 2013; Sills et al. 2017). In order to compensate for increased ambient noise, some cetaceans are known to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of elevated noise levels from anthropogenic activities, such as seismic surveys, shift their peak frequencies, or otherwise change their vocal behaviour with increased shipping noise (e.g., Parks et al. 2011, 2012, 2016a,b; Castellote et al. 2012; Heiler et al. 2016; Tenessen and Parks 2016; Fornet et al. 2018).

Baleen whales are thought to be more sensitive to sound at these low frequencies than are toothed whales (e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2014), possibly causing localized avoidance of the proposed study area during seismic operations. Reactions of gray and humpback whales to ships have been studied, and there is some information available about the reactions of right whales and rorquals. Reactions appear to be variable. Many odontocetes show considerable tolerance of vessel traffic, although they sometimes react at long distances if confined by ice or shallow water, if previously harassed by vessels, or have had little or no recent exposure to ships (Richardson et al. 1995). The project vessel sounds would not be at levels expected to cause anything more than possible localized and temporary behavioural changes in marine mammals, and would not be expected to result in significant negative effects on individuals or at the population level. In addition, in all oceans of the world, large vessel traffic is currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a usual source of ambient sound.

30

Another concern with vessel traffic is the potential for striking marine mammals (e.g., Redfern et al. 2013). Ship speed is one of the most reliable ways to avoid ship strikes (Wiley et al. 2016). For example, Currie et al. (2017) found a significant decrease in close encounters with humpbacks in Hawaii, and therefore reduced likelihood of ship strike, when vessels speeds were <12.5 kts. However, the risk of collision of the seismic vessel or towed/deployed equipment with marine mammals is extremely unlikely, because of the relatively slow vessel speed (typically 7–9 km/h) during seismic operations.

10.3 Potential Effects on Birds

Overall, the proposed activities are expected to have negligible effects on birds. Attraction to vessel lights is the main potential effect from routine survey activities for marine-associated birds. Attraction to artificial lighting has been correlated with the stranding of seabirds and migrating birds that are active at night (Montevecchi et al. 1999; Gauthreaux and Belser 2006; Montevecchi 2006; and Ronconi et al. 2015 in LGL 2018).

Other potential effects on marine-associated birds include exposure to underwater sound and disturbance due to vessel or equipment presence, the production of vessel wastes and accidental releases (e.g., of vessel fuel). The risk of auditory injury in diving birds exposed to airgun pulses is considered quite low and would likely be limited to a very small area around the airguns. Marine-associated birds may be attracted to a survey vessel while foraging for edible wastes normally associated with fishing vessels. There may also be attraction to the survey vessel’s limited, subsurface sewage waste discharge, mainly by gulls, which may temporarily increase gull predation on smaller marine-associated birds in the area. Marine-associated birds that spend much of their time resting on the water (e.g., penguins, albatrosses, southern fulmars, and storm petrels) are likely the most susceptible to an accidental release from a vessel, as they are attracted to surface sheens due to their resemblance to a concentration of prey (Nevitt 1999 in LGL 2018).

The underwater hearing of seabirds (including loons, scaups, gannets, and ducks) has recently been investigated, and the peak hearing sensitivity was found to be between 1500 and 3000 Hz (Crowell 2016). Thus, diving birds would be capable of hearing sounds from the seismic survey. Evans et al. (1993) observed no evidence that marine birds were attracted to or repelled by offshore seismic survey activity in the Irish Sea. However, a five-year study (2009-2013) using GPS tracking reported avoidance of a 2-D seismic survey by African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) when foraging close to breeding colonies that were located less than 100 km from the seismic survey (Pichegru et al. 2017). The airgun array had a total volume of 4230 in³ and nominally operated at 2000 psi during an approximate one-month period in 2013. However, it could not be determined whether the penguins (flightless birds that dive to depths of 30 m on average) were responding directly to airgun sound or to potential changes in the distribution of their prey. The birds reverted to normal behaviour when the seismic source array was shut down. The proposed activities will occur at least 270 km from any breeding colonies. The endemic Heard Island cormorant forages in shallow coastal water and is not likely to venture offshore near the survey area. The blue petrel is also capable of diving down to 6 m and is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act of Australia. Although not listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, penguins are pursuit divers and diving petrels also forage underwater for prey. The blue petrel, two species of diving petrels, and several

31

penguin species (e.g, macaroni penguin) are common nesting birds on HIMI and Kerguelen Islands and likely use the Kerguelen Plateau as a feeding area (e.g., Green et al. 1998b).

With mitigation measures in place, routine project activities are judged to have negligible to minor effects on birds, over a short-term duration (i.e., <1 month) and a limited geographic extent (at most, several kilometres). Therefore, residual effects related to project activities, are judged to be not significant for birds. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is medium to high.

10.4 Potential Effects on Marine Fish and Invertebrates

Fishes and invertebrates in the study area will be exposed to underwater sound from the research vessel and its survey equipment, including the echosounders and airgun array. Although research on the exposure effects of airgun sound on marine invertebrates and fishes is increasing, there are still many data gaps (Hawkins et al. 2015; Carroll et al. 2017), including how the particle motion component of the sound may affect exposed invertebrates and fishes (Hawkins and Popper 2017; Popper and Hawkins 2018). To date, most research has investigated the potential effects of exposure to the sound pressure component of sound on invertebrates and fishes. It is important to note that while all invertebrates and fishes are likely sensitive to particle motion, no invertebrates and not all fishes (e.g., sharks) are sensitive to the sound pressure component. Substrate vibrations caused by sounds may also affect the epibenthos, but sensitivities are largely unknown (Roberts and Elliott 2017). Activities directly contacting the seabed, such as coring, would also be expected to have localized impacts on invertebrates and fishes that use the benthic habitat.

A risk assessment of the potential impacts of airgun surveys on marine invertebrates and fish in Western Australia concluded that the greater the intensity of sound and the shallower the water, the greater the risk to these animals (Webster et al. 2018). In water >250 m deep, the impact of seismic surveying on fish and marine invertebrates was assessed as acceptable, while in water <250 m deep, risk ranged from negligible to severe, depending on depth, resource-type, and sound intensity (Webster et al. 2018). Immobile organisms, such as molluscs, were deemed to be the invertebrates most at risk from seismic impacts. Given that the survey area is located in water depths >1500 m and that fishes and many marine invertebrates are mobile, effects from all proposed activities are expected to be minimal and temporary.

Other routine activities associated with the project include the use of vessel lights, which may cause the attraction of plankton or pelagic fishes or invertebrates to the upper water column, and the production of sanitary/domestic waste. There is also a remote possibility of accidental release (i.e., spill of vessel fuel). If unmitigated, an accidental release may result in habitat degradation, behavioural changes, injury or death for fishes or invertebrates.

10.4.1 Echosounders

The operational frequencies of the echosounders that would be used by AWI are generally well above the sound detection ranges of most fishes and invertebrates. Studies using low- and mid-frequency (less than 1–10 kHz) naval sonars have shown no tissue damage in fishes although,

32

based on laboratory studies, there is potential for temporary hearing loss in some individuals (Popper et al. 2007; Kane et al. 2010; Halvorsen et al. 2012).

Echosounder sounds are judged to have negligible effects on fishes and invertebrates given that the potential for effects (behavioural changes, hearing impairment) would occur over a short duration (<1 month) and would be confined to a localized area very close to the survey vessel. Therefore, residual effects on fish and invertebrates are judged to be not significant. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is medium to high.

10.4.2 Airgun Use

There is potential for pathological, physiological, and/or behavioural effects on fishes and invertebrates from exposure to airgun sound. Popper et al. (2019a) recently reviewed the hearing ability of fish, and potential impacts of sound exposure on fishes have been reviewed by Popper (2009), Popper and Hastings (2009a,b), Fay and Popper (2012), Weilgart (2017b), Hawkins and Popper (2018), Popper et al. (2019b), and Slabbekoorn et al. (2019). The potential effects of exposure to anthropogenic sounds on marine invertebrates have been reviewed by Aguilar de Soto (2016), Edmonds et al. (2016), Carroll et al. (2017), Weilgart (2017b), and Elliott et al. (2019). In general, the effects are variable. The susceptibility of fishes and invertebrates to potential effects from airgun sound is dependent on the distance between the animal and airgun sound source, motility of the animal, motivational state of the animal, absence/presence of a swim bladder, and reproductive strategy (e.g., planktonic or benthic eggs) (LGL 2018). Generally, the potential for physical and/or behavioural effects is likely greater for fishes and invertebrates that occur nearest a sound source, are less motile (i.e., less able to move away from the airgun sound), possess a swim bladder (fishes only), and have planktonic life stages (e.g., eggs, larvae). Nonetheless, Day et al. (2016a,b) indicated that invertebrates, particularly crustaceans, may be relatively resilient to airgun sounds. Recent examples of various studies are highlighted below.

10.4.2.1 Marine Invertebrates

There have been several in situ studies that have examined the effects of seismic surveys on scallops. Although most of these studies showed no short-term mortality in scallops (Parry et al. 2002; Harrington et al. 2010; Przeslawski et al. 2016, 2018), one study by Day et al. (2016a,b, 2017) involving exposure to three different airgun configurations (45 in3, 150 in3 (low pressure), and 150 in3 (high pressure)) with a maximum cumulative SEL of 192, 193, and 199 dB re 1 μPa2 · s, respectively, did show adverse effects including an increase in mortality rates. Non-lethal effects were also recorded, including changes in reflex behaviour time, other behavioural patterns, haemolymph chemistry, and apparent damage to statocysts (Day et al. 2016b, 2017). The airgun was started ~1–1.5 km from the study subjects and passed over the animals. When captive New Zealand scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) larvae were exposed to recorded seismic pulses in a laboratory setting, developmental delays were reported, and 46% of the larvae exhibited body abnormalities (Aguilar de Soto et al. 2013). Behavioural responses to airgun sound were also exhibited by captive squid, Sepioteuthis australis (Fewtrell and McCauley 2012). Fields et al. (2019) conducted laboratory experiments to study effects of exposure to airgun sound on the mortality, predator escape response, and gene expression of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus and concluded that the airgun sound had

33

limited effects on the mortality and escape responses of copepods exposed within 10 m of the airgun source but no measurable impact beyond that distance.

Day et al. (2016b, 2017) also exposed egg-bearing female spiny rock lobsters (Jasus edwardsii) to airgun sounds during their field studies and maintained them until larval hatch. No significant differences were found in the quality or quantity of larvae between control and exposed subjects, suggesting that embryonic development of spiny lobster was not adversely affected by airgun sounds (Day et al. 2016a,b). No mortalities were reported for either control or exposed lobsters (Day et al. 2016a,b). When Day et al. (2019) exposed rock lobster to the equivalent of a full-scale commercial seismic survey passing within 100–500 m, lobsters exhibited impaired righting and damage to the sensory hairs of the statocyst.

Fitzgibbon et al. (2017) reported lobster total haemocyte count decreased by 23–60% for all lobster groups up to 120 days post-airgun exposure in the experimental group compared to the control group. A lower haemocyte count may increase the risk of disease through a lower immunological response. Under controlled field experiments during seismic surveys with SELs <130–187 dB re 1 µPa2·s, Christian et al. (2003, 2004) found reduced development rates for snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) egg masses exposed to sound energy. Other studies conducted in the field have shown no effects on Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) larvae or snow crab embryos to seismic sounds (Pearson et al. 1994; DFO 2004; Morris et al. 2018). Payne et al. (2015) undertook two laboratory pilot studies to examine the effects of a seismic airgun recording on American lobster (Homerus americanus) mortality, gross pathology, histopathology, serum biochemistry, and feeding; and (ii) examined prolonged or delayed effects of seismic air gun pulses in the laboratory on lobster mortality, gross pathology, histopathology, and serum biochemistry. Overall there was no mortality, loss of appendages, or other signs of gross pathology observed in exposed lobster, but slight physiological changes were reported.

McCauley et al. (2017) examined the potential effects of sound exposure of a 150 in3 airgun on zooplankton off the coast of Tasmania; they concluded that airgun sound exposure decreased zooplankton abundance compared to control samples and caused a two- to three-fold increase in adult and larval zooplankton mortality. They observed impacts on the zooplankton as far as 1.2 km from the exposure location; however, there was no consistent decline in the proportion of dead zooplankton as distance increased and received levels decreased. However, conclusions were based on a relatively small number of zooplankton samples, and more replication is required to increase confidence in the study findings. Richardson et al. (2017) conducted modeling to investigate the impact of exposure to airgun sound on zooplankton over a much larger temporal and spatial scale than that employed by McCauley et al. (2017). The exercise modeled a hypothetical survey over an area 80 km by 36 km during a 35-day period. Richardson et al. (2017) postulated that the decline in zooplankton abundance observed by McCauley et al. (2017) could have been due to active avoidance by larger zooplankton. The modeling indicated that there would be substantial impact on the zooplankton populations at a local spatial scale but not at a large spatial scale; zooplankton biomass recovery within the exposed area and out to 15 km was estimated to occur 3 days following completion of the seismic survey.

34

Based on acoustic modeling of a 750 in3 airgun array and assuming an injury threshold of 213 dB re 1 µPa (peak pressure level), Matthews et al. (2018) estimated that some invertebrates could be injured up to 30 m from the airgun array. With mitigation measures in place (i.e., ramp up of airgun pressure) and most invertebrates occurring near or on the seabed, sound from the airgun array is judged to have minor effects on invertebrates, the potential for effects would occur over a short duration (<1 month) and would be confined to a localized area close to the survey vessel. Therefore, residual effects on invertebrates are judged to be not significant. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is medium to high.

10.4.2.2 Marine Fish

The effects of airgun sound on fishes are variable, with some studies showing no impacts (e.g., Peña et al. 2013; Miller and Cripps 2013; Popper et al. 2016) to slight behavioural changes (Fewtrell and McCauley 2012; Przeslawski et al. 2016; Bruce et al. 2018; Davidsen et al. 2019), and changes in physiology (Radford et al. 2016). Although mortality is a possibility, few studies have reported any mortalities.

Bruce et al. (2018) studied the potential behavioural impacts of a seismic survey in the Gippsland Basin, Australia, on three shark species: tiger flathead (Neoplatycephalus richardsoni), gummy shark (Mustelus antarcticus), and swellshark (Cephaloscylum laticeps). Sharks were captured and tagged with acoustic tags before the survey and monitored for movement via acoustic telemetry within the seismic area. The energy source used in the study was a 2530 in3 array consisting of 16 airguns with a maximum SEL of 146 dB re 1 μPa2 · s at 51 m depth. Flathead and gummy sharks were observed to move in and around the acoustic receivers while the airguns in the survey were active; however, most sharks left the study area within 2 days of being tagged. The authors of the study did not attribute this behaviour to avoidance, possibly because the study area was relatively small. Overall, there was little conclusive evidence of the seismic survey impacting shark behaviour, though flathead shark did show increases in swim speed that was regarded by the authors as a startle response to the airguns operating within the area.

Hastings and Miksis-Olds (2012) measured the hearing sensitivity (using auditory evoked potential methods) of caged reef fish following exposure to a seismic survey in Australia. There was no evidence of TTS in any of the fish examined, even though the cumulative SELs had reached 190 dB re 1 μPa2 · s. Andrews et al. (2014) conducted functional genomic studies on the inner ear of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) that had been exposed to seismic airgun sound. The results provided evidence that seismic sound can affect Atlantic salmon on a genetic level.

Based on acoustic modeling of a 750 in3 airgun array and assuming an injury threshold of 203 dB re 1 µPa peak pressure level (Popper et al. 2014), Matthews et al. (2018) estimated that some fishes could be injured up to 50 m from the airgun array. With mitigation measures in place (i.e., ramp up of airgun pressure), sound from the airgun array is judged to have minor effects on fishes, the potential for effects would occur over a short duration (<1 month) and would be confined to a localized area close to the survey vessel. Therefore, residual effects on fishes are judged to be not significant. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is medium to high.

35

10.4.3 Coring

Coring within the study area would disrupt a small area of the seabed; the diameter of the core samples would range from 10 to 12 cm. It is possible that small numbers of benthic organisms may be injured. Nonetheless, coring activities are judged to have negligible to minor effects on fishes and invertebrates, the potential for effects would occur over a short duration (<1 week), and would be confined to a localized area at the coring sites. Therefore, residual effects on fishes and invertebrates are judged to be not significant; the associated level of confidence is medium to high.

10.5 Potential Effects on Commercial Fisheries

Commercial fisheries are anticipated to occur at the same time as AWI’s survey activities. Although several studies (Hovem et al. 2012; Løkkeborg et al. 2012; Handegard et al. 2013; Streever et al. 2016; Paxton et al. 2017) have shown some behaviour-associated disturbance (i.e., fish distribution) due to seismic surveys, others (Bruce et al. 2018) have shown no significant adverse effects on catch rates. Bruce et al. (2018) studied the potential impacts of an industrial seismic survey in the Gippsland Basin, Australia, on catches in the Danish seine and gillnet fishing sectors for 15 fish species. Catch data were examined from three years before the seismic survey to six months after completion of the survey in an area 13,000 km2. Overall, there was little evidence of consistent adverse impacts of the seismic survey on catch rates. Six of the 15 species were found to have increased catch rates.

Morris et al. (2018) conducted a two-year (2015–2016) Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) study examining the effects of 2-D seismic exploration on catch rates of snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) along the eastern continental slope (Lilly Canyon and Carson Canyon) of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, Canada. The airgun array used was operated from a commercial seismic exploration vessel; it had a total volume of 4880 in3, horizontal zero-to-peak SPL of 251 dB re 1 μPa, and SEL of 229 dB re 1 μPa2·s. The closest approach of the survey vessel to the treatment site in 2015 (year 1 of the study) was 1465 m during five days of seismic operations; in 2016 (year 2), the vessel passed within 100 m of the treatment site, but the exposure lasted only 2 h. Overall, the study did not detect any effect of seismic sound on snow crab catch rates. Morris et al. (2018) attributed the natural temporal and spatial variations in the marine environment as a greater influence on observed differences in catch rates between control and treatment sites than exposure to seismic sounds.

There is limited potential for AWI’s research activities to affect commercial fisheries given the use of a small airgun array and a 3-km streamer which will be employed in offshore waters. Likewise, the use of echosounders and coring activities are predicted to have negligible effects on fishes and invertebrates. Mitigation measures further reduce the potential for effects on commercial fisheries. AWI bridge crew and/or the MMO would undertake marine radio contact with fishing vessels in the vicinity of research activities to discuss interactions and resolve any problems that may arise at sea. Fishing gear in the study area will be avoided.

With mitigation measures in place, project activities are judged to have negligible to minor effects on commercial fisheries, the potential for effects would occur over a short duration (<1 month) and

36

would be confined to a localized area. Therefore, residual effects on commercial fisheries are judged to be not significant. The level of confidence associated with this judgement is medium to high.

10.6 Potential Effects of Waste Discharges

All wastes would be disposed of according to the MARPOL Convention. Operational discharges from offshore vessels and equipment relate to the possible release of oily water, deck drainage, bilge water, ballast water, and liquid wastes. Waste that cannot be treated and discharged overboard will be stored and transported to shore for disposal. There is limited potential for interactions and effects of organic wastes on marine species. There is some potential that some animals may be attracted to discharged food wastes, but potential effects are considered negligible.

10.7 Cumulative Effects

Given the small-scale nature of AWI’s proposed activities as well as mitigation measures which will be implemented, there is limited potential for AWI survey activities to contribute to cumulative effects on marine mammals, birds, fish and invertebrates, and local users in and near the study area. Other sources of potential impacts on the environment include limited vessel traffic and commercial fishing. Cumulative effects are judged to be not significant.

11.0 Reporting

As stated in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1, a report describing the survey and any whale interactions should be provided to the Australian Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts within two months of survey completion. The report should contain: the location, date and start time of the survey; name, qualifications and experience of any MMOs (or research scientists) involved in the survey; the location, times and reasons when observations were hampered by poor visibility or high winds; the location and time of any start-up delays, power downs or stop work procedures instigated as a result of whale sightings; the location, time and distance of any whale sighting including species where possible; and the date and time of survey completion. All whale sightings should be recorded on a sightings form and should be submitted to the Department.

12.0 Summary

The research activities proposed by AWI for 2020 have been assessed relative to the potential effects on the biological and socio-economic environment in and near the study area. With mitigation measures and monitoring in place, the short-term and small-scale nature of echosounder, small airgun array, streamer use, and coring activities are predicted to have minor effects on the environment. Residual effects on matters of national environmental significance are therefore judged to be not significant.

37

13.0 Literature Cited

Aguilar de Soto, N. 2016. Peer-reviewed studies on the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine invertebrates: from scallop larvae to giant squid. p. 17-26 In: The effects of noise on aquatic life II, Springer, New York, NY. 1292 p. Aguilar de Soto, N., N. Delorme, J. Atkins, S. Howard, J. Williams, and M. Johnson. 2013. Anthropogenic noise causes body malformations and delays development in marine larvae. Sci. Rep. 3:2831. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1038/srep02831. Andrews, C.D., J.F. Payne, and M.L. Rise. 2014. Identification of a gene set to evaluate the potential effects of loud sounds from seismic surveys on the ears of fishes: a study with Salmo salar. J. Fish Biol. 84(6):1793-1819. Bain, D.E. and R. Williams. 2006. Long-range effects of airgun noise on marine mammals: responses as a function of received sound level and distance. Paper SC/58/E35 presented to the IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Ann. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts. Bannister, J.L., C.M. Kemper, and R.M. Warneke. 1996. The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans. Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Wildlife Australia. 242 p. Bedford, M., J. Melbourne-Thomas, S. Corney, T. Jarvis, N. Kelly, and A. Constable. 2015. Prey-field use by a Southern Ocean top predator: enhanced understanding using integrated datasets. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 526:169-181. Beland, J.A., B. Haley, C.M. Reiser, D.M. Savarese, D.S. Ireland, and D.W. Funk. 2009. Effects of the presence of other vessels on marine mammal sightings during multi-vessel operations in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea. p. 29 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 306 p. BirdLife International. 2019. Important Bird Areas factsheet: Heard and McDonald Islands. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 25/09/2019. Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, A.M. Thode, D. Mathias, K.H. Kim, C.R. Greene, Jr., and A.M. Macrander. 2015. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates: evidence for two behavioral thresholds. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0125720. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125720. Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, C.R. Greene, Jr., A.M. Thode, M. Guerra, and A.M. Macrander. 2013. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 29(4):E342-E365. Borsa, P. 1997. Seasonal trends in the occurrence of marine mammals in the Golfe du Morbihan, Kerguelen Islands. Mar. Mam. Sci. 13(2):314-316. Bost, C.A., C. Cotté, F. Bailleul, Y. Cherel, J.B. Charrassin, C. Guinet, D.G. Ainley, H. and Weimerskirch. 2009. The importance of oceanographic fronts to marine birds and mammals of the southern oceans. J. Mar. Sys. 78(3):363-376. Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster, and D. Palka. 1994. Relative abundance and behavior of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96(4):2469-2484. Branstetter, B.K., J.S. Trickey, H. Aihara, J.J. Finneran, and T.R. Liberman. 2013. Time and frequency metrics related to auditory masking of a 10 kHz tone in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(6):4556-4565. Branstetter, B.K., K.L. Bakhtiari, J.S. Trickey, and J.J. Finneran. 2016. Hearing mechanisms and noise metrics related to auditory masking in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). p. 109-116 In:

38

A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life II. Springer, New York, NY. 1292 p. Bröker, K., G. Gailey, J. Muir, and R. Racca. 2015. Monitoring and impact mitigation during a 4D seismic survey near a population of gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Endang. Species. 28:187-208. http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.3354esr00670. Bruce, B., R. Bradford, S. Foster, K. Lee, M. Lansdell, S. Cooper, and R. Przeslawski. 2018. Quantifying fish behaviour and commercial catch rates in relation to a marine seismic survey. Mar. Environ. Res. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.05.005. Burch, P., C. Peron, J. Potts, P. Ziegler, and D. Welsford. 2019. p. 237-240 In: D. Welsford, J. Dell, and G. Duhamel (eds). The Kerguelen Plateau: marine ecosystem and fisheries. Proceedings of the Second Symposium. Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania. Burkhardt, E., O. Boebel, H. Bornemann, and C. Ruholl. 2008. Risk assessment of scientific sonars. Bioacoustics 17:235-237. Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, E.M. Oleson, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, J. Baker, M.M. Muto, B. Hanson, A.J. Orr, H. Huber, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J.E. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, and R.L. Brownwell, Jr. 2019. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2018. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-617. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Southwest Fish. Sci. Center, La Jolla, CA. 377 p. Carroll, A.G., R. Przeslawski, A. Duncan, M. Gunning, and B. Bruce. 2017. A critical review of the potential impacts of marine seismic surveys on fish & invertebrates. Mar. Poll. Bull. 114:9-24. Castellote, M. and C. Llorens. 2016. Review of the effects of offshore seismic surveys in cetaceans: Are mass strandings a possibility? p. 133-143 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life II. Springer, New York, NY. 1292 p. Castellote, M., C.W. Clark, and M.O. Lammers. 2012. Acoustic and behavioural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in response to shipping and airgun noise. Biol. Conserv. 147(1):115-122. Cerchio, S., S. Strindberg, T. Collins, C. Bennett, and H. Rosenbaum. 2014. Seismic surveys negatively affect humpback whale singing activity off northern Angola. PLoS ONE 9(3):e86464. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086464. Cherel, Y. and G. Duhamel. 2004. Antarctic jaws: cephalopod prey of sharks in Kerguelen waters. Deep-Sea Research Part I 51:17-31. Cholewiak, D., A. Izzi, D. Palka, P. Corkeron, and S. Van Parijs. 2017. Beaked whales demonstrate a marked acoustic response to the use of shipboard echosounders. Abstract and presentation at the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s 22nd Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 22–27 October, Halifax, NS, Canada. Cholewiak, D., C.W. Clark, D. Ponirakis, A. Frankel, L.T. Hatch, D. Risch, J.E. Stanistreet, M. Thompson, E. Vu, and S.M. Van Parijs. 2018. Communicating amidst the noise: modeling the aggregate influence of ambient and vessel noise on baleen whale communication space in a national marine sanctuary. Endang. Species Res. 36:59-75. Clark, C.W. and G.C. Gagnon. 2006. Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise exposures from seismic surveys on baleen whales. Working Pap. SC/58/E9. Int. Whal. Comm., Cambridge, UK. 9 p. Clark, C.W., W.T. Ellison, B.L. Southall, L. Hatch, S.M. Van Parijs, A. Frankel, and D. Ponirakis. 2009. Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395:201-222.

39

Commonwealth of Australia. 2008. EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 – Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales. September 2008. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/8d928995- 0694-414e-a082-0ea1fff62fc8/files/seismic-whales.pdf. Commonwealth of Australia. 2011. National recovery plan for threatened albatrosses and giant petrels 2011-2016. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart. Commonwealth of Australia. 2014. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan 2014-2024. Department of the Environment, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia. 2019a. Australian Whale Sanctuary. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-species/cetaceans/australian-whale- sanctuary. Commonwealth of Australia. 2019b. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve. Accessed in September 2019 at http://heardisland.antarctica.gov.au/protection-and- management/marine-reserve Commonwealth of Australia. 2019c. Species found in Australian waters. Accessed in September 2019 at https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-species/cetaceans/species-found- australian-waters Commonwealth of Australia. 2019d. Marine species conservation. Accessed in September 2019 at https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-species Commonwealth of Australia. 2019e. EPBC Act list of threatened fauna. Accessed in August 2019 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna#mammals_critically _endangered. Commonwealth of Australia. 2019f. EPBC Migratory species lists. Accessed in August 2019 at http://environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowmigratory.pl Commonwealth of Australia. 2019g. Notification of activities affecting cetaceans. Accessed in August 2019 at https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-species/cetaceans/ notification-interactions Crowell, S.C. 2016. Measuring in-air and underwater hearing in seabirds. p. 1155-1160 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.) The effects of noise on aquatic life II. Springer, New York, NY. 1292 p. Currie, J.J., S.H. Stack, and G.D. Kaufman. 2017. Modelling whale-vessel encounters: the role of speed in mitigating collisions with humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 17(1):57-63. Dambach, J., S. Thatje, D. Rödder, Z. Basher, and M.J. Raupach. 2011. Effects of late-cenozoic glaciation on habitat availability in Antarctic benthic shrimp (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea). PLoS ONE 7(9):e46283. Davidsen, J.G., H. Dong, M. Linné, M.H. Andersson, A. Piper, T.S. Prystay, E.B. Hvam, E.B. Thorstad, F. Whoriskey, S.J. Cooke, A.D. Sjursen, L. Rønning, T.C. Netland, and A.D. Hawkins. 2019. Effects of sound exposure from a seismic airgun on heart rate, acceleration and depth use in free-swimming Atlantic cod and saithe. Conserv. Physiol. 7(1):coz020. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1093/conphys/coz020. Day, R.D., R.D. McCauley, Q.P. Fitzgibbon, and J.M. Semmens. 2016a. Seismic air gun exposure during early-stage embryonic development does not negatively affect spiny lobster Jasus edwardsii larvae (Decapoda: Palinuridae). Sci. Rep. 6:22723.

40

Day, R.D., R.D. McCauley, Q.P. Fitzgibbon, K. Hartmann and J.M. Semmens. 2016b. Assessing the impact of marine seismic surveys on southeast Australian scallop and lobster fisheries. Fisheries Research & Development Corporation (FRDC). FRDC Project No 2012/008. 144 p. Day, R.D., R.D. McCauley, Q.P. Fitzgibbon, K. Hartmann, and J.M. Semmens. 2017. Exposure to seismic air gun signals causes physiological harm and alters behavior in the scallop Pecten fumatus. PNAS 114(40):E8537-E8546. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.1700564114. Day, R.D., R.D. McCauley, Q.P. Fitzgibbon, K. Hartmann, and J.M. Semmens. 2019. Seismic air guns damage rock lobster mechanosensory organs and impair righting reflex. Proc. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.1424. de Baar, H.J., J.T. De Jong, D.C. Bakker, B.M. Löscher, C. Veth, U. Bathmann, and V. Smetacek. 1995. Importance of iron for plankton blooms and carbon dioxide drawdown in the Southern Ocean. Nature 373(6513):412-415. de Boer, M.N. 2000. Observations on occurrence and distribution of cetaceans in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and Southern part of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. Paper SC/52/O9 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. 10 p. de Boer, M.N., R. Baldwin, C.L.K. Burton, E.L. Eyre, K.C.S. Jenner, M-N.M. Jenner, S.G. Keith, K.A. McCabe, E.C.M. Parsons, V.M. Peddemors, H.C. Rosenbaum, P. Rudolph, and M.P. Simmonds (eds.). 2003. Cetaceans in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary: a review. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Science Report. Wiltshire, UK. 52 p. Delord, K., C. Barbraud, C.A. Bost, B. Deceuninck, T. Lefebvre, R. Lutz, T. Micol, R.A. Phillips, P.N. Trathan, and H. Weimerskirch. 2014. Areas of importance for seabirds tracked from French southern territories, and recommendations for conservation. Mar. Pol. 48:1-13. Deng, Z.D., B.L. Southall, T.J. Carlson, J. Xu, J.J. Martinez, M.A. Weiland, and J.M. Ingraham. 2014. 200-kHz commercial sonar systems generate lower frequency side lobes audible to some marine mammals. PLoS ONE 9(4):e95315. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0095315. DeRuiter, S.L., P.L. Tyack, Y.-T. Lin, A.E. Newhall, J.F. Lynch, and P.J.O. Miller. 2006. Modeling acoustic propagation of airgun array pulses recorded on tagged sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(6):4100-4114. DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2004. Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Habitat Status Rep. 2004/003. Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. Biol. Lett. 6(1):51-54. Diaz, A., J.-P. Féral, B. David, T. Saucède, and E. Poulin. 2011. Evolutionary pathways among shallow and deep-sea echinoids of the genus Sterechinus in the Southern Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part II 58: 205-211. Diez, M.J. and G.A. Lovrich. 2010. Reproductive biology of the crab Halicarcinus planatus (Brachyura, Hymenosomatidae) in sub-Antarctic waters. Polar Bio. 33: 389-401. Duhamel, G. and M. Hautecoeur. 2009. Biomass, abundance and distribution of fish in the Kerguelen Islands EEZ (CCAMLR Statistical Division 58.5.1). CCAMLR Sci. 16:1-32. Duhamel, G., C. Ozouf-Costaz, G. Cattaneo-Berrebi, and P. Berrebi. 1995. Interpopulation relationships in two species of Antarctic fish Notothenia rossii and Champsocephalus gunnari from the Kerguelen Islands: an allozyme study. Antarctic Sci. 7(4):351-356.

41

Duhamel, G., P. Pruvost, M. Bertignac, N. Gasco, and M. Hautecoeur. 2011. Major fishery events in the Kerguelen Islands: Notothenia rossii, Champsocephalus gunnari, Dissostichus eleginoides – Current distribution and status of stocks. The Kerguelen Plateau 2011:275-286. Dunlop, R.A. 2015. The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour. Animal Behav. 111:13-21. Dunlop, R. 2018. The communication space of humpback whale social sounds in vessel noise. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 35(1):010001. http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.1121/2.0000935. Dunlop, R.A., M.J. Noad, R.D. McCauley, E. Kniest, D. Paton, and D.H. Cato. 2015. The behavioural response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to a 20 cubic inch air gun. Aquatic Mamm. 41(4):412-433. Dunlop, R.A., M.J. Noad, R.D. McCauley, E. Kniest, R. Slade, D. Paton, and D.H. Cato. 2016a. Response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to ramp-up of a small experimental air gun array. Mar. Poll. Bull. 103:72-83. Dunlop, R.A., M.J. Noad, and D.H. Cato. 2016b. A spatially explicit model of the movement of humpback whales relative to a source. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 4ENAL 27(1):010026. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1121/2.0000296. Dunlop, R., M.J. Noad, R. McCauley, and D. Cato. 2016c. The behavioral response of humpback whales to seismic air gun noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140(4):3412. Dunlop, R.A., M.J. Noad, R.D. McCauley, L. Scott-Hayward, E. Kniest, R. Slade, D. Paton, and D.H. Cato. 2017a. Determining the behavioural dose–response relationship of marine mammals to air gun noise and source proximity. J. Exp. Biol. 220:2878-2886. Dunlop, R.A., M.J. Noad, R.D. McCauley, E. Kniest, R. Slade, D. Paton, and D.H. Cato. 2017b. The behavioural response of migrating humpback whales to a full seismic airgun array. Proc. R. Soc. B 284:20171901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017/1901. Dunlop, R.A., M.J. Noad, R.D. McCauley, E. Kniest, R. Slade, D. Paton, and D.H. Cato. 2018. A behavioural dose-response model for migrating humpback whales and seismic air gun noise. Mar. Poll. Bull. 133:506-516. Dyndo, M., D.M. Wisniewska, L. Rojano-Doñate, and P.T. Madsen. 2015. Harbour porpoises react to low levels of high frequency vessel noise. Sci. Rep. 5:11083. http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.1038/srep11083. Edmonds, N.J., C.J. Firmin, D. Goldsmith, R.C. Faulkner, and D.T. Wood. 2016. A review of crustacean sensitivity to high amplitude underwater noise: data needs for effective risk assessment in relation to UK commercial species. Mar. Poll. Bull. 108(1-2):5-11. Elliott, B.W., A.J. Read, B.J. Godley, S.E. Nelms, and D.P. Nowacek. 2019. Critical information gaps remain in understanding impacts of industrial seismic surveys on marine invertebrates. Endang. Species Res. 39: 247-254. Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2012. A new context-based approach to assess marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conserv. Biol. 26(1):21-28. Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, A.S. Frankel, K. Vigness-Raposa, and C.W. Clark. 2018. An acoustic scene perspective on spatial, temporal, and spectral aspects of marine mammal behavioral responses to noise. Aquat. Mamm. 44(3):239-243. Erbe, C. 2012. The effects of underwater noise on marine mammals. p. 17-22 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.

42

Erbe, C., C. Reichmuth, K. Cunningham, K. Lucke, and R. Dooling. 2016. Communication masking in marine mammals: a review and research strategy. Mar. Poll. Bull. 103:15-38. Evans, P.G. H., E.J. Lewis, and P. Fisher. 1993. A study of the possible effects of seismic testing upon cetaceans in the Irish Sea. Rep. from Sea Watch Foundation. Marathon Oil UK Ltd., Oxford, UK. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 569. 334 p. Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 2012. Fish hearing: new perspectives from two senior bioacousticians. Brain Behav. Evol. 79(4):215-217. Féral, J.-P., E. Poulin, C.A. González-Weaver, N. Améziane, C. Guillaumot, E. Develay, and T. Saucéde. 2019. Long-term monitoring of coastal benthic habitats in the Kerguelen Islands: a legacy of decades of marine biology research. p. 383-402 In: D. Welsford, J. Dell, and G. Duhamel (eds.) The Kerguelen Plateau: Marine ecosystem and fisheries. Proceedings of the Second Symposium. Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia. Fewtrell, J.L. and R.D. McCauley. 2012. Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and squid. Mar. Poll. Bull. 64(5):984-993. Fields, D.M., N.O. Handegard, J. Dalen, C. Eichner, K. Malde, Ø. Karlsen, A.B. Skiftesvik, C.M.F. Durif and H.I. Browman. 2019. Airgun blasts used in marine seismic surveys have limited effects on mortality, and no sublethal effects on behaviour of gene expression, in the copepod Calanus finmarchicus. ICES J. Mar. Sci. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsz126. Finneran, J.J. 2012. Auditory effects of underwater noise in odontocetes. p. 197-202 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p. Finneran, J.J. 2015. Noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals: a review of temporary threshold shift studies from 1996 to 2015. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138(3):1702-1726. Finneran, J.J. and B.K. Branstetter. 2013. Effects of noise on sound perception in marine mammals. p. 273-308 In: H. Brumm (ed.) Animal communication and noise. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. 453 p. 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. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111(6): 2929-2940. Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(4):2696-2705. Fishbase. 2019a. Thunnus maccoyii Southern bluefin tuna. Accessed on 5 September 2019 https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Thunnus-maccoyii.html Fishbase. 2019b. Centrophorus zeehaani Southern dogfish. Accessed on 5 September 2019 http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Centrophorus-zeehaani.html Fitzgibbon, Q.P., R.D. Day, R.D. McCauley, C.J. Simon, and J.M. Semmens. 2017. The impact of seismic air gun exposure on the haemolymph physiology and nutritional condition of spiny lobster, Jasus edsardsii. Mar. Poll. Bull. 125(1-2):146-156. Fornet, M.E.H., L.P. Matthews, C.M. Gabriele, S. Haver, D.K. Mellinger, and H. Klinck. 2018. Humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae alter calling behavior in response to natural sounds and vessel noise. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 607:251-268.

43

Gabriele, C.M. and B. Kipple. 2009. Measurements of near-surface, near-bow underwater sound from cruise ships. p. 86 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306 p. Gailey, G., B. Würsig, and T.L. McDonald. 2007. Abundance, behavior, and movement patterns of western gray whales in relation to a 3-D seismic survey, northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 134(13):75-91. Gailey, G., O. Sychenko, T. McDonald, R. Racca, A. Rutenko, and K. Bröker. 2016. Behavioural responses of western gray whales to a 4-D seismic survey off northeastern Sakhalin Island, Russia. Endang. Species Res. 30:53-71. Gailey, G., O. Sychenko, A. Rutenko, and R. Racca. 2017. Western gray whale behavioral response to extensive seismic surveys conducted near their feeding grounds. Abstract and presentation at the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s 22nd Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 22–27 October, Halifax, NS, Canada. Gasco, N., P. Tixier, K. Delord, C. Guinet, and G. Duhamel. 2019. Scientific observation program around Kerguelen Island, a ship-of-opportunity for bird and mammal data collection. p. 365- 379 In: Proceedings of the Second Kerguelen Plateau Symposium on Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries. Australian Antarctic Division. Gedamke, J. 2011. Ocean basin scale loss of whale communication space: potential impacts of a distant seismic survey. p. 105-106 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., 27 Nov.–2 Dec. 2011, Tampa, FL. 344 p. Gedamke, J., N. Gales, and S. Frydman. 2011. Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys: the effects of uncertainty and individual variation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(1):496-506. Geoscience Australia. 2019. Kerguelen Plateau. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/province-sedimentary-basin-geology/ petroleum/offshore-southern-australia/kerguelen-plateau. Gervaise, C., N. Roy, Y. Simard, B. Kinda, and N. Menard. 2012. Shipping noise in whale habitat: characteristics, sources, budget, and impact on belugas in Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park hub. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132(1):76-89. Gomez, C., J. Lawson, A.D. Wright, A. Buren, D. Tollit, and V. Lesage. 2016. A systematic review on the behavioural responses of wild marine mammals to noise: the disparity between science and policy. Can. J. Zool. 94(12):801-819. Goold, J.C. and R.F.W. Coates. 2006. Near source, high frequency air-gun signatures. Paper SC/58/E30 presented to the IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Ann. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts. Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 2004. A review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 37(4):16-34. Gorton, R. 2011. Cetacean Sightings Survey and Southern Ocean cetacean program. Data downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/103150150) on 2019- 09-12. Green, K., D. J. Slip, and G. J. Moore. 1998a. The take of fish species by seabirds and marine mammals in the Australian Fisheries Zone around Heard Island: the potential for competition with a commercial fishery. Polar Bio. 20(4):273-280. Green, K., R. Williams, and M. G. Green. 1998b. Foraging ecology and diving behaviour of macaroni penguins Eudyptes chrysolophus at Heard Island. Mar. Ornith. 26:27-34

44

Guan, S., J.F. Vignola, J.A. Judge, D. Turo, and T.J. Ryan. 2015. Inter-pulse noise field during an arctic shallow-water seismic survey. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137(4):2212. Guerra, M., A.M. Thode, S.B. Blackwell, and M. Macrander. 2011. Quantifying seismic survey reverberation off the Alaskan North Slope. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(5):3046-3058. Guerra, M., P.J. Dugan, D.W. Ponirakis, M. Popescu, Y. Shiu, and C.W. Clark. 2016. High-resolution analysis of seismic airgun impulses and their reverberant field as contributors to an acoustic environment. p. 371-379 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life II. Springer, New York, NY. 1292 p. Halvorsen, M.B., B.M. Casper, C.M. Woodley, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2012. Threshold for onset of injury in Chinook salmon from exposure to impulsive pile driving sounds. PLoS One 7(6):e38968. Handegard, N.O., T.V. Tronstad, and J.M. Hovem. 2013. Evaluating the effect of seismic surveys on fish—The efficacy of different exposure metrics to explain disturbance. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 70(9):1271-1277. Harrington, J.J., J. McAllister, and J.M. Semmens. 2010. Assessing the short-term impact of seismic surveys on adult commercial scallops (Pecten fumatus) in Bass Srait. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania. Harris, C.M., L. Thomas, E.A. Falcone, J. Hildebrand, D. Houser, P.H. Kvadsheim, F.-P.A. Lam, P.J.O. Miller, D.J. Moretti, A.J. Read, H. Slabbekoorn, B.L. Southall, P.L. Tyack, D. Wartzok, and V.M. Janik. 2017. Marine mammals and sonar: dose–response studies, the risk-disturbance hypothesis and the role of exposure context. J. Appl. Ecol. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/1365-25664.12955. Harris, R.E., T. Elliott, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of mitigation and monitoring program, Beaufort Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Rep. by LGL Ltd., King City, ON, for GX Technol. Corp., Houston, TX. 48 p. Hastie, G.D., C. Donovan, T. Götz, and V.M. Janik. 2014. Behavioral responses of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) to high frequency sonar. Mar. Poll. Bull. 79(1-2):205-210. Hastie, G., N.D. Merchant, T. Götz, D.J. Russell, P. Thompson, and V.M. Janik. 2019. Effects of impulsive noise on marine mammals: investigating range‐dependent risk. Ecol. Appl. 15:e01906. Hastings, M.C. and J. Miksis-Olds. 2012. Shipboard assessment of hearing sensitivity of tropical fishes immediately after exposure to seismic air gun emissions at Scott Reef. p. 239-243 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p. Hatch, L.T., C.W. Clark, S.M. Van Parijs, A.S. Frankel, and D.W. Ponirakis. 2012. Quantifying loss of acoustic communication space for right whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary. Conserv. Biol. 26(6):983-994. Hawkins, A.D. and A.N. Popper. 2017. A sound approach to assessing the impact of underwater noise on marine fishes and invertebrates. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 74(3):635-651. Hawkins, A.D. and A.N. Popper. 2018. Effects of man-made sound on fishes. p.145-177 In: Slabbekoorn, H., R.J. Dooling,. A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay (eds). Effects of Anthropogenic Noise on Animals. Springer International, Cham. Hawkins, A.D., A.E. Pembroke, and A.N. Popper. 2015. Information gaps in understanding the effects of noise on fishes and invertebrates. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 25(1):39-64.

45

Heiler, J., S.H. Elwen, H.J. Kriesell, and T. Gridley. 2016. Changes in bottlenose dolphin whistle parameters related to vessel presence, surface behaviour and group composition. Animal Behav. 117:167-177. Hill, N.A., S.D. Foster, G. Duhamel, D. Welsford, P. Koubbi, and C.R. Johnson. 2017. Model-based mapping of assemblages for ecology and conservation management: A case study of demersal fish on the Kerguelen Plateau. Bio. Res. 23:1216-1230. Hindell, M.A., M.A. Lea, C.A. Bost, J.B. Charrassin, N. Gales, S. Goldsworthy, B. Page, G. Robertson, B. Wienecke, M. O’Toole, and C. Guinet. 2011. Foraging habitats of top predators, and areas of ecological significance, on the Kerguelen Plateau. The Kerguelen Plateau 2011:203-215. Hodges, C.L. and E.J. Woehler. 1990. Associations between seabirds and cetaceans in the Australian sector of the Southern Indian Ocean. Mar. Ornith. 22 (1994): 205-212. Hovem, J.M., T.V. Tronstad, H.E. Karlsen, and S. Løkkeborg. 2012. Modeling propagation of seismic airgun sounds and the effects on fish behaviour. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 37(4):576-588. Hyrenbach, D. 2007. SIO Marine Bird and Mammal Survey 2004. Data downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/227) on 2019-09-03. IUCN (The World Conservation Union). 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.iucnredlist.org/. IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2019. Whale sanctuaries. Accessed September 2019 at https://iwc.int/sanctuaries. Jefferson, T.A., M.A. Webber, and R.L. Pitman. 2015. Marine mammals of the world: a comprehensive guide to their identification, 2nd ed. Academic Press, London, UK. 608 p. Jensen, F.H., L. Bejder, M. Wahlberg, N. Aguilar Soto, M. Johnson, and P.T. Madsen. 2009. Vessel noise effects on delphinid communication. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395:161-175. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee). 2017. JNCC guidelines for minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from geophysical surveys. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Aberdeen, UK. 26 p. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/jncc_guidelines_seismicsurvey_ aug2017.pdf Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico/Synthesis report. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. Rep. from Dep. Oceanogr., Texas A & M Univ., College Station, TX, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Gulf of Mexico OCS Reg., New Orleans, LA. 323 p. Johnson, S.R., W.J. Richardson, S.B. Yazvenko, S.A. Blokhin, G. Gailey, M.R. Jenkerson, S.K. Meier, H.R. Melton, M.W. Newcomer, A.S. Perlov, S.A. Rutenko, B. Würsig, C.R. Martin, and D.E. Egging. 2007. A western gray whale mitigation and monitoring program for a 3-D seismic survey, Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 134(1-3): 1-19. Jones, E.L., G.D. Hastie, S. Smout, J. Onoufriou, N.D. Merchant, K.L. Brookes, and D. Thompson. 2017. Seals and shipping: quantifying population risk and individual exposure to vessel noise. J. Appl. Ecol. 54(6):1930-1940. Kane, A.S., J. Song, M.B. Halvorsen, D.L. Miller, J.D. Salierno, L.E. Wysocki, D. Zeddies, and A.N. Popper. 2010. Exposure of fish to high‐intensity sonar does not induce acute pathology. J. Fish Biol. 76(7):1825-1840. Kasamatsu, F., G.G. Joyce, P. Ensor, and J. Mermoz. 1990. Current occurrence of cetacea in the southern hemisphere; results from the IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere minke whale

46

assessment cruises, 1978/79-1987/88. Paper SC/42/0 15 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, June 1990 Kastak, D., R.L. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinnipeds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(2):1142-1148. Kasuya, T. and S. Wada. 1991. Distribution of large cetaceans in the Indian Ocean: data from Japanese sighting records, November–March. p. 139-170 In: S. Leatherwood and G.P. Donovan (eds.), Cetaceans and cetacean research in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. Mar. Mamm. Tech. Rep. No. 3. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 287 p. Ketten, D.R. 1994. Functional analysis of whale ears: adaptations for underwater hearing. IEEE Proc. Underwater Acoust. 1: 264-270. Ketten, D.R. 2012. Marine mammal auditory system noise impacts: evidence and incidence. p. 207-212 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York. 695 p. Kleisner, K., C. Brennan, A. Garland, S. Lingard, S. Tracey, P. Sahlqvist, A. Tsolos, D. Pauly, and D. Zeller. 2015. Australia: Reconstructing estimates of total fisheries removal, 1950-2010. Working Paper #2015-02. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada. Klinck, H., S.L. Nieukirk, D.K. Mellinger, K. Klinck, H. Matsumoto, and R.P. Dziak. 2012. Seasonal presence of cetaceans and ambient noise levels in polar waters of the North Atlantic. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132(3):EL176-EL181. Kok, A.C.M., J.P. Engelberts, R.A. Kastelein, L. Helder-Hoek, S. Van de Voorde, F. Visser, H. Slabbekoorn. 2017. Spatial avoidance to experimental increase of intermittent and continuous sound in two captive harbour porpoises. Env. Poll. 233:1024-1036. Kremser, U., P. Klemm, and W.D. Kötz. 2005. Estimating the risk of temporary acoustic threshold shift, caused by hydroacoustic devices, in whales in the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Sci. 17(1):3-10. Kryter, K.D. 1985. The Effects of Noise on Man. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 688 p. Lalas, C. and H. McConnell. 2015. Effects of seismic surveys on New Zealand fur seals during daylight hours: do fur seals respond to obstacles rather than airgun noise? Mar. Mamm. Sci. 32(2), 643-663. LGL (Limited). 2014. Environmental Assessment Update: Shell Canada Limited’s Shelburne Basin Venture Seabed Survey. LGL Rep. SA1249. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL and Mahone Bay, NS, for Shell Canada Limited, Calgary, AB. 24 p. + appendices. LGL. 2018. Environmental Assessment of Multiklient Invest Labrador Offshore Seismic Program, 2018–2023. LGL Rep. FA0106B. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL for Multiklient Invest AS, Oslo, Norway, and TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA, Houston, Texas, USA. 221 p. + appendices. Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral responses of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic 41(3):183-194. Løkkeborg, S., E. Ona, A. Vold, and A. Salthaug. 2012. Sounds from seismic air guns: gear- and species-specific effects on catch rates and fish distribution. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69(8):1278-1291. Longhurst, A.R. 2007. Ecological geography of the sea. Academic Press, San Diego. 542 p.

47

MacGillivray, A.O., R. Racca, and Z. Li. 2014. Marine mammal audibility of selected shallow-water survey sources. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135(1):EL35-EL40. MacLeod, C.D. and G. Mitchell. 2006. Key areas for beaked whales worldwide. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 7(3):309-322. Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II: January 1984 migration. BBN Rep. 5586. Rep. from Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. NTIS PB86- 218377. Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. BBN Rep. 5851; OCS Study MMS 85-0019. Rep. from BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS, Anchorage, AK. NTIS PB86-218385. Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1986. Behavioral responses of gray whales to industrial noise: feeding observations and predictive modeling. BBN Rep. 6265. OCS Study MMS 88-0048. Outer Contin. Shelf Environ. Assess. Progr., Final Rep. Princ. Invest., NOAA, Anchorage 56(1988): 393-600. NTIS PB88-249008. Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, B., J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1988. Observations of feeding gray whale responses to controlled industrial noise exposure. p. 55-73 In: W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffries, J.L. Imm, and S.D. Treacy (eds.), Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions. Vol. II. Symposium on Noise and Marine Mammals. Univ. Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. 111 p. Matthews, M.-N.R., D. Ireland, R. Brune, D.G. Zeddies, J. Christian, G. Warner, T.J. Deveau, H. Frouin-Mouy, S. Denes, C. Pyć, V.D. Moulton, and D.E. Hannay. 2018. Determining the Environmental Impact of Marine Vibrator Technology: Final Report. Document number 01542, Version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences, LGL Ecological Research Associates Inc., and Robert Brune LLC for the IOGP Marine Sound and Life Joint Industry Programme. McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA J. 38:692-707. McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of airgun signals; and effects of air gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Rep. from Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin Univ., Perth, Western Australia, for Australian Petrol. Produc. & Explor. Association, Sydney, NSW. 188 p. McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, K. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental implications. APPEA J. 40: 692-708. McCauley, R.D., R.D. Day, K.M. Swadling, Q.P. Fitzgibbon, R.A. Watson, and J.M. Semmens. 2017. Widely used marine seismic survey air gun operations negatively impact zooplankton. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:0195. McGeady, R., B.J. McMahon, and S. Berrow. 2016. The effects of surveying and environmental variables on deep diving odontocete stranding rates along Ireland’s coast. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 4ENAL 27(1):040006. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1121/2.0000281.

48

Meyer, L., A. Constable, and R. Williams. 2000. Conservation of marine habitats in the region of Heard Island and McDonald Islands. Kingston, Tas., Australian Antarctic Division. Mikhalev, Y.A., M.V. Ivashin, V.P. Suvasin, and F.W. Zelanaya. 1981. The distribution and biology of killer whales in the Southern Hemisphere. Rep. int. Whal. Comm. 31:551-66. Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 to 5-109 In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. by LGL Ltd., King City, ON, and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p. Miller, G.W., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Davis, M. Holst, P. Millman, A. MacGillivray, and D. Hannay. 2005. Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals—southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002. p. 511-542 In: S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford, and K. Lee (eds.), Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Effects Monitoring/Approaches and Technologies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. Miller, I. and E. Cripps. 2013. Three dimensional marine seismic survey has no measurable effect on species richness or abundance of a coral reef associated fish community. Mar. Poll. Bull. 77(1-2):63-70. Miller, P.J.O., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, N. Biassoni, M. Quero, and P.L. Tyack. 2009. Using at-sea experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Res. I 56(7):1168-1181. Monaco, C., J.M. Ibáñez, F. Carrión, and L.M. Tringali. 2016. Cetacean behavioural responses to noise exposure generated by seismic surveys: how to mitigate better? Ann. Geophys. 59(4):S0436. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4401/ag-7089. Moore, S.E. and R.P. Angliss. 2006. Overview of planned seismic surveys offshore northern Alaska, July-October 2006. Paper SC/58/E6 presented to IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Annu. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts. Morell, M., A. Brownlow, B. McGovern, S.A. Raverty, R.E. Shadwick, and M. André. 2017. Implementation of a method to visualize noise-induced hearing loss in mass stranded cetaceans. Sci. Rep. 7:41848 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41848. Morris, C.J., D. Cote, B. Martin, and D. Kehler. 2018. Effects of 2D seismic on the snow crab fishery. Fish. Res. 197:67-77. Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. pp. 4-1 to 4-69 In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of Western Geophysical’s Open-water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2001. LGL Rep. TA2564 3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. Moulton, V.D. and M. Holst. 2010. Effects of seismic survey sound on cetaceans in the Northwest Atlantic. Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 182. St. John’s, NL. 28 p. Available at http://www.esrfunds.org/pdf/182.pdf. Muto, M.M, V.T. Helker, R.P. Angliss, P.L. Boveng, J.M. Breiwick, M.F. Cameron, P.J. Clapham, S.P. Dahle, M.E. Dahlheim, B.S. Fadely, M.C. Ferguson, L.W. Fritz, R.C. Hobbs, Y.V. Ivashchenko, A.S. Kennedy, J.M. London, S.A. Mizroch, R.R. Ream, E.L. Richmond, K.E.W. Shelden, K.L. Sweeney, R.G. Towell, P.R. Wade, J.M. Waite, and A.N. Zerbini. 2019. Alaska

49

marine mammal stock assessments, 2018. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-393, 390 p. Nachtigall, P.E., J.L. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2003. Temporary threshold shifts and recovery following noise exposure in the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(6): 3425-3429. Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, J. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2004. Temporary threshold shifts after noise exposure in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) measured using evoked auditory potentials. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 20(4):673-687. Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, A.F. Pacini, and R.A. Kastelein. 2018. Four odontocete species change hearing levels when warned of impending loud sound. Integr. Zool. 13(2):160-165. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Approaches to understanding the cumulative effects of stressors on marine mammals. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 134 p. Nieukirk, S.L., D.K. Mellinger, S.E. Moore, K. Klinck, R.P. Dziak, and J. Goslin. 2012. Sounds from airguns and fin whales recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999–2009. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(2):1102-1112. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. Technical guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal hearing: underwater acoustic thresholds for onset of permanent and temporary threshold shifts. U.S. Depart. Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 178 p. NMFS. 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. Office of Protected Resources Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 167 p. NMFS. 2019. Takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; taking marine mammals incidental to marine geophysical surveys in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Fed. Reg. 84(140):35073-35099. Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mamm. Rev. 37(2):81-115. Nowacek, D.P., K. Bröker, G. Donovan, G. Gailey, R. Racca, R.R. Reeves, A.I. Vedenev, D.W. Weller, and B.L. Southall. 2013. Responsible practices for minimizing and monitoring environmental impacts of marine seismic surveys with an emphasis on marine mammals. Aquatic Mamm. 39(4):356-377. OBIS (Ocean Biogeographic Information System). 2019. OBIS SEAMAP. Accessed in September 2019 at http://seamap.env.duke.edu/. Orsi, A.H., T. Whitworth III, W.D. Nowlin, Jr. 1995. On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Deep Sea Res. 42(5):641-673. O’Toole, M., M.A. Hindell, J.B. Charrassin, and C. Guinet. 2014. Foraging behaviour of southern elephant seals over the Kerguelen Plateau. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 502:281-294. Parks, S.E., M. Johnson, D. Nowacek, and P.L. Tyack. 2011. Individual right whales call louder in increased environmental noise. Biol. Lett. 7(1):33-35. Parks, S.E., M.P. Johnson, D.P. Nowacek, and P.L. Tyack. 2012. Changes in vocal behaviour of North Atlantic right whales in increased noise. p. 317-320 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.

50

Parks, S.E., K. Groch, P. Flores, R. Sousa-Lima, and I.R. Urazghildiiev. 2016a. Humans, fish, and whales: how right whales modify calling behavior in response to shifting background noise conditions. p. 809-813 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life II. Springer, New York, NY. 1292 p. Parks, S.E., D.A. Cusano, A. Bocconcelli, and A.S. Friedlaender. 2016b. Noise impacts on social sound production by foraging humpback whales. Abstr. 4th Int. Conf. Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life, July 2016, Dublin, Ireland. Parry, G.D., S. Heislers, G.F. Werner, M.D. Asplin, and A. Gason. 2002. Assessment of environmental effects of seismic testing on scallop fisheries in Bass Strait. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute. Report No. 50. Patterson, H. and K. Mazur. 2018. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery. Chapter 25 In: Fishery status reports 2018. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Commonwealth of Australia. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/ research-topics/fisheries/fishery-status/heard-mcdonald-islands-fishery Paxton, A.B., J.C. Taylor, D.P. Nowacek, J. Dale, E. Cole, C.M. Voss, and C.H. Peterson. 2017. Seismic survey noise disrupted fish use of a temperate reef. Mar. Poll. 78:68-73. Payne, J.F., C.D. Andrews, J. Hanlon, and J. Lawson. 2015. Effects of seismic air-gun sounds on lobster (Homarus americanus): pilot laboratory studies with (i) a recorded track from a seismic survey and (ii) air-gun pulse exposures over 5 days. ESRF-NRC 197. 38 p. Pearson, W., J. Skalski, S. Sulkin, and C. Malme. 1994. Effects of seismic energy releases on the survival and development of zoeal larvae of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Mar. Env. Res. 38:93-113. Peña, H., N.O. Handegard, and E. Ona. 2013. Feeding herring schools do not react to seismic air gun surveys. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70(6):1174-1180. Péron, C., K. Delord, R.A. Phillips, Y. Charbonnier, C. Marteau, M. Louzao, and H. Weimerskirch. 2010. Seasonal variation in oceanographic habitat and behaviour of white-chinned petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis from Kerguelen Island. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 416:267-284. Pichegru, L., R. Nyengera, A.M. McInnes, and P. Pistorius. 2017. Avoidance of seismic survey activities by penguins. Sci. Rep. 7:16305. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16569-x. Pirotta, E., R. Milor, N. Quick, D. Moretti, N. Di Marzio, P. Tyack, I. Boyd, and G. Hastie. 2012. Vessel noise affects beaked whale behavior: results of a dedicated acoustic response study. PLoS ONE 7(8):e42535. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042535. Pirotta, E., M. Mangel, D.P. Costa, B. Mate, J.A. Goldbogen, D.M. Palacios, L.A. Hückstädt, E.A. McHuron, L. Schwartz, and L. New. 2018. A dynamic state model of migratory behavior and physiology to assess the consequence of environmental variation and anthropogenic disturbance on marine vertebrates. Am. Nat. 191(2):E000-E000. Popper, A.N. 2009. Are we drowning out fish in a sea of noise? Mar. Sci. 27:18-20. Popper, A.N. and A.D. Hawkins. 2018. The importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143(1):470-488. Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009a. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integr. Zool. 4:43-52. Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009b. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J. Fish Biol. 75:455-489. Popper, A.N., A.D. Hawkins, R.R. Fay, D.A. Mann, S, Bartol, T.J. Carlson, S. Coombs, W.T. Ellison, R.L. Gentry, M.B. Halvorsen, S. Løkkeborg, P.H. Rogers, B.L. Southall, D.G. Zeddies, and W.N.

51

Tavolga. 2014. Sound exposure guidelines for fishes and sea turtles. A technical report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI. Springer Briefs in Oceanography. ASA Press—ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014. 75 p. Popper, A.N. and A.D. Hawkins. 2019. An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. J. Fish Biol. 94:692-713. Popper, A.N., M.B. Halvorsen, A. Kane, D.L. Miller, M.E. Smith, J. Song, P. Stein, and L.E. Wysocki. 2007. The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122(1):623-635. Popper, A.N., T.J. Carlson, J.A. Gross, A.D. Hawkins, D.G. Zeddies, L. Powell, and J. Young. 2016. Effects of seismic air guns on pallid sturgeon and paddlefish. p. 871-878 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life II. Springer, New York, NY. 1292 p. Popper, A.N., A.D. Hawkins, O. Sand, and J.A. Sisneros. 2019a. Examining the hearing abilities of fishes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 146. http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1121/1.5120185. Popper, A.N., A.D. Hawkins, and M.C. Halvorsen. 2019b. Anthropogenic sound and fishes. A report prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/800/anthropogenic-sound-and-fishes. Potter, J.R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M.A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, and P.J. Seekings. 2007. Potter, J.R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M.A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, and P.J. Seekings. 2007. Visual and passive acoustic marine mammal observations and high-frequency seismic source characteristics recorded during a seismic survey. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 32(2):469-483. Przeslawski, R., B. Bruce, A. Carroll, J. Anderson, R. Bradford, A. Durrant, M. Edmunds, S. Foster, Z. Huang, L. Hurt, M. Lansdell, K. Lee, C. Lees, P. Nichols, and S. Williams. 2016. Marine seismic survey impacts on fish and invertebrates: final report for the Gippsland Marine Environmental Monitoring Project. Record 2016/35. Geoscience Australia, Canberra. Przeslawski, R., Z. Huang, J. Anderson, A.G. Carroll, M. Edmunds, L. Hurt, and S. Williams. 2018. Multiple field-based methods to assess the potential impacts of seismic surveys on scallops. Mar. Poll. Bull. 129:750-761. http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j. marpolbul.2017.10.066. Putland, R.L., N.D. Merchant, A. Farcas, and C.A. Radford. 2017. Vessel noise cuts down communication space for vocalizing fish and marine mammals. Glob. Change Biol. 24(4):1708-1721. Quick, N., L. Scott-Hayward, D. Sadykova, D. Nowacek, and A.J. Read. 2017. Effects of a scientific echo sounder on the behavior of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74:716–726. Radford A.N., L. Lèbre, G. Lecaillon, S.L. Nedelec, and S.D. Simpson. 2016. Repeated exposure reduces the response to impulsive noise in European seabass. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22(10):3349-3360. Raymond, B. 2011. National Whale and Dolphin Sightings and Strandings Database. Data downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/103150567) on 2019- 09-12. Redfern, J.V., M.F. McKenna, T.J. Moore, J. Calambokidis, M.L. Deangelis, E.A. Becker, J. Barlow, K.A. Forney, P.C. Fiedler, and S.J. Chivers. 2013. Assessing the risk of ships striking large whales in marine spatial planning. Conserv. Biol. 27(2):292-302. Rice, A.N., J.T. Tielens, B.J. Estabrook, C.A. Muirhead, A. Rahaman, M. Guerra, and C.W. Clark. 2014. Variation of ocean acoustic environments along the western North Atlantic coast: a case study in context of the right whale migration route. Ecol. Inform. 21:89-99.

52

Richardson, A.J., R.J. Matear, and A. Lenton. 2017. Potential impacts on zooplankton of seismic surveys. CSIRO, Australia. 34 p. Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 79(4):1117-1128. Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 576 p. Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(4, Pt. 2): 2281. Richardson, W.J., R.A. Davis, C.R. Evans, D.K. Ljungblad, and P. Norton. 1987. Summer distribution of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, relative to oil industry activities in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, 1980-84. Arctic 40(2):93-104. Roberts, L. and M. Elliott. 2017. Good or bad vibrations? Impacts of anthropogenic vibration on the marine epibenthos. Total Environ. 595:255-268. Robertson, F.C., W.R. Koski, T.A. Thomas, W.J. Richardson, B. Würsig, and A.W. Trites. 2013. Seismic operations have variable effects on dive-cycle behavior of bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea. Endang. Species Res. 21:143-160. Robertson, F., R. Williams, J. Wood, and E. Ashe. 2017. Effects of ship noise on calling rates of humpback whales in British Columbia. Report by SMRU Consulting for the ECHO Program of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. 20 p. Robineau, D. 1989. Les cétacés des îles Kerguelen. Mammalia 53:265-278 Roquet, F., Y.H. Park, C. Guinet, F. Bailleul, and J.B. Charrassin. 2009. Observations of the Fawn Trough Current over the Kerguelen Plateau from instrumented elephant seals. J. Mar. Syst. 78(3):377-393. Rosa, R., V.M. Lopes, M. Guerreiro, K. Bolstad, and J.C. Xavier. 2017. Biology and ecology of the world’s largest invertebrate, the colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni): a short review. Polar Biol. 40(9): 1871-1883. Ross, G.J.B. 2006. Review of the conservation status of Australia’s smaller whales and dolphins. Australian Government. 124 p. Accessed August 2019 at http://www.environment.gov.au/ system/files/resources/8b0f90f9-9834-468a-890b-2c4847a1a107/files/conservation-smaller- whales-dolphins.pdf Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masking hearing thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, after exposure to intense tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(6):3496-3508. Sciacca, V., S. Viola, S. Pulvirenti, G. Riccobene, F. Caruso, E. De Domenico, and G. Pavan. 2016. Shipping noise and seismic airgun surveys in the Ionian Sea: potential impact on Mediterranean fin whale. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 4ENAL 27(1):040010. http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.1121/2.0000311. SeaAroundUs. 2016. Catches by Taxon in the waters of Heard & McDonald Isl. (Australia) http://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/eez/334?chart=catch-chart&dimension=taxon&measu re=tonnage&limit=10 Shirihai, H. 2002. The Complete Guide to Antarctic Wildlife: Birds and Marine Mammals of the Antarctic Continent and the Southern Ocean. A&C Black, London. 510 p.

53

Sidorovskaia, N., B. Ma, A.S. Ackleh, C. Tiemann, G.E. Ioup, and J.W. Ioup. 2014. Acoustic studies of the effects of environmental stresses on marine mammals in large ocean basins. p. 1155 In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 1. Sills, J.M., B.L. Southall, and C. Reichmuth. 2017. The influence of temporally varying noise from seismic air guns on the detection of underwater sounds by seals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141(2):996-1008. Simard, Y., F. Samaran, and N. Roy. 2005. Measurement of whale and seismic sounds in the Scotian Gully and adjacent canyons in July 2003. p. 97-115 In: K. Lee, H. Bain, and C.V. Hurley (eds.), Acoustic monitoring and marine mammal surveys in The Gully and outer Scotian Shelf before and during active seismic surveys. Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 151. 154 p. (Published 2007). Slabbekoorn, H., J. Dalen, D. de Haan, H.V. Winter, C. Radford, M.A. Ainslie, K.D. Heaney, T. van Kooten, L. Thomas, and J. Harwood. 2019. Population-level consequences of seismic surveys on fishes: An interdisciplinary challenge. Fish and Fisheries. http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1111/faf.12367. Smultea, M.A, M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and S. Stoltz. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory's seismic program in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean, April-June 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-26. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 106 p. Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquat. Mamm. 33(4):411-522. Southall, B.L., D.P. Nowacek, P.J.O. Miller, and P.L. Tyack. 2016. Experimental field studies to measure behavioral responses of cetaceans to sonar. Endang. Species Res. 31:293-315. Southall, B.L., T. Rowles, F. Gulland, R.W. Baird, and P.D. Jepson. 2013. Final report of the Independent Scientific Review Panel investigating potential contributing factors to a 2008 mass stranding of melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) in Antsohihy, Madagascar. Available at http://iwc.int/2008-mass-stranding-in-madagascar. Southall, B.L., J.J. Finneran, C. Reichmuth, P.E. Nachtigall, D.R. Ketten, A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, D.P. Nowacek, and P.L. Tyack. 2019. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: updated scientific recommendations for residual hearing effects. Aquat. Mamm. 45(4):411-522. Stone, C.J. 2015. Marine mammal observations during seismic surveys from 1994–2010. JNCC Rep. No. 463a. 64 p. Streever, B., S.W. Raborn, K.H. Kim, A.D. Hawkins, and A.N. Popper. 2016. Changes in fish catch rates in the presence of air gun sounds in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Arctic [Suppl. 1] 69(4):346-358. Sychenko, O., G. Gailey, R. Racca, A. Rutenko, L. Aerts, and R. Melton. 2017. Gray whale abundance and distribution relative to three seismic surveys near their feeding habitat in 2015. Abstract and presentation at the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s 22nd Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 22-27 October, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Teilmann, J., D.M. Wisniewska, M. Johnson, L.A. Miller, U. Siebert, R. Dietz, S. Sveegaard, A. Galatius, and P.T. Madsen. 2015. Acoustic tags on wild harbour porpoises reveal context- specific reactions to ship noise. In: 18. Danske Havforskermøde 2015, 28-30 January 2015.

54

Tenessen, J.B. and S.E. Parks. 2016. Acoustic propagation modeling indicates vocal compensation in noise improves communication range for North Atlantic right whales. Endang. Species Res. 30:225-237. Thatje, S., K. Anger, J.A. Calagno, G.A. Lovrich, H.-O. Portner, and W.E. Arntz. 2005. Challenging the cold: crabs reconquer the Antarctic. Ecology. 86(3):619-625. Thatje, S., S. Hall, C. Hauton, C. Held, and P. Tyler. 2008. Encounter of lithodid crab Paralomis birsteini on the continental slope off Antarctica, sampled by ROV. Polar Biol. 31: 1143-1148 Thiele, D., E.T. Chester, and P.C. Gill. 2000. Cetacean distribution off Eastern Antarctica (80–150 E) during the Austral summer of 1995/1996. Deep Sea Res. Part II 47(12-13):2543-2572. Thode, A.M., K.H. Kim, S.B. Blackwell, C.R. Greene, Jr., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, and A.M. Macrander. 2012. Automated detection and localization of bowhead whale sounds in the presence of seismic airgun surveys. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(5):3726-3747. Thompson, P.M., K.L. Brookes, I.M. Graham, T.R. Barton, K. Needham, G. Bradbury, and N.D. Merchant. 2013. Short-term disturbance by a commercial two-dimensional seismic survey does not lead to long-term displacement of harbour porpoises. Proc. Royal Soc. B 280: 20132001. TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee). 2018. Guidelines for assessing the conservation status of native species according to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. 7p. Tyack, P.L. 2009. Human-generated sound and marine mammals. Phys. Today 62(11, Nov.):39-44. Tyack, P.L., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, P.J. Miller, and J. Lynch. 2006. Biological significance of acoustic impacts on marine mammals: examples using an acoustic recording tag to define acoustic exposure of sperm whales, Physeter catodon, exposed to airgun sounds in controlled exposure experiments. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Suppl., Abstract OS42A-02. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD. Tynan, C. 1996. Characterisation of Oceanographic habitat of cetaceans in the southern Indian Ocean between 82°-115°E: cruise report from World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) 18S and 19S. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-64 , US Dep. Commer. 53 p. Tynan, C.T. 1997. Cetacean distribution and oceanographic features near the Kerguelen Plateau. Geo. Res. Lett. 24(22):2793-2796. UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2017. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. Appendices I, II, and III. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.cites.org/eng/app/ appendices.php. Webster, F.J., B.S. Wise, W.J. Fletcher, and H. Kemps. 2018. Risk assessment of the potential impacts of seismic air gun surveys on marine finfish and invertebrates in Western Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 288 Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia. 42 p. Weilgart, L. 2017a. Din of the deep: noise in the ocean and its impacts on cetaceans. p. 111-124 In: A. Butterworth (ed.), Marine mammal welfare human induced change in the marine environment and its impacts on marine mammal welfare. Springer. Weilgart, L.S. 2017b. The impact of ocean noise pollution on fish and invertebrates. Report for OceanCare, Switzerland. 23 p.

55

Wiley, D.N., C.A. Mayo, E.M. Maloney, and M.J. Moore. 2016. Vessel strike mitigation lessons from direct observations involving two collisions between noncommercial vessels and North Atlantic right whales (Eubaleana glacialis). Mar. Mammal Sci. 32(4):1501-1509. Williams, R. and W.K. de la Mare. 1995. Fish distribution and biomass in the Heard Island zone (Division 58.5.2). CCAMLR Sci. 2:1-20. Williams, R. G. and Duhamel. 1994. Studies of fish of the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean during the BIOMASS Programme. In Southern Ocean ecology – the BIOMASS perspective, pp. 211-229. Ed. by S. Z. El-Sayed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Winsor, M.H., L.M. Irvine, and B.R. Mate. 2017. Analysis of the spatial distribution of satellite-tagged sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in close proximity to seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Mamm. 43(4):439-446. Wisniewska, D.M., M. Johnson, J. Teilmann, U. Siebert, A. Galatius, R. Dietz, and P.T. Madsen. 2018. High rates of vessel noise disrupt foraging in wild harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Proc. R. Soc. B 285:20172314. Wittekind, D., J. Tougaard, P. Stilz, M. Dähne, K. Lucke, C.W. Clark, S. von Benda-Beckmann, M. Ainslie, and U. Siebert. 2016. Development of a model to assess masking potential for marine mammals by the use of airguns in Antarctic waters. p. 1243-1249 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life II. Springer, New York, NY. 1292 p. Woehler, E.J. 2006. Status and conservation of the seabirds of Heard Island. p. 128-195 In: K. Green and E.J. Woehler (eds.) 2006. Heard Island Southern Ocean Sentinel. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales. Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquat. Mamm. 24(1):41-50. Yazvenko, S.B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, S.K. Meier, H.R. Melton, M.W. Newcomer, R.M. Nielson, V.L. Vladimirov, and P.W. Wainwright. 2007a. Distribution and abundance of western gray whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 134(1-3):45-73. Yazvenko, S.B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, H.R. Melton, and M.W. Newcomer. 2007b. Feeding activity of western gray whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 134(1-3):93-106.

56

Appendix A

Profiles of Marine Mammals, Marine-Associated Birds, or Fishes Listed as Threatened or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act that could occur within or near the Study Area

Marine Mammals

Southern Right Whale

The southern right whale is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. The recovery objective under the EPBC Act is to “minimise anthropogenic threats to allow the conservation status of the southern right whale to improve so that it can be removed from the threatened species list under the EPBC Act” (Commonwealth of Australia 2012). The total Australian population is estimated at ~3500 individuals (Commonwealth of Australia 2012).

The southern right whale is circumpolar throughout the Southern Hemisphere between ~30°S and 60°S (Bannister et al. 1996), although sightings have been recorded south of 60°S (Bannister et al. 1999). It migrates between summer foraging areas at high latitudes and winter breeding/calving areas in low latitudes (Bannister et al. 1996). In the Indian Ocean, right whales are known to migrate from winter calving areas off the coasts of South Africa and southern Australia and summer feeding areas near the Antarctic Convergence and as far south as the Antarctic (Bannister et al. 1999; Bannister 2001; IWC 2001; de Boer et al. 2003). The main feeding area for Australian southern right whales is thought to be south of Australia between 114–123°E and as far south as 60°S (Bannister et al. 1999). However, this species offshore distribution is not well known (Bannister et al. 1997). Peak abundance along the coast of Australia occurs in August–September, but animals are commonly seen from late June–October (Bannister 2001).

Kasuya and Wada (1991) reported on Japanese sighting records in the southern Indian Ocean during October–April 1965–1985; the southernmost limit changed seasonally from 40–45°S in November to 55–60°S in February and March. Sightings were made in the study area during January–March (Kasuya and Wada 1991) and southeast of study area during December (Tynan 1996). They were also sighted during February–March 1999 on the Kerguelen-Amsterdam Passage north of the study area (de Boer et al. 2003). Right whales used to be abundant seasonally in the waters of the Kerguelen Islands (Wray and Martin 1983), and this area was part of the Right Whaling Grounds (de Boer et al. 2003), where whaling occurred from January–March (Townsend 1935; Bannister et al. 1999). However, by the 1870s, right whales were scare there (Wray and Martin 1983); no catches occurred south of Heard Island (Townsend 1935). According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2019a), the right whale and/or its habitat is likely to occur around Heard Island; the available information suggests that southern right whales could be encountered in the survey area at the time of the expedition (January–February).

A-1

Blue Whale

The blue whale is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act of Australia. The recovery objective for blue whales under the EPBC Act is to “minimise anthropogenic threats to allow for their conservation status to improve so that they can be removed from the EPBC Act threatened species list” (Commonwealth of Australia 2015). In the Southern Hemisphere, two subspecies of blue whales are generally recognized: the Antarctic or true blue whale (B. m. intermedia) and pygmy blue whale (B. m. brevicauda), which inhabits the Indian Ocean and the southwestern Pacific Ocean (Bannister et al. 1996; Perry et al. 1999; Branch et al. 2007a; Sears and Perrin 2009). The Antarctic blue whale population has been estimated at ~2280 individuals (Branch 2007), and the pygmy blue whale population in Australia has been estimated at up to 1754 individuals (Commonwealth of Australia 2015). In the following paragraphs, blue whales not identified to the subspecies level are referred to as blue whales or B. musculus.

Blue whales in the southern Indian Ocean migrate between high-latitude feeding areas in austral summer to lower-latitude breeding areas in austral winter (Bannister et al. 1996; Rudolph and Smeenk 2009; Attard et al. 2010; Stafford et al. 2011). During the feeding season, the Antarctic blue whale occurs in polar waters whereas the pygmy blue whale is found in temperate waters (Attard et al. 2012). The Antarctic blue whale generally remains south of 55S in austral summer, whereas the pygmy blue whale primarily occurs north of 54S (Kato et al. 1995). Similarly, Branch et al. (2007b) reported that most historic catches of Antarctic blue whales occurred south of 52S, whereas pygmy blue whale catches primarily occurred north of 52S. Nonetheless, some pygmy blue whales are known to occur in Antarctic waters during austral summer (Gedamke et al. 2007; Gedamke and Robinson 2010; Attard et al. 2012).

Based on data for the Indian Ocean from 1965–1985, the southerly migration for the blue whale begins in November–December, with a peak in January–February (Kato et al. 1995). Early in the southbound migration, sightings were relatively rare between 0 and 25ºS; during December– February, whales were absent from 0–25ºS, and relatively large numbers were recorded in mid- latitudinal waters (40–50ºS). Based on this timing, Kato et al. (1995) assumed that concentrations at mid-latitudes consisted of pygmy blue whales, as Antarctic blue whales are found at higher latitudes at that time of year.

Pygmy blue whale calls have been recorded at 44S from March through January and at 54S from January–October; they have also been recorded on the southern Kerguelen Plateau during February, April, and May (Gedamke et al. 2007). Australian-type pygmy blue whale calls were recorded at locations south of 60S throughout the year (Gedamke et al. 2007; Širovic et al. 2009; Gedamke and Robinson 2010); on the southern Kerguelen Plateau, peak presence occurred during April and May (Gedamke et al. 2007). Australian-type pygmy blue whale calls were detected northeast of Amsterdam Island (31.6S, 83.2E) during March–June 2007 and southwest of Amsterdam Island (43S, 74.6E) during January–June 2007 (Samaran et al. 2013). Northeast of Amsterdam Island, the majority of calls were detected during late fall/early winter, which agrees with data that showed that pygmy blue whales move north toward Indonesia during winter (Samaran et al. 2013). Samaran et al. (2010) also reported Australian-type calls near the Crozet Islands (~46.4S) during

A-2

autumn, suggesting movements from Australia along the subantarctic and subtropical fronts. Antarctic-type blue whale calls were detected northeast of Amsterdam Island from March– December, and southwest of Amsterdam Island from March–January (Samaran et al. 2013). Blue whale calls have been detected acoustically in Antarctic waters throughout the year

Kasuya and Wada (1991) reported on Japanese sighting records in the southern Indian Ocean during October–April 1965–1985; blue whale sightings were made in the study area during November–March. Blue whales were also seen southeast of study area during the month of December (Tynan 1996). During the Heard Island Feasibility study in January–February 1991, blue whales were sighted during surveys in the HIMI marine reserve between 53–54°S and 74–75°E (Bowles et al. 1994). Branch (2007) also reported sightings near the study area as well as in the Kerguelen Islands during the austral summer. Blue whales used to be seen in the Kerguelen Islands during the month of February (Wray and Martin 1983) and were sighted there in February 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2019a), the blue whale and/or its habitat is likely to occur near Heard Island; the available information suggests that blue whales could be encountered in the study area at the time of the expedition (January–February).

Fin Whale

The fin whale is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act of Australia. The fin whale is widely distributed in all the world’s oceans (Gambell 1985a), although it is most abundant in temperate and cold waters (Aguilar and García-Vernet 2018). Nonetheless, its overall range and distribution is not well known (Jefferson et al. 2015). Fin whales most commonly occur offshore, but regularly occur in coastal areas (Jefferson et al. 2015). Most populations migrate seasonally between temperate waters where mating and calving occur in winter, and polar waters where feeding occurs in the summer (Aguilar and García-Vernet 2018). Sergeant (1977) suggested that fin whales tend to follow steep slope contours, either because they detect them readily or because the contours are areas of high biological productivity. However, fin whale movements have been reported to be complex and not all populations follow this simple pattern (Jefferson et al. 2015). The northern and southern fin whale populations likely do not interact owing to their alternate seasonal migration; the resulting genetic isolation has led to the recognition of two subspecies, B. p. quoyi and B. p. physalus in the Southern and Northern hemispheres, respectively (Anguilar and García-Vernet 2018).

In the Southern Hemisphere, fin whales are typically distributed south of 50ºS in the austral summer, migrating northward to breed in the winter (Gambell 1985a). In the Indian Ocean, Southern Hemisphere fin whales winter off South Africa, Madagascar, and Western Australia (Rudolph and Smeenk 2009). According to Edwards et al. (2015), the greatest number of sightings within and near the survey area have been reported during December–February, although sightings have also been made from March–May; however, fin whales are more common south of 60°S, and have been sighted there during summer surveys (de Boer 2000). Fin whale calls have been detected acoustically in Antarctic waters from February through July (Gedamke et al. 2007; Širovic et al. 2009; Gedamke and Robinson 2010). Peak calling rates on the southern Kerguelen Plateau occurred during May (Gedamke et al. 2007).

A-3

According to Kasuya and Wada (1991), sightings were made in the study area during November–March (Kasuya and Wada 1991). During the Heard Island Feasibility study during January–February 1991, fin whales were seen during surveys in the HIMI marine reserve between 53–54°S and 74–75°E; during (Bowles et al. 1994). Numerous sightings were also made during January 2001, and February and March 2003, within and near the study area (Gorton 2011; Raymond 2011). Fin whales have also been observed during February–March 1999 on the Kerguelen-Amsterdam Passage north of the study area (de Boer et al. 2003), and near the southern portion of study area (Kasamatsu et al. 1990). According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2019a), the fin whale and/or its habitat is likely to occur around Heard Island; the available information suggests that fin whales could be encountered in the study area at the time of the expedition (January–February).

Sei Whale

The sei whale is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act of Australia. The sei whale occurs in all ocean basins (Horwood 2018), predominantly inhabiting deep waters throughout their range (Acevedo et al. 2017). It undertakes seasonal migrations to feed in sub-polar latitudes during summer, returning to lower latitudes during winter to calve (Gambell 1985b; Horwood 2018). In the Southern Hemisphere, it migrates into and out of the Antarctic somewhat later than blue and fin whales and does not migrate as far south (Gambell 1985b; Bannister et al. 1996; Horwood 2009).

In the Southern Hemisphere, sei whales typically concentrate between the Subtropical and Antarctic convergences during the summer (Horwood 2018) between 40ºS and 50ºS, with larger, older whales typically travelling into the northern Antarctic zone while smaller, younger individuals remain in the lower latitudes (Acevedo et al. 2017). In the Indian Ocean, sei whales winter as far north as 25S, including the west coast of Australia (Bannister et al. 1996; Rudolph and Smeenk 2009). Japanese sighting records indicate a concentration area for sei whales south of Australia during November–February; sightings were also made in the study area during November–March (Kasuya and Wada 1991). During the Heard Island Feasibility study in January–February 1991, possible sightings of sei whales were reported during surveys in the HIMI marine reserve between 53–54°S and 74–75°E (Bowles et al. 1994). According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2019a), the sei whale and/or its habitat is likely to occur around Heard Island; the available information suggests that sei whales could be encountered in the study area at the time of the expedition (January–February).

Humpback Whale

The humpback whale is considered vulnerable under the EPBC Act of Australia. It is found in all ocean basins (Clapham 2018). Based on recent genetic data, there could be three subspecies, occurring in the North Pacific, North Atlantic, and Southern Hemisphere (Jackson et al. 2014). The humpback whale is highly migratory, undertaking one of the world’s longest mammalian migrations by traveling between mid- to high-latitude waters where it feeds during spring to fall and low-latitude wintering grounds over shallow banks, where it mates and calves (Winn and Reichley 1985; Bettridge et al. 2015). Although considered to be mainly a coastal species, it often

A-4

traverses deep pelagic areas while migrating (Baker et al. 1998; Garrigue et al. 2002; Zerbini et al. 2011).

In the Southern Hemisphere, humpback whales migrate annually from summer foraging areas in the Antarctic to breeding grounds in tropical seas (Schmitt et al. 2014; Clapham 2018). The IWC recognizes seven breeding populations in the Southern Hemisphere that are linked to six foraging areas in the Antarctic, including two in the Indian Ocean (Clapham 2018) — Stock C off Africa and Stock D off western Australia (IWC 2007; Rosenbaum et al. 2009; Schmitt et al. 2014; Bettridge et al. 2015). Stock D is one of two stocks that occurs in Australian waters; Stock E, a second stock, occurs off eastern Australia (Schmitt et al. 2014). The two stocks overlap on summer feeding grounds in Antarctic waters and show weak but significant genetic differentiation (Schmitt et al. 2014). Based on Japanese sighting records in the southern Indian Ocean during October–April 1965–1985, sightings were made in the study area during November–March (Kasuya and Wada 1991). Tynan (1996) also reported humpbacks in the study area on the eastern Kerguelen Plateau during December–January. Kasamatsu et al. (1990) reported sightings south and east of study area, and Thiele et al. (2000) and de Boer (2000) reported sightings south of the study area during summer. According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2019a), the humpback whale and/or its habitat may occur around Heard Island; the available information suggests that humpback whales could be encountered in the study area at the time of the expedition (January– February).

Sub-Antarctic Fur Seal

The subantarctic fur seal is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act of Australia. The world population was estimated at 277,000–356,000 by Hofmeyr et al. (1997). Subantarctic fur seals breed on subantarctic islands north and south of the Antarctic Polar Front, including Amsterdam, Crozets, Gough, Macquarie, Prince Edward Islands, Saint Paul, and Trishan da Cunha (Commonwealth of Australia 2019b). In Australian waters, they mainly breed on Macquarie Island from November through February (Goldsworthy and Shaughnessy 1995); limited breeding has also been reported for HIMI (Commonwealth of Australia 2004; Woinarski et al. 2014). However, it is considered uncommon on HIMI where these seals mainly haul out (Meyer et al. 2000). Sightings have been made on the island during summer (Goldsworthy and Shaughnessy 1989). Although they have been seen in the South Indian Ocean, subantarctic fur seals were not observed south of 47.45°S during surveys conducted by Tynan (1996). According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2019a), the subantarctic fur seal and/or its habitat may occur around Heard Island; the available information suggests that fur seals could be encountered in the study area at the time of the expedition (January–February).

Southern Elephant Seal

The southern elephant seal is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act of Australia. The global population size was estimated at 739,498 in the 2000s; the size of the Kerguelen stock was 401,572 animals, with 61,933 of those on Heard Island (McMahon et al. 2005). Its distribution is nearly circumpolar in the Southern Hemisphere, and it breeds on subantarctic islands (Commonwealth of Australia 2019c). There are two main populations of elephant seals in Australia,

A-5

with principal breeding colonies on Heard and Macquarie islands (Shaughnessy 1999; McMahon et al. 2005; Commonwealth of Australia 2004). It is the most abundant seal inhabiting Heard Island (Meyer et al. 2000). Breeding occurs during September–October (Shaughnessy 1999); after breeding, adult females and males spend ~10 weeks and 14 weeks, respectively, at sea before moulting (Slip et al. 1994). Moulting occurs for ~4 weeks; adult females moult in January–February, whereas adult males moult in March (Slip et al. 1994). After the moult, the seals return to sea until the following breeding season (Slip et al. 1994). After the moulting season, elephant seals equipped with data loggers traveled from the Kerguelen Islands through the proposed survey area during March 2004 en route to Antarctic waters (Roquet et al. 2009). O’Toole et al. (2014), and Hindell et al. (2011) also reported elephant seals occurring in the survey area. Few elephant seals are found on shore during the austral winter (Shaughnessy 1999).

Southern elephant seals mainly forage on squid and fish (Slip 1995; Bailleul et al. 2007). The primary feeding areas are found in subantartic and antarctic waters, as well as near the Antarctic Polar Front (Slip et al. 1994; Bost et al. 2009). They have been shown to forage close to the Antarctic shelf during winter and along the southeastern edge of the Kerguelen Plateau during summer (Slip 1997). Individuals have been tracked traveling through the study area during trips between the Kerguelen Islands and the Antarctic (Bost et al. 2009). During the Heard Island Feasibility study during January–February 1991, marine mammal surveys were conducted in the HIMI marine reserve within 53–54°S and 74–75°E; during those surveys, southern elephant seals were seen (Bowles et al. 1994). According to the Commonwealth of Australia (2019a), the southern elephant seal and/or its habitat may occur around Heard Island; the available information suggests that elephant seals could be encountered in the study area at the time of the expedition (January–February).

Marine-associated Birds

Information for the species descriptions was taken from Commonwealth of Australia (2019d), BirdLife International (2019), and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2019).

Wandering Albatross

The wandering albatross is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It breeds on the islands of South Georgia, Crozet, Kerguelen, Prince Edward, and Macquarie and occurs in all southern oceans from 28° to 60°S. It is known to breed at HIMI (Meyer 2000; Commonwealth of Australia 2014) and has been seen north and west of the proposed study area during surveys in summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). The wandering albatross spends most of its life in flight, landing only to breed and feed. It is a night feeder, feeding on cephalopods, small fish, and crustaceans. In 2007, there were an estimated 25,500 adult birds, including 2000 pairs on Crozet Islands, 1850 pairs on Prince Edward Island, 1600 pairs on Marion Island, and 1553 pairs on South Georgia Island.

Southern Royal Albatross

The southern royal albatross is a visitor to the Kerguelen Plateau and is considered vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Most of the royal albatross population is found between 30°S and 45°S. The majority

A-6

of the world’s population (~8200 to 8600 pairs) nests on the rat-free subantarctic Campbell Island. It eats squid and fish, with smaller amounts of carrion, crustaceans, and salps. It has very few predators, but fishing operations are a problem for all albatross species.

Black-browed Albatross

The black-browed albatross is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It is circumpolar in the southern oceans ranging from 20°S to 70°S. It breeds on 12 islands throughout its range; 600-700 pairs nest on Heard Island (Meyer et al. 2000). Its occurrence has been reported within the survey area (Hindell et al. 2011), as well as to the north and west of the proposed study area during summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). Increased longline fishing in the southern oceans, especially around the Patagonian Shelf and South Georgia, has been attributed as a major cause of population decline. The black-browed albatross is the most common bird killed by fisheries in some areas. The black- browed albatross feeds on fish, squid, crustaceans, carrion, and fishery discards.

Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross

The Indian yellow-nosed albatross is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It breeds on Kerguelen Island, Prince Edward Islands, Crozet Islands, Amsterdam Island, and St. Paul Islands in the Indian Ocean. At sea it ranges from 30°S to 50°S, from South Africa to the Pacific Ocean. Declines in numbers at nesting colonies in the last seventy years have been caused by interactions with longline fisheries and the outbreak of introduced disease.

Grey-headed Albatross

The grey-headed albatross is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. It has a circumpolar distribution and nests on isolated islands in the Southern Ocean and feeds at high latitudes. Fishing pressures are thought to be the main reason for population declines at South Georgia, where around half the world’s population occurs, and at other breeding sites. The Kerguelen Islands supported 7905 nesting pairs during a 2004 survey. At sea, the grey-headed albatross feeds pelagically in the open ocean rather than over the shelf. It feeds predominantly on squid, but fish, crustacea, carrion, and cephalopods are also taken.

Sooty Albatross

Sooty albatross is vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It ranges across the southern oceans from South America to Australia. It breeds on subantarctic islands and forages north to about 30°S. The world population may be as low as 12,500 to 19,000 pairs. Fewer than five pairs nest on Kerguelen Island. It does not breed at HIMI (Commonwealth of Australia 2014) but has been seen north and west of the proposed study area during surveys in summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). This species is not as affected by longline fisheries as other albatrosses, but is threatened by domestic cats eating eggs and chicks on Amsterdam Island and the Kerguelen Islands. Avian cholera, pasteurellosis, and erysipelas are also major threats. Its diet consists of squid, crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, and carrion.

A-7

Southern Giant Petrel

The southern giant petrel is list as endangered under the EPBC Act. It is widespread throughout the Southern Ocean. It has a world population of ~31,300 annual breeding pairs after a population reduction of at least 20% over the last 60 years. In 2005, there were 2500 pairs nesting on HIMI. It has been seen north and west of the proposed study area during surveys in summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). This petrel feeds on fish, krill, squid, offal, and waste from vessels in coastal and pelagic waters, where it often follows fishing boats and cruise ships. Unlike most other Procellariiformes, it will also eat carrion.

Northern Giant Petrel

The northern giant petrel is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC. Its distribution overlaps with that of the southern giant petrel. It is a visitor to the Kerguelen Plateau and is not known to breed at HIMI (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). It has been seen north and west of the proposed study area during surveys in summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). The northern giant petrel feeds mainly on fish, krill, cephalopods, and carrion. It follows fishing boats and cruise ships, eating discarded fish and waste. Northern giant petrels are aggressive and will kill other seabirds. They forage in similar locations to southern giant petrels, but at different times due to the earlier breeding season of northern giant petrels. It is thought this temporal segregation in habitat-use reduces interspecific competition, while sexual segregation, because females make more pelagic trips than males, reduces intraspecific competition.

White-bellied Storm Petrel

The white-bellied storm petrel is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It has a widespread range throughout the Southern Hemisphere including the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans. The white- bellied storm petrel (Tasman Sea) is currently recognized as a subspecies. It breeds within the Lord Howe Island group as well as in the Kermadec Islands. The global population size of this subspecies is estimated to be 2500 breeding birds. The potential threat to the white-bellied storm petrel nesting in the Tasman Sea is the accidental introduction of terrestrial predators, specifically rats or cats, to the offshore islets and rocks on which it breeds. Its pelagic distribution is not well known, but there are records to the north and east of its breeding islands to the tropics.

Soft-plumaged Petrel

The soft-plumage petrel is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It breeds on islands in the Southern Hemisphere, nesting on Tristan da Cunha, Gough Island, Prince Edward Islands, Crozet Islands, Macquarie Island, and on the Antipodes Islands. Small numbers breed in the Maatsuyker Island Group of southern Tasmania. A few hundred also nest on the Kerguelen Islands, but no nesting occurs on HIMI (Commonwealth of Australia 2014). It has been seen north and west of the proposed study area during surveys in summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). The food of the soft- plumaged petrel mainly consists of cephalopods, as well as some fish and crustaceans, which are caught by surface-seizing. Populations numbers are uncertain, but cats are a contributing factor to a

A-8

decline on Kerguelen Island. On Marion Island, it is estimated that cats killed 38,000 birds out of a population of more than 400,000.

Blue Petrel

The blue petrel is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act as a colony of 500–600 breeding pairs near Macquarie Island is being reduced by introduced cats and rat. The blue petrel has a large range, and the world population consists of 3,000,000 adult birds. It inhabits the southern oceans ranging as far north as South Africa, Australia, and South America. It mostly breeds in a latitudinal band from 47° to 56°S on either side of the Antarctic Polar Front. Nesting occurs on subantarctic islands, such as Marion Island, Crozet Islands, Kerguelen Islands, Macquarie Island, South Georgia, and Prince Edward Island. The Kerguelen Islands support 100,000–200,000 nesting pairs. It is known to breed at HIMI (Commonwealth of Australia 2014), but has been seen north and west of the proposed study area during surveys in summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). The blue petrel feeds predominantly on krill, as well as other crustaceans, fish, and squid.

Heard Island Cormorant

The Heard Island cormorant is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act because the population is small (1100 pairs), localised, and subject to fluctuations in breeding success due to weather conditions and food availability. It is endemic to Heard Island, and 250 to 600 nesting pairs have been reported there (Meyer et al. 2000). It has been seen north of the proposed study area during surveys in summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). It forages inshore in coastal shallows and hunts by pursuit diving to a depth of up to 60 m, but usually to depths of less than 5 m.

Antarctic Tern

The Antarctic tern is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It ranges throughout the southern oceans and has a total global population of ~140,000 individuals. The Indian Ocean subspecies S. v. vittata consists of ~2265 pairs, including ~2000 pairs on the Kerguelen Islands and 100–200 pairs on Heard Island. The population appears to be stable, and there are no known threats at this time. During ANARE and observations from resupply vessels in the southern Indian Ocean during 1981– 1990, Antarctic terns were seen south of the study area (Hodges and Wohler 1990). It has also been seen north of the proposed study area during surveys in summer 2004 (Hyrenbach 2007). Like other terns, it feeds by dropping from the air to the surface of the water.

Marine Fishes

Southern Bluefin Tuna

Southern bluefin tuna is an epipelagic species that is distributed throughout cold temperate waters in temperatures between 5 and 20°C (FAO 2019). Although it is mostly found between 30 and 40°S (Robins et al. 1998 in Pogonoski et al. 2002), it can also occur south of 50°S (Farley and Davis 1998). According to Fishbase (2019a), its distributional range includes the waters of the study area. This

A-9

species is highly migratory, with movements between temperate feeding grounds off Australia and tropical spawning grounds in the northeast Indian Ocean (FRDC 2016). Southern bluefin tuna are commercially important to Australia and Japan and market prices can reach up to US $10,000 per fish in Tokyo auctions (FAO 2019). Although the population was declining, the FRDC (2016) considers it a recovering stock.

Southern Dogfish

The Southern dogfish is considered to be endemic to waters off southern Australia (White et al. 2008) and it is being considered for listing as threatened under the EPBC Act (Wilson et al. 2008). It was previously thought to be Centrophorus uyato (White et al. 2008; Wilson et al. 2008). Although neither White et al. (2008) nor Wilson et al. (2008) included waters around Heard Island as potential habitat for this species, the distributional range provided by Fishbase (2019b) shows its occurrence on the northern Kerguelen Plateau. The Southern dogfish occurs on the upper slope at depths of 200–650 m (Wilson et al. 2008). This species is slow-growing, matures late, and has low fecundity; females mature between 23–28 years and males between 9–34 years (Wilson et al. 2008). The Southern dogfish has undergone severe reductions in numbers throughout its restricted range (Wilson et al. 2008).

Literature Cited

Acevedo, J., A. Aguayo-Lobo, A. González, D. Haro, C. Olave, F. Quezada, F. Martínez, S. Garthe, and B. Cáceres. 2017. Short Note: Occurrence of sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) in the Magellan Strait from 2004-2015, Chile. Aquat. Mamm. 43(1):63-72. Aguilar A. and R. García-Vernet. 2018. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus. p. 368-371 In: B. Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen, and K.M. Kovacs (eds.) Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 3rd Edition. Academic Press/Elsevier, San Diego, CA. 1157 p. Attard, C.R.M., L.B. Beheregaray, C. Jenner, P. Gill, M. Jenner, M. Morrice, J. Bannister, R. LeDuc, and L. Möller. 2010. Genetic diversity and structure of blue whales (Balaneoptera musculus) in Australian feeding aggregations. Conserv. Genet. 11(6):2437-2441. Attard, C.R., L.B. Beheregaray, K.C.S. Jenner, P.C. Gill, M.N. Jenner, M.G. Morrice, K.M. Robertson, and L.M. Möller. 2012. Hybridization of Southern Hemisphere blue whale subspecies and a sympatric area off Antarctica: impacts of whaling or climate change? Mol. Ecol. 21(23):5715-5727. Bailleul, F., J.B. Charrassin, P. Monestiez, F. Roquet, M. Biuw, and C. Guinet. 2007. Successful foraging zones of southern elephant seals from the Kerguelen Islands in relation to oceanographic conditions. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Bio. Sci. 362 (1487):2169-2181. Baker, C.S., L. Flórez-González, B. Abernethy, H.C. Rosenbaum, R.W. Slade, J. Capella, and J.L. Bannister. 1998. Mitochondrial DNA variation and maternal gene flow among humpback whales of the Southern Hemisphere. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 14(4):721-737. Bannister, J. 2001. Status of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) off Australia. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. Spec. Iss. 2:103-110. Bannister, J.L., C.M. Kemper, and R.M. Warneke. 1996. The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans. Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Wildlife Australia. 242 p.

A-10

Bannister, J.L., L.A. Pastene, and S.R. Burnell. 1999. First records of southern right whales movement between warm water breeding grounds and the Antarctic Ocean, south of 60°S. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15(4):1337-1342. Bannister, J.L., S. Burnell, C. Burton, and H. Kato. 1997. Right whales off Southern Australia: Direct evidence for a link between onshore breeding grounds and offshore probable feeding grounds. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 47:441-444. Bettridge, S., C.S. Baker, J. Barlow, P.J. Clapham, M. Ford, D. Gouveia, D.K. Mattila, R.M. Pace III, P.E. Rosel, G.K. Silber, and P.R. Wade. 2015. Status review of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-540. Nat. Mar. Fish. Service, Southwest Fish. Sci. Center, La Jolla, CA. 240 p. BirdLife Internationa. 2019. Species search. Accessed in September 2019 at http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/search. Bost, C.A., C. Cotté, F. Bailleul, Y. Cherel, J.B. Charrassin, C. Guinet, D.G. Ainley, H. and Weimerskirch. 2009. The importance of oceanographic fronts to marine birds and mammals of the southern oceans. J. Mar. Sys. 78(3):363-376. Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster, and D. Palka. 1994. Relative abundance and behavior of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96(4): 2469-2484. Branch, T.A. 2007. Abundance of Antarctic blue whales south of 60°S from three complete circumpolar sets of surveys. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 9:253-262. Branch, T.A., K.M. Stafford, D.M. Palacios, C. Allison, J.L. Bannister, C.L.K. Burton, E. Cabrera, C.A. Carlson, B. Galletti Vernazzani, P.C. Gill, R. Hucke-Gaete, K.C.S. Jenner, M.-N.M. Jenner, K. Matsuoka, Y.A. Mikhalev, T. Miyashita, M.G. Morrice, S. Nishiwaki, V.J. Sturrock, D. Tormosov, R.C. Anderson, A.N. Baker, P.B. Best, P. Borsa, R.L. Brownell Jr, S. Childerhouse, K.P. Findlay, T. Gerrodette, A.D. Ilangakoon, M. Joergensen, B. Kahn, D.K. Ljungblad, B. Maughan, R.D. Mccauley, S. Mckay, T.F. Norris, Oman Whale and Dolphin Research Group, S. Rankin, F. Samaran, D. Thiele, K. Van Waerebeek, and R.M. Warneke. 2007a. Past and present distribution, densities, and movements of blue whales Balaenoptera musculus in the Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian Ocean. Mamm. Rev. 37(2):116-175. Branch, T.A., E. Abubaker, S. Mkango, and D. Butterworth. 2007b. Separating southern blue whale subspecies based on length frequencies of sexually mature females. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 23(4):803-833. Cherel, Y. and G. Duhamel. 2004. Antarctic jaws: cephalopod prey of sharks in Kerguelen waters. Deep Sea Res. Part I. 51:17-31. Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White, and R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effect of seismic energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 144. Calgary, AB, Canada. Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, and R.A. Buchanan. 2004. Chronic effects of seismic energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 158, Calgary, AB, Canada. Clapham, P.J. 2018. Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. p. 489-492 In: B. Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen, and K.M. Kovacs (eds.) Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 3rd ed. Academic Press/Elsevier, San Diego, CA. 1157 p. Commonwealth of Australia. 2004. Biology, threats and conservation status of the sub-antarctic fur seal and southern elephant seal in Australian waters. Department of Environment and

A-11

Heritage. Accessed in September 2019 at http://environment.gov.au/system/files/ resources/da3e1725-2cba-4ea9-a3eb-16cf0c07bc42/files/seals-background_1.pdf Commonwealth of Australia. 2012. Conservation Management Plan for the Southern Right Whale. A Recovery Plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 2011-2021. Canberra, ACT, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/conservation- management-plan-southern-right-whale-recovery-plan-under-environment. Commonwealth of Australia. 2014. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan 2014-2024. Department of the Environment, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia. 2015. Conservation management plan for the blue whale. A recovery plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 2015–2025. Department of the Environment. 68 p. Commonwealth of Australia. 2019a. Eubalaena australis – Southern right whale. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/ publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=40. Commonwealth of Australia. 2019b. Arctocephalus tropicalis – Subantarctic Fur Seal. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/ publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25909. Commonwealth of Australia. 2019c. Mirounga leonina – Southern Elephant Seal. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/ publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=26 Commonwealth of Australia. 2019d. EPBC Act list of threatened fauna. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl? wanted=fauna#mammals_critically _endangered. Dambach, J., S. Thatje, D. Rödder, Z. Basher, and M.J. Raupach. 2011. Effects of late-cenozoic glaciation on habitat availability in Antarctic benthic shrimp (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea). PLoS ONE 7(9):e46283. de Boer, M.N. 2000. Observations on occurrence and distribution of cetaceans in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and Southern part of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. Paper SC/52/O9 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. 10 p. de Boer, M.N., R. Baldwin, C.L.K. Burton, E.L. Eyre, K.C.S. Jenner, M-N.M. Jenner, S.G. Keith, K.A. McCabe, E.C.M. Parsons, V.M. Peddemors, H.C. Rosenbaum, P. Rudolph, and M.P. Simmonds (eds). 2003. Cetaceans in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary: a review. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Science Report. Wiltshire, UK. 52 p. Diaz, A., J.-P. Féral, B. David, T. Saucède, and E. Poulin. 2011. Evolutionary pathways among shallow and deep-sea echinoids of the genus Sterechinus in the Southern Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part II. 58:205-211. Diez, M.J. and G.A. Lovrich. 2010. Reproductive biology of the crab Halicarcinus planatus (Brachyura, Hymenosomatidae) in sub-Antarctic waters. Polar Bio. 33:389-401. Edwards, E.F., C. Hall, T.J. Moore, C. Sheredy, and J.V. Redfern. 2015. Global distribution of fin whales Balaenoptera physalus in the post-whaling era (1980–2012). Mamm. Rev. 45(4):197-214. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2019. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Thunnus mccoyii Species Fact Sheet. Accessed September 2019 at http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/3298/en.

A-12

Farley, J.H. and T.L.O. Davis. 1998. Reproductive dynamics of southern bluefin tuna, Thunnus maccoyii. Fish. Bull. 96:223-236. Féral, J.-P., E. Poulin, C.A. González-Weaver, N. Améziane, C. Guillaumot, E. Develay, and T. Saucéde. 2019. Long-term monitoring of coastal benthic habitats in the Kerguelen Islands: a legacy of decades of marine biology research. p. 383-402 In: Welsford, D., J. Dell, and G. Duhamel (eds). The Kerguelen Plateau: Marine ecosystem and fisheries. Proceedings of the Second Symposium. Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia. Fishbase. 2019a. Thunnus maccoyii Southern bluefin tuna. Accessed on 5 September 2019 at https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Thunnus-maccoyii.html Fishbase. 2019b. Centrophorus zeehaani Southern dogfish. Accessed on 5 September 2019 at http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Centrophorus-zeehaani.html FRDC (Fisheries Research & Development Corporation). 2016. Southern Bluefin Tuna (2018). https://www.fish.gov.au/report/251-Southern-Bluefin-Tuna-2018. Gambell, R. 1985a. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 1758). p. 171-192 In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.) Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 3: The Sirenians and baleen whales. Academic Press, London, U.K. 362 p. Gambell, R. 1985b. Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Lesson, 1828. p. 155-170 In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.) Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 3: The sirenians and baleen whales. Academic Press, London, U.K. 362 p. Garrigue, C., A. Aguayo, V.L.U. Amante-Helweg, C.S. Baker, S. Caballero, P. Clapham, R. Constantine, J. Denkinger, M. Donoghue, L. Flórez-González, J. Greaves, N. Hauser, C. Olavarría, C. Pairoa, H. Peckham, and M. Poole. 2002. Movements of humpback whales in Oceania, South Pacific. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 4(3):255-260. Gedamke, J. and S.M. Robinson. 2010. Acoustic survey for marine mammal occurrence and distribution off East Antarctica (30-80°E) in January-February 2006. Deep Sea Res. Part II 57:968-981. Gedamke, J., N. Gales, J. Hildebrand, and S. Wiggins. 2007. Seasonal occurrence of low frequency whale vocalisations across eastern Antarctic and southern Australian waters, February 2004 to February 2007. Paper SC/59/SH15 presented to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission. Goldsworthy, S.D. and P.D. Shaughnessy. 1989. Subantarctic fur seals Arctocephalus tropicalis at Heard Island. Polar Bio. 9:337-339. Goldsworthy, S.D. and P.D. Shaughnessy. 1995. Sub-Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis. p. 683-684 In: R. Strahan (ed.) The Mammals of Australia, 2nd ed. Reed, Chatswood. Gorton, R. 2011. Cetacean Sightings Survey and Southern Ocean cetacean program. Data downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/103150150) on 2019- 09-12. Hill, N.A., S.D. Foster, G. Duhamel, D. Welsford, P. Koubbi, and C.R. Johnson. 2017. Model-based mapping of assemblages for ecology and conservation management: A case study of demersal fish on the Kerguelen Plateau. Bio. Res. 23:1216-1230. Hindell, M.A., M.A. Lea, C.A. Bost, J.B. Charrassin, N. Gales, S. Goldsworthy, B. Page, G. Robertson, B. Wienecke, M. O’Toole, and C. Guinet. 2011. Foraging habitats of top predators, and areas of ecological significance, on the Kerguelen Plateau. The Kerguelen Plateau 2011:203-215. Hofmeyr, G.J.G., M.N. Bester, and F.C. Jonker. 1997. Changes in population size and distribution of fur seals at Marion Island. Polar Biol. 17(2):150-158.

A-13

Horwood, J. 2009. Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis. p. 1001-1003 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.) Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1316 p. Horwood, J. 2018. Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis. p. 845-848 In: B. Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen, and K.M. Kovacs (eds.) Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 3rd ed. Academic Press/Elsevier, San Diego, CA. 1157 p. Hyrenbach, D. 2007. SIO Marine Bird and Mammal Survey 2004. Data downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/227) on 2019-09-03. IUCN (The World Conservation Union). 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.iucnredlist.org/. IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2001. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of right whales: A worldwide comparison. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. (Spec. Iss.) 2:1- 60. IWC. 2007. Annex H: Report of the Sub-Committee on other Southern Hemisphere whale stocks. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. Suppl. 9:188-209. Jackson, J.A., D.J. Steel, P. Beerli, B.C. Congdon, C. Olavarría, M.S. Leslie, C. Pomilla, H. Rosenbaum, and C.S. Baker. 2014. Global diversity and oceanic divergence of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Proc. R. Soc. B 281:20133222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/ rspb.2013.3222. Jefferson, T.A., M.A. Webber, and R.L. Pitman. 2015. Marine mammals of the world: a comprehensive guide to their identification, 2nd ed. Academic Press, London, UK. 608 p. Kasamatsu, F., G.G. Joyce, P. Ensor, and J. Mermoz. 1990. Current occurrence of cetacea in the southern hemisphere; results from the IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere minke whale assessment cruises, 1978/79-1987/88. Paper SC/42/0 15 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, June 1990. Kasuya, T. and S. Wada. 1991. Distribution of large cetaceans in the Indian Ocean: data from Japanese sighting records, November–March. p. 139-170 In: S. Leatherwood and G.P. Donovan (eds.) Cetaceans and cetacean research in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. Mar. Mamm. Tech. Rep. No. 3. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 287 p. Kato, H., T. Miyashita, and H. Shimada. 1995. Segregation of the two sub-species of the blue whale in the Southern Hemisphere. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 45:273-283. McMahon, C.R., M.N. Bester, H.R. Burton, M.A. Hindell, and C.J.A. Bradshaw. 2005. Population status, trends and a reexamination of the hypotheses explaining the recent declines of the southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina. Mamm. Rev. 35(1):82-100. Meyer, L., A. Constable, and R. Williams. 2000. Conservation of marine habitats in the region of Heard Island and McDonald Islands. Kingston, Tas., Australian Antarctic Division. Nowacek, D.P., K. Bröker, G. Donovan, G. Gailey, R. Racca, R.R. Reeves, A.I. Vedenev, D.W. Weller, and B.L. Southall. 2013. Responsible practices for minimizing and monitoring environmental impacts of marine seismic surveys with an emphasis on marine mammals. Aquatic Mamm. 39(4):356-377. O’Toole, M., M.A. Hindell, J.B. Charrassin, and C. Guinet. 2014. Foraging behaviour of southern elephant seals over the Kerguelen Plateau. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 502:281-294. Patterson, H. and K. Mazur. 2018. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery. Chapter 25 In: Fishery status reports 2018. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Commonwealth

A-14

of Australia. Accessed in September 2019 at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/ research-topics/fisheries/fishery-status/heard-mcdonald-islands-fishery Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber. 1999a. The great whales: history and status of six species listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Mar. Fish. Rev. 61(1):7-23. Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber. 1999b. The fin whale. Mar. Fish. Rev. 61(1):44-51. Pogonoski, J.J., D.A. Pollard, and J.R. Paxton. 2002. Conservation overview and action plan for Australia threatened and potentially threatened marine and estuarine fishes. Environment Australia, Commonwealth of Australia. Raymond, B. 2011. National Whale and Dolphin Sightings and Strandings Database. Data downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/103150567) on 2019- 09-12. Robins, C., T. Polacheck, and A. Caton. 1998. Southern bluefin tuna fishery. P. 99-106 In: A. Caton, K. McLoughlin, and D. Staples (eds.) Fishery Status Reports 1998: Resource Assessments of Australian Commonwealth Fisheries. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. 175 p. Roquet, F., Y.H. Park, C. Guinet, F. Bailleul, and J.B. Charrassin. 2009. Observations of the Fawn Trough Current over the Kerguelen Plateau from instrumented elephant seals. J. Mar. Syst. 78(3):377-393. Rosa, R., V.M. Lopes, M. Guerreiro, K. Bolstad, and J.C. Xavier. 2017. Biology and ecology of the world’s largest invertebrate, the colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni): a short review. Polar Bio. 40(9):1871-1883. Rosenbaum, H.C., C. Pomilla, M. Mendez, M.S. Leslie, P.B. Best, K.P. Findlay, G. Minton, P.J. Ersts, T. Collins, M.H. Engel, S.L. Bonatto, D.P.G.H. Kotze, M. Meÿer, J. Barendse, M. Thornton, Y. Razafindrakoto, S. Ngouessono, M. Vely, and J. Kiszka. 2009. Population structure of humpback whales from their breeding grounds in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans. PLoS ONE 4(10):e7318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007318. Rudolph, P. and C. Smeenk. 2009. Indo-West Pacific marine mammals. p. 608-616 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.) Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1316 p. Samaran, F., O. Adam, and C. Guinet. 2010. Discovery of a mid-latitude sympatric area for two Southern Hemisphere blue whale subspecies. Endang. Spec. Res. 12(2):157-165. Samaran, F., K.M. Stafford, T.A. Branch, J. Gedamke, J.-Y. Royer, R.P. Dziak, and C. Guinet. 2013. Seasonal and geographic variation of southern blue whale subspecies in the Indian Ocean. PLoS ONE 8:e71561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071561. Schmitt, N.T., M.C. Double, S.N. Jarman, N. Gales, J.R. Marthick, A.M. Polanowski, C. Scott Baker, D. Steel, K.C.S. Jenner, M.-N.M. Jenner, R. Gales, D. Paton, and R. Peakall. 2014. Low levels of genetic differentiation characterize Australian humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) populations. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 30:221-241. Sears, R. and W.F. Perrin. 2009. Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus. p. 120-124 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.) Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1316 p. Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of fin whales Balaenoptera physalus L. in the North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 27:460-473. Shaughnessy, P.D. 1999. The action plan for Australian seals. Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia. 116 p.

A-15

Širović, A., J.A. Hildebrand, S.M. Wiggins, and D. Thiele. 2009. Blue and fin whale acoustic presence around Antarctica during 2003 and 2004. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 25(1):125-36. Slip, D.J. 1995. The diet of southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) from Heard Island. Can. J. Zoo. 73:1519-1528. Slip, D. 1997. Foraging ecology of southern elephant seals from Heard Island. Department of Zoology. University of Tasmania, Hobart. Slip, D.J., M.A. Hindell, and H.R. Burton. 1994. Diving behaviour of southern elephant seals from Macquarie Island: an overview. p. 253-270 In: B.J. Le Bouf and R.M. Laws (eds.) Elephant seals: population ecology, behaviour and physiology. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 414 p. Stafford, K.M., E. Chapp, D.R. Bohnenstiehl, and M. Tolstoy. 2011. Seasonal detection of three types of “pygmy” blue whale calls in the Indian Ocean. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 27(4):828-840. Thatje, S., K. Anger, J.A. Calagno, G.A. Lovrich, H.-O. Portner, and W.E. Arntz. 2005. Challenging the cold: crabs reconquer the Antarctic. Ecology. 86(3):619-625. Thatje, S., S. Hall, C. Hauton, C. Held, and P. Tyler. 2008. Encounter of lithodid crab Paralomis birsteini on the continental slope off Antarctica, sampled by ROV. Polar Bio. 31:1143-1148. Thiele, D., E.T. Cheste, and P.C. Gill. 2000. Cetacean distribution off Eastern Antarctica (80–150°E) during the Austral summer of 1995/1996. Deep Sea Res. Part II 29:47(12-13):2543-72. Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of American whaleships. Zoologica 19:1-50. TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee). 2018. Guidelines for assessing the conservation status of native species according to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. 7 p. Tynan, C. 1996. Characterisation of Oceanographic habitat of cetaceans in the southern Indian Ocean between 82°-115°E: cruise report from World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) 18S and 19S. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-64 , US Dep. Commer. 53 p. White, W.T., D.A. Ebert, and L. JV Compagno. 2008. Description of two new species of gulper sharks, genus Centrophorus (Chondrichthyes: Squaliformes: Centrophoridae) from Australia. Descriptions of New Australian Chondrichthyans. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper 22, no. 358. 21 p. Wilson, D.T., H.M. Patterson, R. Summerson, and P.I. Hobsbawn. 2008. Information to support management options for upper-slope gulper sharks (including Harrison’s dogfish and southern dogfish). Final Report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Project No. 2008/065. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Woinarski, J., A. Burbidge, and P. Harrison. 2014. The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012. CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, Australia. Wray, P. and K.R. Martin. 1983. Historical whaling records from the western Indian Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Spec. Iss.) 5:218-42. Zerbini, A.N., A. Andriolo, M.-P. Heide-Jørgensen, S.C. Moreira, J.L. Pizzorno, Y.G. Maia, G.R. VanBlaricom, and D.P. DeMaster. 2011. Migration and summer destinations of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western South Atlantic Ocean. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. (Spec. Iss.) 3:113-118.

A-16