Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Referral of proposed action

Proposed Enterprise Three-dimensional Transition Zone Seismic Survey action title: (3DTZSS)

1 Summary of proposed action

1.1 Short description

Origin Energy Resources Limited (Origin) operates the Otway Gas Project in the Otway Basin of southwestern Victoria. The Otway Gas project consists of the Otway Gas Plant, near Port Campbell, and offshore wells which supply gas to the plant through a series of pipelines. A fundamental component of operation of the Otway Gas Project is exploration for offshore gas reserves. Exploration underpins ongoing delivery of domestic gas supply via the Otway Gas Plant.

As part of the exploration program for the Otway Gas Project, Origin is proposing to undertake an offshore transition zone seismic survey during. The survey, the Enterprise three-dimensional (3D) Transition Zone Seismic Survey (Enterprise 3DTZSS, herein referred to as the ‘survey’), is designed to map geological formations within the offshore exploration permit Vic/P42(V). To enable mapping of the offshore permit seismic activities must also be undertaken in adjacent on-shore areas. These on-shore areas are Petroleum Exploration Permit (PEP) 168, PEP169 and Petroleum Production Licence (PPL) 8.

The fold coverage area for the survey (the ‘acquisition area’) will cover an offshore area of up to approximately 80 square kilometres (km2) in water depths ranging from approximately 2 metres (m) to 40 m. The onshore survey will take place alongside approximately 50 linear kilometres of existing roads and tracks. No private properties or waterways will be accessed for the onshore survey (Figure 1a and Figure 1b).

1.2 Latitude and longitude

The geographic coordinates of the boundary of the Enterprise 3DTZSS survey area are presented in Table 1 below. Table 1. Geographic coordinates of the boundary of the Enterprise 3DTZSS area

Point Latitude Longitude Location note 1 38° 34’ 30.6” S 142° 50’ 31.6” E Top left hand corner 2 38° 36’ 50.9” S 142° 49’ 19.2” E Bottom left hand corner 3 38° 37’ 37.5” S 142° 50’ 44.9” E 4 38° 39’ 23.3” S 142° 57’ 57.1” E 5 38° 39’ 55.0” S 142° 58’ 46.2” E 6 38° 41’ 06.5” S 143° 01’ 22.1” E Bottom right hand corner 7 38° 37’ 31.1” S 143° 03’ 37.8” E Top right hand corner 8 38° 36’ 43.0” S 143° 02’ 15.7” E Rounds Road 9 38° 36’ 22.8” S 143° 00’ 00.5” E Port Campbell Road 10 38° 36’ 23.5” S 142° 58’ 52.4” E Curdievale-Port Campbell Road 11 38° 36’ 15.7” S 142° 57’ 15.4” E Sharps Road 12 38° 35’ 47.0” S 142° 54’ 11.5” E Timboon-Peterborough Road 13 38° 34’ 41.9” S 142° 51’ 19.8” E Old Peterborough Road GDA94, MGA 54

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 1 of 102

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Figure 1a. Enterprise 3DTZSS location map

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 2 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Figure 1b. Detail of roads included in the Enterprise 3DTZSS area

1.3 Locality and property description

The area defined as the onshore ‘survey area’ covers approximately 50 linear kilometres and is located entirely within public roadside reserves and tracks in Peterborough and Port Campbell (in southwest Victoria (see Figure 1b). Offshore, the survey area covers 80 km2 in water depths ranging from approximately 2 m to 40 m and will take place entirely within Victorian state waters. The nearest landfall to the offshore survey area is approximately 200 m, with the nearest survey lines being 900 m from the town of Port Campbell and 850 m from the town of Peterborough.

1.4 Size of the development footprint or work The offshore survey area is 7,390 ha and the onshore area (hectares) survey area is 3,767 ha, for a combined total of 11,157 ha.

1.5 Street address of the site The location of the survey stretches from just west of Peterborough, Victoria, to just east of Port Campbell, Victoria. See Figure 1a for the location.

1.6 Lot description

Not applicable. No private property will be accessed. Onshore, the survey will be restricted to road reserves.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 3 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known)

The proposed survey area west of the Curdies Inlet is located within the Moyne Shire, while the area to the east of the Curdies Inlet is located within the Corangamite Shire. The proposal is not subject to local government planning approvals.

1.8 Time frame

The survey is scheduled to take place over approximately four to five weeks (28-35 days) during the period 1st November to 31st March in permit year 2016/17 or 2017/18. Exact timing is contingent on receipt of environmental approvals, confirmation of contractor resources and fair sea state conditions suitable for marine seismic acquisition.

1.9 Alternatives to proposed action

There are no alternative locations that will meet Origin’s regulatory obligations relating to the exploration permits. The objective of the Enterprise 3DTZSS is to image potential gas resources that, if developed, will assist in securing continued gas supplies for Origin’s Otway Gas Plant.

As part of the survey Origin proposes to place seismic receivers within the Port Campbell National Park (PCNP), along the grassy verges of existing access tracks. No vegetation clearing is proposed, and no seismic source will be used within the PCNP. No access into the Bay of Islands Coastal Park (BICP - located to the west of Curdies Inlet) will be necessary for the survey. In the event that government approval to undertake surveying along the nominated access tracks within the PCNP is not provided under the National Parks Act 1975, Origin proposes to deploy nodes within existing cleared areas within the Port Campbell Rifle Range. Data obtained in this manner will be of lower quality than that obtained by gaining access to the PCNP due to the larger geographic range encompassed by placement of nodes adjacent to tracks within the PCNP. As such, access to tracks within the PCNP is strongly preferred.

There are no reasonable exploration technology alternatives that will meet Origin’s technical and commercial objectives for the survey, or obligations to the State of Victoria, to acquire this data. The Enterprise 3DTZSS has been designed to bridge a data gap between the Enterprise 3D marine seismic survey (undertaken during 2014) and the coastline, providing fold coverage into the nearshore area of the Origin VIC/P42(V) permit. The structural regime in this area is very complex, making 2D data inadequate when trying to resolve the steep bedding dips and structural complexity.

The timing of the proposed survey is linked to environmental constraints for the offshore component of the survey, most notably the seasonal presence of pygmy blue whales, southern right whales and poor sea state. 1.10 Alternative time frames, locations or No. As per Section 1.9. activities

1.11 Commonwealth, State or Territory Yes. See Section 2.5. assessment

1.12 Component of larger action No. If the proposed action confirms the presence of gas resources, it may be followed by an exploration drilling campaign, likely using the same onshore to offshore extended drilling technology used for the Halldale Speculant project (EPBC 2011/5879). This will be subject to a separate EPBC Referral, if required.

1.13 Related actions/proposals No.

1.14 Australian Government funding No.

1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park No.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 4 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

2 Detailed description of proposed action 2.1 Description of proposed action

Purpose

The purpose of this survey is to map geological formations within the offshore exploration permit Vic/P42 (V). The data acquired will be used to map geological formations within the offshore exploration permit Vic/P42(V), and assess the potential of these formations to hold gas deposits.

Seismic surveying is a low-impact, widely used exploration method used to define and analyse subsurface geological structures in both terrestrial and marine environments. There are two main components to any seismic survey, 1) a source and 2) a receiver. In simple terms the source inputs sound energy into the earth and the receiver records the sound signal reflected back from rock layers (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Stylised illustration of the transition zone survey process

Onshore Survey

Source equipment To generate the energy required to image the subsurface, vehicles called vibroseis buggies are used. These vehicles will be used only along the Great Ocean Road (GOR). These buggies are fitted with a hydraulic piston and a base plate (Photo 1). The base plate is placed on the ground by the hydraulic piston, which then generates a range of frequencies into the ground through a vibration process. The vibration length and frequency range will be decided at the beginning of the survey following a range of vibe parameter sweep tests.

Once at the source point (located every 12.5 m along the survey line), the operator lowers the base plate and the recording truck is informed that it is ready at its position. As long as it is safe to do so, the recording truck then sends a radio signal to start the vibration. Each vibration will last between 8 to 24 seconds depending on the in- field testing and the frequency range selected to best image the subsurface target reflectors. Once the vibration is complete, the base plate will be raised and the vibroseis vehicle is then driven carefully to the next source point. There is minimal footprint left by this action.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 5 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Photo 1. Typical ‘Envirovible’ vibroseis vehicle

The type of vibroseis vehicle proposed for use on the Enterprise 3DTZSS is a mini-vibroseis vehicle (‘envirovibe’), of which several types are available on the market. This type of vibroseis vehicle is an articulated ‘buggy’ with the vibrating piston and hydraulic controls mounted in the centre.

Mini-vibroseis vehicles are considerably smaller, are more manoeuvrable and use ten times less fuel than a typical heavy seismic vehicle. Due to its size and weight, its footprint is similar to that of a large 4WD vehicle.

The survey will involve the use of up to 3 vibroseis vehicles that will operate as a fleet, positioned on the seismic line nose to tail. The vibroseis vehicles will be synchronised to acquire each source point simultaneously. Traffic control will be in place to ensure safe operations and to minimise safety risks to passing traffic. The vibroseis vehicles are expected to operate along a different section of the GOR each day to enable the data acquisition of up to 3 km offset from each marine receiver patch. This technique will require the vibroseis to operate for a period of approximately 2 to 4 hours each day for the duration of the survey.

Due to the operational complexities of coordinating both land and marine operations simultaneously, the hours of operation of the vibroseis vehicles are required to remain flexible and will typically take place during daylight hours, any may take extend for several hours into darkness if required. No survey source activities will take place within the residential zones of Peterborough and Port Campbell

Receiver equipment Receiver equipment will in the form of nodes, which consist of a single internal geophone sensor. The use of nodes will eliminate the requirement for a separate recorder vehicle to follow the vibroseis vehicles.

Nodes are devices typically about the size of a tin of fruit and are a cable-free way of acquiring seismic data (Photo 2). Each node’s geophone, electronic circuitry and battery are contained in high-impact rugged casing. They are light-weight devices capable of recording data for up to 65 days (12 hrs/day). The nodes are coupled to the soil via a short spike that is pushed into the soil, or where greater ground connectivity is required, they can be inserted completely into the soil so that the top of the node is flush with the soil surface. Nodes are required to be buried to an adequate depth to ensure good coupling with the soil and to minimise ambient noise.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 6 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Photo 2. Typical onshore receiver node

The nodes will be placed along each line from the back of a four-wheel drive deployment vehicle. They will be planted either by foot, if soil is friable enough, or by using a vehicle-mounted or hand auger in more compact soil, to ensure each node is buried to an adequate depth. A painted and numbered wooden peg will be placed next to the node, allowing for easy identification and retrieval following completion of the survey. The recording equipment is then activated and commences autonomously recording or transmitting to the central recorder unit. Due to the small size of the survey area, it is proposed that the nodes be left in the ground for the duration of the recording operations.

Following the physical placement of the node in the ground, a person with a hand held terminal sets up the node with coordinate information, its station number and a wake-up time if necessary. The nodes will be spaced at 12.5 m intervals along the GOR and at 25 m intervals along all other roads. The proposed approach will be to deploy the nodes along the road reserves identified in Table 2, where they will acquire the data generated by both the vibroseis vehicles working along the GOR and the marine seismic source. It is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 hours to deploy and retrieve nodes along each of the five tracks within the PCNP. The vibroseis vehicle acquires survey data by operating alongside (not over) the nodes (Photo 3).

Photo 3. Vibroseis vehicle working alongside nodes

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 7 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Survey roads and tracks Table 2 lists the roads and tracks to be surveyed, including their jurisdiction, road design, road shoulder and vegetation present along the road verge. The Moyne Shire is west of Curdies Inlet and Corangamite Shire is east and inclusive of Curdies Inlet.

Table 2. Roads and tracks to be traversed by the survey

Road Total Jurisdiction Road design Road shoulder Road verge vegetation (moving west to length* east) (km) Seismic source Great Ocean Rd 22.4 State Bitumen, two Gravel and Mostly pasture grass, some government lanes grass with native heathland (VicRoads) vegetation. Slashing only likely where pasture grass is tall and dense. Northern side preferred to avoid the PCNP. Receiver nodes only Macgillivray Rd 0.3 Moyne Shire Bitumen, two Unformed, Pasture grass. (short sections at lanes grass No slashing likely. southern and Either side of road suitable. northern ends) Old Peterborough 3.5 Moyne Shire Bitumen, two Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. Rd lanes grass No slashing likely. Either side of road suitable. Macs St 0.3 Moyne Shire Bitumen, single Unformed, Pasture grass. lane grass No slashing likely. Either side of road suitable. Halladale Rd 1.0 Moyne Shire Unsealed, Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. single lane, grass No slashing likely. residential on East side of road suitable to western side avoid residences. Schomberg Rd 0.6 Moyne Shire Bitumen, single Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. lane, grass No slashing likely. residential South side of road most suitable. Irvine Rd 0.4 Moyne Shire Bitumen, single Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. lane, gravel & grass No slashing likely. residential on East side of road most west side suitable. Timboon- 1.5 Corangamite Bitumen, two Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. Peterborough Rd Shire lanes grass Some slashing likely. West side of road most suitable. Wards Rd 0.4 Corangamite Unsealed, Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. Shire single lane grass Some slashing likely. Either side of road suitable. Cummings Rd 1.2 Corangamite Mostly an Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. (mostly unmade) Shire unformed grass Slashing likely. easement Jarvis Rd 1.6 Corangamite Unsealed, Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. Shire single lane gravel & grass No slashing likely. No slashing in areas of native vegetation north of Cummings Rd. Either side of road suitable.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 8 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Road Total Jurisdiction Road design Road shoulder Road verge vegetation (moving west to length* east) (km) Sharps Rd 1.4 Corangamite Unsealed, Unformed, Mixture of pasture grass and Shire single lane gravel heath species. Some slashing likely. Eastern side of road most suitable. McKenzies Rd 0.2 Corangamite Unsealed, Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. Shire single lane grass No slashing likely. Either side of road suitable. Gordons Rd 1.8 Corangamite Unsealed, Unformed, Mostly pasture grass along Shire single lane grass eastern half, shrubby along western half. Some slashing likely. North side of road most suitable to avoid the PCNP. Two Mile Bay West 0.5 ParksVic Unsealed, Unformed, Mostly grass. track (in the PCNP, single lane grass No slashing likely. west of the rifle (firebreak) Western side of road most range) suitable (firebreak). Two Mile Bay Rd (in 1.1 ParksVic Bitumen, single Unformed, Mostly grass. the PCNP, east of lane gravel & grass No slashing likely. the rifle range) Either side of road suitable. Curdievale–Port 1.7 Corangamite Bitumen, two Gravel & grass Mostly grass. Campbell Rd Shire lanes No slashing likely. Either side of road suitable. Cobden–Port 0.7 VicRoads Bitumen, two Gravel & grass Mostly pasture grass. Campbell Rd lanes Some slashing likely. Either side of road suitable. Cairns St 0.5 Corangamite Bitumen, two Gutter on Mostly grass. Shire lanes, south side, No slashing likely. residential nature strips North side of road most north side suitable. Unnamed road off 0.3 Corangamite Bitumen, two Gravel & grass Mostly pasture grass on Cairns St Shire lanes nature strips. No slashing likely. North side of road most suitable. Transfer Station Rd 0.3 Corangamite Unsealed, Grass Mostly pasture grass. Shire single lane No slashing likely. Either side of road suitable. Rounds Rd 3.8 Corangamite Unsealed, Grass Mostly pasture grass on Shire single lane north side, native grasses and shrubs on southern side. No slashing likely. North side of road (east- west section) most suitable to avoid the PCNP. West side of road (north- south section) most suitable. Sparks Gully track 0.5 ParksVic Unsealed, Uncertain Appears to have dense (in the PCNP) single lane heath vegetation. Some slashing may be likely.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 9 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Road Total Jurisdiction Road design Road shoulder Road verge vegetation (moving west to length* east) (km) Goudies track (in 0.9 ParksVic Unsealed, Unformed, Mostly pasture grass. the PCNP) single lane grass No slashing likely. West side of road most suitable. Bakers Oven track 0.4 ParksVic Unsealed, Uncertain Appears to have dense (in the PCNP) single lane heath vegetation. Some slashing may be likely. Sherbrooke Lodge 0.5 Corangamite Unsealed, Grass Mostly grass. Rd Shire single lane No slashing likely. North side of road most suitable to avoid the PCNP. Pasture grass on southern side (fire break) easier to access if outside of the PCNP. * Minor amendments to lengths of survey along each road may need to be made at the TOTAL 47.8 time of the survey to accommodate unforseen issues. Alternative location for receiver nodes if the PCNP cannot be accessed Port Campbell Rifle 0.6 The entire length of the rifle range is cleared of native vegetation for shooting target Range practice and is dominated by mowed pasture grass. The Otway Gas Pipeline easement (20 m wide) is located within the rifle range.

Table 3 briefly describes the ancillary activities associated with the onshore portion of the survey.

Table 3. Ancillary activities associated with the onshore portion of the survey

Ancillary Description service Roadside line Remnant woody vegetation will not be cleared to accommodate the survey lines – nodes will be preparation installed in areas already cleared of remnant vegetation (e.g., pasture grass-dominated road verges). In some instances where road verges have not been regularly maintained, grassy vegetation may need to be slashed (and therefore the root stock retained) to a maximum of 2 m in width from the edge of paved surface to allow the nodes to be laid as close to the soil surface as possible. The contractor will provide a tractor/slasher capable of slashing a maximum 2 m wide line along the road verge. The slashing unit will be followed at all times by a rapid response fire unit consisting of a 4WD vehicle equipped with a 400-litre water tank, high pressure pump, hoses and nozzle in order to extinguish any fires that may be ignited by the slashing activity. No access into the BICP (located to the west of Curdies Inlet) will be necessary. Access into the PCNP is proposed, but only along the roadside verges of existing tracks within the park. The placement of nodes will avoid any significant fauna habitat or vegetation communities and remnant vegetation will not be cleared. Vegetation slashing will not be undertaken within the PCNP. No fencing will be erected for the survey. Positional To achieve source and receiver accuracy for both the land and marine survey operations, an onshore surveying global positioning system (GPS) base station may need to be established within the survey area. This will be established in an area that does not require any vegetation clearing. Such a site is typically no more than a few square meters in size, and may be accommodated within a road reserve. No private land will be used to establish a survey base station. A surveyor uses a roving GPS unit, which receives corrections from a base station, to accurately locate pre-determined source and receiver positions. They are marked on the ground with either wooden pegs, biodegradable spray paint or a combination of both. The pre-determined positions are decided from desktop studies and designs based on satellite imagery, however conditions on the ground may dictate that the location of a source or receiver needs to be moved. The surveyors are able to move positions from their planned location if they encounter any environmentally or culturally significant sites or believe there will be safety concerns with the position. Survey layout After the positional survey is completed, spotting crews will place nodes out along the surveyed and marked locations on the survey lines. Layout crews will walk equipment in to receiver positions where required, minimising ground disturbance through non-essential vehicular access. Each layout crew is equipped with a handheld GPS or Tablet PC, configured with line access routes, hazards, exclusion

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 10 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

zones and receiver positions to enable efficient operations and precise planting of nodes. Laydown yard A laydown area for the survey contractor to load, unload and store vehicles and equipment will be required. The location for this is likely to be within Origin’s Otway Gas Plant site so as to avoid creating new ground disturbance. Workforce No temporary accommodation camp will be established for the project. It is expected that 60-70 accommodation personnel (including marine survey personnel) will work on the survey, and they will be accommodated within established commercial hotels and motels in Warrnambool.

Offshore Survey

The offshore component of the survey will involve the use of three shallow draft small to medium-sized vessels, expected to be up to 20 m in length (much smaller than conventional seismic vessels). This includes a seismic source vessel and receiver deployment vessel. No support vessels are proposed.

An acoustic source array is used with the source vessel transiting over the lines where the receivers have been installed on the seabed. The seismic data gathered during the survey are then processed and analysed to produce images of the seabed subsurface geology in the survey area.

Seismic operations and ancillary operations (e.g., undertaking marine observations, removal of entanglement hazards and scouting duties) will be restricted mainly to daylight hours, but may operate into approximately 4 hours of darkness where required.

The vessels will operate out of either the ports of Warrnambool, Port Fairy, Apollo Bay or Port Campbell, or a combination of these, and will be moored at one of these ports during night hours for the survey period. The survey not proceed when sea states exceed operational parameters (~4.5 m significant wave height).

Refuelling will only be undertaken at permanent refuelling facilities in port and wastes will be discharged at port facilities for onshore disposal. Vessels may be required to anchor. Accommodation for the vessel crews will be in Warrnambool.

Source equipment The marine seismic acoustic source will consist of an array of six generator-injector (GI) air guns of maximum volume of 150 cubic inches (cui), providing a total maximum array volume of 900 cui. The array will be towed with the centre approximately 9 m behind the source vessel at a depth range of 2 m ± 1m. Figure 3 illustrates the array layout and towing arrangement.

Figure 3. Towing diagram and gun array layout (plan view)

While the total maximum volume of the airgun array is 900 cui, the effective source volume is only 270 cui. The sound pressure levels generated by the array are equivalent to a 270 cui array as the additional 630 cui will be used for bubble stabilisation, which reduces the signal-to-noise of the source. This volume is significantly smaller than typical deep-water seismic surveys which normally have a volumetric capacity in the range of 2,500 – 4,000 cui. The airgun array will have an operating pressure of 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi). Airgun arrays are strategically arranged to direct most of the energy vertically downward rather than sideways.

Marine acoustic lines will be spaced at approximately 250m intervals across the survey area with acoustic pulses expected to be generated nominally every 25–50 m (or approximately 8-10 seconds). The distance and time

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 11 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

between pulses may be adjusted if this will result in improved data. The acoustic source will normally traverse the survey area on a west-north-west to east-southeast bearing. Other azimuths may be sailed to obtain full-fold over the acqusition area.

Receiver equipment Sound generated by the air guns will be recorded by receivers laid on the seabed and onshore terrestrial receivers. Marine receivers will consist of ocean bottom nodes (OBN) which will be laid onto the seabed at set intervals with acoustic transponders connected to tether lines. Nodal units (expected to be largest size signal collection units) measure 0.5 m (L) x 0.2 m (W) x 0.1 m (H) and weigh 11.3 kg (air) and 4.4 kg (water).

The receiver vessels are expected to be fitted with a customised semi-automated nodal handling and storage system with an estimated capacity of around 300 nodes, depending on the size of the vessel used. The nodes will be connected together with a strong polymer rope or similar at set intervals, plus a few meters of additional rope, which will allow for some undulation on the sea floor.

Nodes will not be laid directly over sensitive seabed features such as shipwrecks. Spot checks of bathymetry will be performed on deployment using a standard on-board echo-sounder (essentially a ‘fish finder’) to validate the accuracy of the admiralty charts and ensure that such seabed features can be avoided. Based on previous seismic surveys undertaken in the region, Origin notes that the admiralty charts are known to be very accurate.

Acoustic transponders will be connected to the tether line at the agreed intervals (likely to be 25–50 m) to confirm the position of equipment on the seabed, and allow for its location for retrieval in the unlikely event of equipment drift. A surface buoy or acoustic release buoy (preferred) will be connected at the end of each receiver line where possible. Acoustic release buoys eliminate the need for any surface buoys that can drag the receiver lines in big swell, reduce the visual impact of the survey and minimise navigational hazards to third-party vessels.

The receiver lines are expected to be spaced 250 m apart, with the nodal receivers spaced at 25–50 m along the receiver lines. Marine receiver lines will be laid in sections (i.e., seismic data obtained across a small section of survey area at any one time) which is expected to consist of up to 4-5 receiver lines at any one time (Figure 4). This equates to a 1 km width between 5 lines. The length of the receiver lines ranges from 2 km at the narrowest point to 5.5 km at the widest part of the survey area.

Working a segment at a time, a deployment vessel will deploy marine receiver equipment which will be lowered from the stern of the vessel and sink and settle on the seabed. This is expected to take approximately 2 to 4 hours per segment. A source vessel will then transit along the receiver lines to establish receiver positions and then along the seismic source lines creating the acoustic pulses that are recorded by the receivers on the seabed. Seismic acquisition across individual sections is expected to take 4 to 8 hours.

After all seismic has been acquired and the recording vessel has confirmed the data acquisition, the receiver vessel will retrieve the receiver equipment and move to the next section to repeat the process. Retrieval of the receiver lines is expected to take up to 2 to 4 hours. On this basis, receiver cables are expected to cover 5.5 km2 for a maximum period of 16 hours. This may vary with survey design and is indicative only.

The survey has been designed to minimise the impact on the environment, commercial businesses and recreational activities. Design measures include eliminating seismic streamers to record data and making the majority of the marine survey area accessible to third parties to conduct their normal activities during the survey.

Table 4 summarises the proposed survey design.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 12 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Figure 4. Example of daily offshore source and receiver patch progression

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 13 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Table 4. Summary of the Enterprise 3DTZSS design

Parameter Detail Earliest commencement date 1st November 2016 (or 2017) Latest end date 31st March 2017 (or 2018) Duration of survey Approximately 4-5 weeks Operating period Daytime hours, extending for up to 4 hours into darkness Survey exclusion period April to October (inclusive) Survey contractor Unknown at the time of writing. ONSHORE SURVEY Seismic source Type of vehicle Envirovibe Number of vehicles 3 Duration of activity 28-35 days Vibrator pad frequency range Every 12.5 m along the GOR Acquisition area 22.4 linear kilometres Receivers Receiver type Nodes (Zland) Receiver sensor type Internal geophone Receiver orientation Along (and parallel with) roadsides Receiver line length ~50 linear kilometres Receiver channels required ~2,000 (or as advised by contractor) Receiver count 1,799 Receiver density 35.5 per km2 Receiver patch definition In-line unlimited offset/X-line 3,000 m Maximum receivers in patch 738 OFFSHORE SURVEY Acquisition area 80 km2 Seismic source Total maximum volume of airgun array 270 cui Source operating pressure 2,000 psi Source line spacing 250 m Source point interval 25 m (distance between each shot taken on a line) Source line orientation East-west Shot count 9,362 Shot event count 18,604 Shot density 118.6 per km2 Patch definition 8 swath widths, 4 lines to roll Receivers 25 m receiver interval 50 m receiver interval Receiver type OBN Receiver sensor type Internal nodal sensor Receiver line orientation North-south Receiver channels required 900 550 Receiver count 9,449 4,734 Receiver density 116/km2 58/km2 Receiver patch definition 4 receiver lines x static line stations 5 receiver lines x static line stations Maximum receivers in patch 889 534

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 14 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

2.2 Feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action

See Section 1.9.

2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action

Alternative locations and activities are not possible for the proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS (see Section 1.9). However, Origin has considered alternative timeframes for the survey, as detailed in this section.

Origin has selected a survey ‘window of opportunity’ that it believes balances operational requirements with environmental and socio-economic constraints, using recent past survey experience in the Otway Basin as a guide. This window of opportunity is guided by marine environmental constraints rather than onshore constraints. Figure 5 outlines the key ecological process and species presence in the Otway Basin throughout the year, noting the survey window and those of recent Origin seismic surveys in the region. Figure 5 indicates:

• Sea state conditions optimal for survey occur from October to April inclusive. Beyond this time, sea state conditions are generally too rough for seismic acquisition. DITR (2005) verifies this by stating that in the Otway Region, seismic surveys can only be conducted outside of the winter season (May to September, inclusive) in order to escape the sound interference created by strong winds and waves. • The pygmy blue whale feeding aggregation period in the Otway Basin occurs from December to May, peaking in February and March (Gill et al., 2011). • Southern right whales may be present in the area between mid-May and mid-November, with the peak mating and calving period occurring from mid-July to end August, which is outside the proposed survey window. • Southern rock lobster generally mate from April to July. Fertilised eggs are carried by the female for approximately 3 to 4 months over the winter season, depending on the water temperature. Eggs typically hatch and release larvae from September to November. The southern rock lobster fishery is closed from 1 June to 15 November for females with eggs attached and males from 15 September to 15 November. • The blacklip abalone spawns between spring and autumn with peaks in early spring and late summer. The greenlip abalone spawns in late spring and summer. The commercial abalone fishing season commences 1 April and is quota-based. • Australian fur-seals haul out and feed during the proposed survey window at colony locations 22 km southeast (Moonlight Head) and 23.5 km southeast (Cape Volney) from the survey area. • Little penguins are present in the region year-round. While breeding occurs over the summer months and therefore overlaps the proposed survey window, this species is not listed as threatened and their numbers in the southwest of Victoria remain strong. • The Bonney Coast upwelling, with associated surface aggregations of krill that form an important diet for pygmy blue whales migration through the region, occurs from December to April, which overlaps the preferred seismic survey weather window.

DITR (2005) notes that in the Otway Basin, there is no clear period when seismic can be undertaken that will not overlap with other commercial or conservation uses of the area. Origin believes that the factors outlined above combine to make November to March the most suitable time to conduct the proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 15 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Figure 5. Key ecological and socio-economic activities in the nearshore Otway Basin (Victoria)

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 16 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

2.4 Context, including any relevant planning framework and state/local government requirements

There are no local government regulations applicable to the proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS. Consent to work within road reserves will be sought from VicRoads. Consent to lay recivers within the PCNP is being sought from ParksVictoria.

2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation

At the Victorian state level, the proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS is subject to separate onshore and offshore legislation, as outlined below:

• Approval under the Petroleum Act 1998 and Petroleum Regulations 2011 for onshore operations. Origin submitted an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) for acceptance on the 14th of September 2016. The EMP is currently under assessment. • Approval under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Storage Act 2010 (OPGGS Act) and OPGGS Regulations 2011 for offshore operations. Origin submitted an Environment Plan (EP) to the DEDJTR for acceptance on the 23rd of September 2016. The EP is currently under assessment. • Consent under Section 40 of the National Parks Act 1975 – the EMP was submitted to Parks Victoria as the application for consent to deploy receiver nodes along the tracks within the PCNP at the same time as it was submitted to the DEDJTR. Parks Victoria has prepared advice to the Minister for the Environment, which must be tabled in parliament before the Minister can make a decision about whether to consent to work within the PCNP.

Stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of these approvals processes is summarised in Section 2.6 of this EPBC Act Referral.

2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders)

Origin developed a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) for engaging stakeholders in the development of the onshore EMP and offshore EP for the Enterprise 3DTZSS. The SEP provides an operating framework and structured approach to Origin’s interactions with external stakeholders.

Summary of Engagement

Stakeholders were issued with an information flyer via email or delivered in person, and offered face-to-face meetings with Origin’s representatives to formally seek feedback, discuss any issues and concerns and provide an opportunity to ask questions. Meetings also enabled Origin to confirm stakeholders’ functions, activities and interests in relation to the proposed survey and to identify further opportunities for engagement.

Table 5 lists the stakeholders consulted about the Enterprise 3DTZSS.

Table 5. List of stakeholders consulted

Commonwealth government Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) Border Protection Control (BPC) Command Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) Department of Defence (DoD) Australian Hydrographic Service (AHS) Victorian government DEDJTR – Earth Resources Regulation (ERR) DEDJTR – Stakeholder Relations and Strategy DEDJTR – Fisheries Victoria National Parks Advisory Council Office of the Minister for Energy, Environment and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Climate Change (DEWLP) Transport Safety Victoria (Marine Safety) Local government Moyne Shire Council Corangamite Shire Utilities

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 17 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Wannon Water Southern Rural Water Commercial fishing associations Seafood Industries Victoria (SIV) Victorian Rock Lobster Association (VRLA) Port Campbell Professional Fishermen’s Association Warrnambool Professional Fishermen’s Association (WPFA) (PCPFA) Portland Professional Fishermen’s Association (PPFA) Victorian Abalone Divers Association (VADA) Community, tourism and recreation interests Parks Victoria (Port Campbell office) Port Campbell Tourism and Information Centre Port Campbell Board Riders Association Port Campbell Surf Life Saving Club (PCSLSC) Port Campbell Progress Group Peterborough Golf Club Peterborough Residents Association Great Ocean Road Touring Port Campbell Rifle Range Port Campbell State Emergency Service (SES) Port Campbell Boat Charters Port Campbell Police Warrnambool Dive Club Victoria Recreational Fishers Association Ocean Racing Club of Victoria Port Campbell and Peterborough Country Fire Authority (CFA) SCUBA Divers Federation of Victoria Twelve Apostles Tourism and Business Association (TATABA) Dive Industry Association of Victoria Conservation interests Blue Whale Study Inc. Deakin University (School of Life and Environmental Sciences) Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation Petroleum industry Santos Ltd BHP Billiton Petroleum CO2CRC Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) Lochard Energy Oil spill emergency preparedness and response Australian Marine Oil Spill Centre (AMOSC) Adagold Aviation Bristow

Many of the stakeholders have had prior contact with Origin regarding previous projects in the region over several years and have been comfortable approaching Origin for information.

Distribution of survey information via fishing associations

Origin has maintained and updated its own database of commercial fishers in the Otway basin through the support of a local Fisheries Liaison consultant, and engages directly with local commercial fishers. However, to ensure broad communications that may be relevant to new commercial fishers moving into the Western Zone, Origin sought the support of SIV and VRLA to distribute Origin’s information sheet to relevant commercial fishing licence holders in the Western Zone. The Port Campbell Professional Fishers Association met with Origin and will continue to distribute Origin’s information and attend further meetings. The Victorian Abalone Divers Association (VADA) have met with Origin and emailed Origin’s information sheet including diving information to their members.

Project hotline and dedicated project email

Prominently located on all collateral to encourage questions and feedback are the project contact phone number (1800 797 011) and email address ([email protected]). These inquiries are managed by the Community Relations Specialist and all contact is recorded in the stakeholder log. These contact details remain the same and in place for all Origin’s marine seismic survey projects and will also be included in local area public signage during the survey

Ongoing consultation

Stakeholder consultation will be ongoing in the lead up to and during the Enterprise 3DTZSS.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 18 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

2.7 A staged development or component of a larger action

The proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS is not a staged development or component of a larger action.

2.8 Related actions

There are no related actions to the proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS. If the proposed action confirms the presence of gas resources, it may be followed by an exploration drilling campaign, likely using the same onshore to offshore extended drilling technology used for the Halldale Speculant project (EPBC 2011/5879). This will be subject to a separate EPBC Referral, if required.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 19 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

3 Description of environment & likely impacts 3.1 Matters of national environmental significance

3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties Description

There are no World Heritage Areas in the vicinity of the proposed survey area. The closest sites are the:

• Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens in Melbourne (192 km northeast of the survey area); and • Australian Fossil Mammal Sites in Naracoorte, South Australia (250 km northwest of the survey area) (DoE, 2016a).

Nature and extent of likely impact No direct or indirect impacts are expected to occur due to the large distance between the survey area and World Heritage Areas.

3.1 (b) National Heritage Places Description

The GOR is listed as a National Heritage Place. It was listed on the 7th of April 2011 (Place ID 105875, Place file no 2/01/140/0020). The road stretches for 242 km from Torquay in the east to Allansford in the west. The survey area intersects 22 km of the near western-most portion of the GOR. As described by the DoE (2016b), the GOR is significant for the following reasons:

• It is an outstanding and iconic coastal journey, where stories and scenery along the road and coastline help to understand Australia's history, prehistory and ongoing coastal processes. • Constructed over 13 years from 1919 to 1932 by more than 3,000 returned servicemen as a utilitarian memorial to First World War servicemen, it is a significant reminder of the participation of Australian servicemen in the First World War, the Australian community's appreciation of their service, and the support provided for the continuing welfare of servicemen upon returning to Australia. Archaeological evidence of the repatriation workers camps has potential to reveal details of the living and working conditions and experiences of sustenance workers in remote locations during the inter-war period. • The Ocean Road Planning Scheme was a pioneering planning mechanism which enabled an integrated approach across four local shires to protect and preserve the exceptional scenery of the region. The Scheme initiated processes which led to an evolution in the protection of land in Australia for its scenic environmental value. • The frequently changing diverse landscapes and views from the GOR have made it an exemplar route of scenic journey, and Australia's most famous coastal drive. The route was designed to follow the lines of nature and facilitate public access to this spectacular coastline, creating a flowing, serpentine journey that hugs the coast and provide views of diverse scenery. Its viewpoints, scenic lookouts and unobtrusively engineered roadworks allow a natural aesthetic to dominate. • The powerful, spectacular and distinctive landscapes of the GOR and scenic environs are highly valued by the Australian community and international tourists for their aesthetic qualities. • The geomorphological features of the Port Campbell Limestone Coast are rare in their diversity, and it is the definitive place in Australia to observe limestone geomorphology and coastal erosion processes on rocky coasts. • The Otway Ranges Coastal Cretaceous site contains rare polar dinosaur fossil sites, including Dinosaur Cove, Australia's most famous polar dinosaur fossil site and a site which helped popularise fossils and dinosaurs in Australia. Fossils from later periods are also being discovered in the dunes around Bells Beach. Fossil finds extracted from these sites continue to yield important information about Australia's prehistory, and processes of erosion may lead to further discoveries along this coastline in the future • Recreational tourism was among the purposes for the road's construction, and the cultural and natural tourism experiences it offers, including the iconic Twelve Apostles and the treacherous Shipwreck Coast, are greatly valued by the Australian community. The iconic Bells Beach (110 km northeast of the survey area) is valued by Australia's surfing community for its place in Australian surfing. It was the world's first Surfing Recreation Reserve, and remains the location of the world's longest running international surfing carnival and home to one the most prestigious trophies in surfing.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 20 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Nature and extent of likely impact There are no plausible impacts to the geomorphic features or fossil sites associated with the GOR National Heritage Place due to the proposed survey.

Short term, minor impacts to road users of the GOR associated with use of road verges by mini vibroseis vehicles and installation of nodal receivers are likely. These impacts are not considered any more significant than the many other activities which occur frequently along the GOR including road works, maintenance of road verges and transportation for commercial and agricultural enterprises.

As such it is considered that the survey will not have a real chance or possibility of causing:

• One or more of the National Heritage values to be lost; • One or more of the National Heritage values to be degraded or damaged; or • One or more of the National Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished.

3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)

Description

There are no wetlands of international importance (Ramsar-listed wetlands) in close proximity to the proposed survey area. The closest site is the Western District Lakes (DoE, 2016c), located 45 km northeast of the survey area.

Nature and extent of likely impact No direct or indirect impacts are expected to occur due to the absence of any survey activity near or upstream of any wetlands of international importance.

3.1 (d) Listed threatened species, ecological communities and migratory species

Listed threatened species and ecological communities

Table 6 lists the threatened species and ecological communities that may occur in and within a 5 km buffer of the survey area (onshore and offshore), as listed in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) on the 29th of April 2016. An additional PMST was completed during October 2016 which identified several additional species of relevance which are included in this Referral. The PMST results are provided in Appendix 1 (DoE, 2016d). The likelihood of terrestrial species occuring in the study area was assessed by Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) (Appendix 2) based on historic records and available habitat. Targeted surveys for threatened flora on roadsides proposed to be used for the survey were conducted by Biosis during October 2016. No threatened flora were detected.

Table 6. EPBC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities that may occur within the Enterprise 3DTZSS area

Scientific name Common name EPBC Act status

Ecological communities Giant kelp marine forests of South East Australia Endangered Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh Vulnerable Fish Galaxiella pusilla Dwarf galaxias Vulnerable Prototroctes maraena Australian grayling Vulnerable Carcharodon carcharias Great white shark Vulnerable, Migratory

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 21 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Scientific name Common name EPBC Act status

Mammals

Onshore Antechinus minimum maritimus Swamp antechinus Vulnerable Dasyurus maculatus maculatus Spot-tailed quoll (SE mainland Endangered population) Isoodon obesulus obesulus Southern brown bandicoot (eastern) Endangered Mastocomys fuscus mordicus Broad-toothed rat (mainland) Vulnerable Miniopterus orianae bassanii Southern bent-wing bat Critically endangered Potorous tridactylus tridactylus Long-nosed potoroo Vulnerable Pseudomys fumeus Smoky mouse Endangered Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed flying-fox Vulnerable Offshore Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale Vulnerable, Migratory B. musculus Blue whale Endangered, Migratory B. physalus Fin whale Vulnerable, Migratory Eubalaena australis Southern right whale Endangered, Migratory Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Vulnerable, Migratory Birds

Woodland and wetland birds Anthochaera phrygia Regent honeyeater Critically endangered Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian bittern Endangered Grantiella picta Painted honeyeater Vulnerable Lathamus discolour Swift parrot Critically endangered Neophema chrysogaster Orange-bellied parrot Critically endangered Rostratula australis Australian painted snipe Endangered Shorebirds Calidris furruginea Curlew sandpiper Critically endangered, Migratory Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis Hooded plover (eastern) Vulnerable Limosa lapponica baueri Western Alaskan bar-tailed godwit Vulnerable, Migratory Limosa lapponica menzbieri Northern Siberian bar-tailed godwit Critically endangered, Migratory Numenius madagascariensis Eastern curlew Critically endangered, Migratory Sternula nereis nereis Australian fairy tern Vulnerable Seabirds Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean albatross Vulnerable, Migratory Diomedea epomophora Southern royal albatross Vulnerable, Migratory (sensu stricto) D. epomophora sanfordi Northern royal albatross Endangered, Migratory D. exulans (sensu lato) Wandering albatross Vulnerable, Migratory D. sanfordi Northern royal albatross Endangered, Migratory Halobaena caerulea Blue petrel Vulnerable

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 22 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Scientific name Common name EPBC Act status

Macronectes giganteus Southern giant petrel Endangered, Migratory Macronectes halli Northern giant petrel Vulnerable Pachyptila turtur Fairy prion Vulnerable Phoebetria fusca Sooty albatross Vulnerable, Migratory Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Gould’s petrel Endangered Pterodroma mollis Soft-plumaged petrel Vulnerable Thalassarche bulleri Buller’s albatross Vulnerable, Migratory T. cauta (senso stricto) Shy albatross Vulnerable, Migratory T. chrysostoma Grey-headed albatross Endangered, Migratory T. impavida Campbell albatross Vulnerable, Migratory T. melanophris Black-browed albatross Vulnerable, Migratory T. salvini Salvin’s albatross Vulnerable, Migratory T. steadi White-capped albatross Vulnerable, Migratory Reptiles

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle Endangered, Migratory Chelonia mydas Green turtle Vulnerable, Migratory Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle Endangered, Migratory Amphibians

Litoria raniformis Growling grass frog Vulnerable Plants

Glycine latrobeana Clover glycine Vulnerable Haloragis exalata subsp. Exalata Wingless ragwort Vulnerable Prasophyllum frenchii Maroon leek-orchid Endangered Prasophyllum spicatum Dense leek-orchid Vulnerable Pterostylis cucullata Leafy greenhood Vulnerable Pterostylis tenuissima Swamp greenhood Vulnerable Thelymitra epipactoides Metallic sun-orchid Endangered

The following sections describe the communities and species listed in Table 6.

Threatened Ecological Communities

Giant kelp marine forests of South East Australia Giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) is a large brown algae that grows on rocky reefs from the sea floor 8 m below sea level and deeper. Its fronds grow vertically toward the water surface, in cold temperate waters off south east Australia. It is the foundation species of this TEC in shallow coastal marine ecological communities. The kelp species itself is not protected, rather, it is communities of closed or semi-closed giant kelp canopy at or below the sea surface that are protected (DSEWPC, 2012b).

Giant kelp is one of the largest and fastest growing marine plants. Their presence on a rocky reef adds vertical structure to the marine environment that creates significant habitat for marine fauna, increasing local marine biodiversity. Species known to shelter within the kelp forests include weedy sea dragons (Phyllopteryx taeniolatus), six-spined leather jacket (Mesuchenia freycineti), brittle star (Ophiuroid sp), urchins, sponges, blacklip abalone (Tosia spp) and southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii). The large biomass and productivity of the giant kelp plants also provides a range of ecosystem services to the coastal environment. Giant kelp is a cold

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 23 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

water species and as sea surface temperatures have risen on the east coast of Australia over the last 40 years, it has been progressively lost from its historical range.

Giant kelp requires clear, shallow water no deeper than approximately 35 metres below sea level (Edyvane, 2003; Shepherd and Edgar, 2012; cited in DoE, 2012). They are photo-autotrophic organisms that depend on photosynthetic capacity to supply the necessary organic materials and energy for growth. O’Hara et al (1999) reported that giant kelp communities in Tasmanian coastal waters occur at depths of 5 to 25 m. The largest extent of the ecological community is in Tasmanian coastal waters. Some patches may also be found in Victoria and South Australia.

James et al (2013) undertook extensive surveys of macroalgal communities along the Otway Shelf from Warrnambool to Portland in southwest Victoria. Sites were adjacent to shore or on offshore rocky reefs covering a depth range of 0 to 36 m water depth .These surveys did not locate giant kelp at any site but identified that other brown algae species (Durvillaea, Ecklonia, Phyllospora, Cystophora and Sargassum) are prolific to around 20 m water depth. A marked decrease of brown algae occurs from 20m into deeper waters, where replacement by fleshy red algae occurs. Surveys of The Arches Marine Sanctuary (Edmunds et al., 2010) and Twelve Apostles Marine National Park (Holmes et al., 2007 cited in Barton et al., 2012) have not located giant kelp. The species has been recorded in Discovery Bay National Park (approximately 150 km west of the survey area) forming part of a mixed brown algae community (Ball and Blake, 2007) (not part of the TEC), on basalt rocky reefs. An assemblage dominated by the species has been recorded from Merri Marine Sanctuary (37 km west of the survey area) occupying a very small area (0.2 ha) of rocky reef (Barton et al., 2012).

As water depths within the survey area lie between 5-60 m, it is possible giant kelp could occur within the survey area to approximately 20 m. However the presence of the TEC in the acquisition area is considered highly unlikely given that:

• The species has not been recorded within the Arches Marine Sanctuary, Twelve Apostles Marine National Park or surveys of rocky reefs between Warrnambool and Portland. • Areas in western Victoria where the species is known to occur are very small (Merri Marine Sanctuary) or part of mixed brown algae communities that do not form part of the TEC (Discovery Bay National Park).

Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh The ‘Subtropical and temperate coastal saltmarsh’ ecological community corresponds with two EVCs that are limited to the coastal bioregions in Victoria:

• EVC 9 Coastal saltmarsh aggregate; and • EVC 10 Estuarine wetland. Of these EVCs, only EVC 10 occurs within the survey area. EVC 10 is restricted to riparian areas of Curdies Inlet and the lower reaches of Port Campbell Creek, so will not be impacted by the survey.

As this community is listed as vulnerable it is not a MNES and is not considered further in this referral.

Threatened Fish

Dwarf galaxia (vulnerable) Habitat suitable to the dwarf galaxias (Galaxiella pusilla) is slow flowing and still, shallow, permanent and temporary freshwater habitats such as swamps, drains and the backwaters of streams and creeks, often (but not always) containing dense aquatic macrophytes and emergent plants (DoE, 2016e). The marine component of the survey cannot impact this species and the onshore component of the survey will not impact waterways. As such, this species will not be encountered and is not considered further in this referral.

Australian grayling (vulnerable) The Australian grayling (Prototroctes maraena) is a dark brown to olive-green fish attaining 19 cm in length. The species typically inhabits the coastal streams of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, migrating between streams and the ocean (DoE, 2012c). Spawning occurs in freshwater from late summer to winter caused by an increase in river flows from seasonal rains (DoE, 2012c). Most of its life is spent in fresh water, with parts of the larval or juvenile stages spent in coastal marine waters (approximately 6 months) (DSE, 2008a), though its precise marine habitat requirements remain unknown (DSE, 2008b). They are a short-lived species, usually dying after their second year soon after spawning (a small proportion may reach four or five years) (DSE, 2008a). This species may occur within the offshore survey area.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 24 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Great white shark (vulnerable) The great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) is widely distributed and located throughout temperate and sub- tropical waters with their known range in Australian waters including all coastal areas except the Northern Territory (DoE, 2015a). Studies of great white sharks indicate that they are largely transient. However, individuals are known to return to feeding grounds on a seasonal basis (Klimey & Anderson, 1996). Observations of adult sharks are more frequent around fur seal and sea lion colonies, including Wilsons Promontory (approximately 295 km east of the survey area) and the Skerries (approximately 575 km east of the survey area). Juveniles are known to congregate in certain key areas including the Ninety Mile Beach area (including Corner Inlet and Lakes Entrance) in eastern Victoria (approximately 300 km east of the survey area) and the Portland area of western Victoria (approximately 105 km west of the survey area). Given their transitory nature and the proximity of known congregation areas to the survey area, it is likely that great white sharks may transit the survey area on occasion.

Threatened Terrestrial Mammals

Spot-tailed quoll (endangered) The spot-tailed quoll is a nocturnal, cat-sized, carnivorous marsupial with reddish-brown fur. The spot-tailed quoll is predominantly nocturnal and rests during the day in dens. Habitat requirements include suitable den sites such as hollow logs, tree hollows, rock outcrops or caves. Individuals also require an abundance of food, such as birds and small mammals, and large areas of relatively intact vegetation through which to forage. This subspecies is moderately arboreal and approximately 11% of travelling is done in trees

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as unlikely, with no documented records of the species in the survey area.

Southern Brown Bandicoot – eastern (endangered) The southern brown bandicoot (eastern) is a medium sized ground dwelling marsupial with a long tapering snout, a naked nose, a compact body and a short tail.

The southern brown bandicoot (eastern) is primarily distributed in coastal regions in Victoria, although isolated populations occur inland in the Dandenong Ranges, the Grampian Ranges and central western Victoria (Menkhorst & Seebeck 1990). The subspecies has a disjunct distribution across southern Victoria, with most records being clustered within parts of several southern Victorian bioregions, including the East Gippsland Lowlands, Gippsland Plain (Western section), Otway Plain (Anglesea section), Warrnambool Plain (Port Campbell section), Greater Grampians, Glenelg Plains and Wilsons Promontory. Isolated occurrences have also been detected, including in St Helens Flora and Fauna Reserve.

The southern brown bandicoot (eastern) is known to inhabit a variety of habitats including heathland, shrubland, sedgeland, heathy open forest and woodland and are usually associated with infertile, sandy and well drained soils, but can be found in a range of soil types. Within these vegetation communities they typically inhabit areas of dense ground cover.

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as moderate, with the last documented record of occurrence in 2007.

Long-nosed potoroo (vulnerable) The long-nosed potoroo (SE Mainland) is a medium sized marsupial. In Victoria the long-nosed potoroo occurs in six discrete regions (Seebeck 1981), including the South-western region, Grampians, Otways, Western Port, Wilsons Promontory and east Gippsland. In the south-western region the long-nosed potoroo has been observed in open forests (and the ecotones between them) with most sites dominated by either Eucalyptus obliqua or E. baxteri. In the Otways region habitat is dominated by stringybark eucalypts (E. obliqua or E. baxteri) with a dense low shrub layer of Acacia verticillata and Banksia marginata. T

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as moderate, with the last documented record of occurrence in 1982.

Swamp antechinus (vulnerable) The swamp antechinus (Antechinus minimus maritimus) is a terrestrial insectivorous marsupial with a highly fragmented distribution in coastal areas, ranging from near Robe in South Australia to Wilson’s Promontory (and the nearby Great Glennie, Rabbit, Kanowna and Snake Islands) in Victoria. The sub-species mainly occurs in damp areas, particularly at sites with dense vegetation at about 1−2 m above ground level. Its habitat includes dense wet heathlands, tussock grasslands, sedgelands, damp gullies, swamps and some shrubby woodlands.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 25 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

The subspecies is a very late post-fire succession recoloniser of woodland habitats and requires mature dense vegetation with thick ground cover.

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this subspecies occurring within the survey area as moderate, with the last documented record of occurrence in 2006. The subspecies is known to occur in the PCNP.

Smoky mouse (endangered) The smoky mouse is a small native rodent endemic to mainland south-eastern Australia, where it occurs in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.

The smoky mouse (Pseudomys fumeus) is endemic to Australia, where it is known from disjunct populations in the Grampians, Otway Ranges (it has not been found here since 1985), the southeastern highlands and coastal East Gippsland. This species is found in a range of environments from near sea-level to the sub-alps and in vegetation communities ranging from heath to dry sclerophyll forest and occasionally wetter gullies. Most localities have a diversity of heath and pea species in the ground and shrub vegetation and shelter sites in the form of rocks or woody debris. Seeds and fruits dominate the smokey mouse spring and summer diet, with hypogeal (underground fruiting) fungi being more common in winter. Where populations are able to achieve high numbers, nesting is communal. The species is not found in disturbed areas.

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as low, with no documented records of the species in the survey area.

Broad-toothed rat (mainland) (vulnerable) The broad-toothed rat (mainland) (Mastocomys fuscus mordicus) is a terrestrial and mostly nocturnal rodent. The sub-species has a highly fragmented distribution, with scattered records across the Great Dividing Range from near Warburton (Victoria) to the Brindabella Range (Australian Capital Territory) and around Barrington Tops (New South Wales), with at least one poorly-known subpopulation in coastal areas of far East Gippsland and south-eastern New South Wales. The Plan of Management for PCNP states that the species occurs within sand dunes and lower talus slopes at Two Mile Bay.

The broad-toothed rat is herbivorous, with grasses forming the major component of its diet. Preferred habitats include alpine and subalpine heathlands, grassland adjacent to boulder outcrops, swamps, sedgelands, coastal grassy or shrubby dunes, and sometimes forests with grassy understories.

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this subspecies occurring within the survey area as moderate.

Southern bent-wing bat (critically endangered) The southern bent-wing bat (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) The southern bent-wing bat is a cave dwelling insectivorous bat.There are currently only two known breeding sites; Bat Cave at Naracoorte in South Australia (approximately 250 km northwest of the survey area), and Starlight Cave east of Warrnambool(approximately 30 km west of the survey area). The species migrates to these locations in August to September, giving birth between October and December.

Between March and April the species migrates to overwintering sites throughout southwestern Victoria, including crevices in coastal cliffs. The species utilises a wide variety of habitats close to roosting sites for foraging. Distances travelled from roosting caves is often less than several kilometres, however, where roost sites are located in sub-optimal foraging habitat the distances travelled may increase by up to 30 km.

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as low, with no documented records of the species in the survey area.

Grey-headed flying fox (vulnerable) The grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) is Australia's only endemic flying-fox and occurs in a coastal belt from southeastern Queensland to Melbourne, Victoria. It is a canopy-feeding frugivore and nectarivore, which utilises vegetation communities including rainforests, open forests, closed and open woodlands, Melaleuca swamps and Banksia woodlands. It also feeds on commercial fruit crops and on introduced tree species in urban areas. None of the vegetation communities used by the grey-headed flying fox produce continuous foraging resources throughout the year. As a result, the species has adopted complex migration traits in response to ephemeral and patchy food resources.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 26 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as unlikely, with no documented records of the species in the survey area. Threatened Marine Mammals

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

The pygmy blue whale is most abundant in the southern Indian Ocean on the Madagascar plateau, and off South Australia and Western Australia, where they form part of a more or less continuous distribution from Tasmania to Indonesia (Figure 6). Acoustic monitoring has found the presence of true blue whales in the Otway region to be rare (Gavrilov, 2012). Both sub-species of blue whale may, however, be found in Australian waters and reference to blue whale unless otherwise specified is synonymous to both species.

The Antarctic blue whale (B. m. intermedia) was extremely abundant in the past. Approximately 341,830 blue whales were recorded as taken by whaling in the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic (IWC, 2006) in the 20th century, of which 12,618 were identified as pygmy blue whales or are assumed to have been so from their location (Branch et al., 2004). The current global population of the blue whale is uncertain, but is plausibly in the range of 10,000 to 25,000 individuals, corresponding to about 3-11% of the 1911 population size.

Bass Strait is considered to be a migratory corridor for blue whales, as confirmed by passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) and aerial surveys conducted by Origin during its prior seismic surveys in the region. There had been fewer than 50 sightings of blue whales in Bass Strait up to the year 1999, but since that time feeding blue whales have been more regularly observed in the Discovery Bay area (140 km west-northwest of the survey area) and more generally along the Bonney coast from Robe to Cape Otway.

The migratory period for the blue whales into Bass Strait generally commences in November or December (EA, 2002; Gill et al., 2011). The time and location of the appearance of blue whales in the east generally coincides with the upwelling of cold water in summer and autumn along this coast (the Bonney Upwelling) and the associated aggregations of krill that they feed on (EA, 2002; Gill and Morrice, 2003). The Bonney Upwelling generally starts in the eastern part of the Great Australian Bight in November or December and spreads eastwards to the Otway Basin around February as southward migration of the subtropical high pressure cell creates upwelling favourable winds.

Figure 6 illustrates the recorded pygmy blue whale distribution around Australia and identifies that the Otway region is a Biologically Important Area (BIA) for foraging according to the DoEE’s National Conservation Values Atlas. The Enterprise 3DTZSS survey area lies within a ‘Foraging Area (annual high use area)’ which aligns with the important area for foraging in the National Conservation Values Atlas (DoE, 2015c).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 27 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Source: DoE (2015). Green triangle represents approximate location of the survey area. Figure 6. Pygmy blue whale distribution around Australia

Figure 7 provides details of the known and likely migration routes of the highly mobile pygmy blue whale. The acquisition area is located adjacent to a likely migration route (DoE, 2015c). Breeding occurs in low latitudes (including Indonesia) during the austral winter although there may be more than one breeding habitat given observed females with small calves recorded seasonally moving through Geographe Bay (WA) from September to December (DoE, 2015c).

Gill et al (2011) undertook 69 seasonal aerial surveys for blue whales between Cape Jaffa and Cape Otway over six seasons (2001-02 to 2006-07). This study found that the general pattern of seasonal movement of blue whales is from west to east, with whales foraging in between the Great Australian Bight and Cape Nelson in November and spreading further east in December. The whales are typically widely distributed throughout Otway shelf waters from January through to April (Gill et al., 2011).

Gill et al (2011) found that across the eastern zone (Cape Nelson to Cape Otway), within which the survey area is located, there were no blue whale sightings in November of any season despite significant effort. Pooled monthly encounter rates increased from 1.6 whales 1,000 km–1 in December, peaked at 9.8 whales 1,000 km–1 in February, dropped slightly to 8.8 whales 1,000 km–1 in March, then declined sharply to a single sighting for May (0.4 whales 1,000 km–1) (Figure 8).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 28 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Source: DoE (2015). Green triangle represents approximate location of the survey area. Figure 7. Pygmy blue whale migration routes around Australia

Sighting data are presented geographically in Figure 8. Data is pooled for all seasons, for central and eastern areas, overlaid on gridded aerial survey effort (10 X 10 km squares), represented as minutes flown per grid square. Thick solid lines represent 50% and 95% probability contours for blue whale distribution from density kernel analysis. Dashed lines are central and eastern boundaries (from Gill et al., 2011). These data indicate that, within the region encompassing the survey area, blue whales are statistically most likely to first appear during December/January and reach peak number during February/March.

Gill et al (2011) also identified that 80% of blue whales sightings are encountered in water depths between 50 and 150 m; 93% of sightings occurred in water depths <200 m and 10% of sightings occurred within 5 km of the 200 m isobath in the eastern and central zones. A mean blue whale group size of 1.3±0.6 was observed per sighting with cow-calf pairs observed in 2.5% of the sightings. In the eastern zone of the area surveyed by Gill et al. (2011), which encompasses the survey area, the mean (±SD) distance of blue whale sightings to shore was 32.9 km (± 16.33), and no blue whales were sighted within 5.7km of the shore in the eastern zone. These data suggest it is unikely that the pygmy blue whale will use habitat within the survey area, which is entirely within 5.7km of the coastline.

Within this broad context it is also important to note that each season seems to have a unique upwelling signature and pattern of blue whale abundance and distribution. Inter-seasonal and inter-area variability in both upwelling intensity and blue whale density can be high and the exact timing and location of first appearance of blue whales in the area can be difficult to predict.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 29 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

November

December

January

Source: Gill et al (2011). Figure 8. Blue whale sightings in the Otway Basin

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 30 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

February

March

April

Source: Gill et al (2011). Figure 8. Blue whale sightings in the Otway Basin (cont’d)

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 31 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Aerial surveys commissioned by Origin undertaken during 2011 and 2012 by the Blue Whale Study found that:

• Between 8 and 25 February 2011, 56 blue whales were sighted during five aerial surveys. Most of the sightings were at inshore areas between Moonlight Head to Port Fairy, with whales apparently aggregating along and offshore of the boundary between the runoff plume from major flooding prevalent at the time and adjacent seawater. • Blue whales were common in the eastern upwelling zone during November and December 2012, months when mean encounter rates over the preceding six seasons were zero (November) or low (December). During November, an estimated 21 individual blue whales were sighted, with most sightings near the 100 m isobath or deeper. December 2012 surveys identified 70 blue whales foraging along the edge of the continental shelf west of King Island, approximately 65 km south of the survey area. This was the largest recorded aggregation of blue whales during any aerial surveys of the Bonney Upwelling since 1999.

There were no confirmed sightings of blue whales during Origin’s Speculant 3DTZSS undertaken during November and December 2010 (6 km northwest of the survey area), the Astrolabe 3D seismic survey (40 km south of the survey area) undertaken during early November 2013 (RPS, 2013) and the Enterprise 3D seismic survey undertaken during late October and early November 2014 (adjacent to the survey area) (RPS, 2014). It is possible that blue whales may be present in the deeper waters of the survey area during survey activities. The likelihood and extent of the interaction is dependent on broad scale environmental factors affecting the abundance and distribution of blue whale feeding resources.

Southern right whale (endangered, migratory) The southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) is distributed in the southern hemisphere with a circumpolar distribution between latitudes of 16°S and at least 65°S. The species is pelagic in summer foraging in the open Southern Ocean (Bannister et al., 1996) between 40° and 65°S (DSEWPC, 2012a) and migrates from the sub- antarctic to lower latitude coastal waters during winter to calve and mate (Mustoe & Ross, 2004). The distribution in winter, at least of the breeding component of the population, is concentrated near coastlines in the northern part of the range.

Southern right whales were hunted extensively by pre-modern whaling starting in the early 17th century, but especially in the 18th and 19th centuries by American and European whalers. The total number processed between 1770 and 1900 is conservatively estimated at about 150,000, of which 48,000-60,000 were taken in the 1830s alone. By the start of modern whaling at the beginning of the 20th century, the species was already rare, and catches thereafter until right whales were legally protected in 1935 totalled only about 1,600 individuals. The estimated pre-whaling population of 55,000-70,000 and is estimated to have been depleted to a low of about 300 animals by the 1920s.

Several breeding populations (Argentina/Brazil, South Africa and Australia) of southern right whale have shown evidence of strong recovery post whaling, with a doubling time of 10-12 years (Bannister 2001; Best et al., 2001; Cooke et al., 2001). Recent estimated population sizes (1,600 mature females in 1997, and approximately twice that number in 2007) and the strong observed rate of increase in some well-studied parts of the range, indicate the species, although still scarce relative to its historic abundance, is not considered under threat at the hemispheric level. The population is estimated to be higher now than it was three generations ago (87 years, assuming a generation time of 29 years); (Taylor et al., 2007).

Major current breeding areas for southern right whale are nearshore off southern Australia, New Zealand, the Atlantic coast of South America (Argentina and Brazil), and southern Africa (mainly South Africa). Small numbers are also seen off central Chile, Peru, Tristan da Cunha (British Overseas Territory), and the east coast of Madagascar (IWC, 2001; Rosenbaum et al., 2001).

The species are regularly present on the Australian coast during winter and spring (DSEWPC, 2012a). Peak periods for mating in Australian coastal waters are from mid-July through August (DSEWPC, 2012a). Pregnant females generally arrive during late May/early June and calving/nursery grounds are generally occupied until October (occasionally as early as April and as late as November), but not at other times. Calving takes place very close to the coast in Australia, usually in waters less than 10 metres deep.

Female southern right whales show calving site fidelity, generally returning to the same location to give birth and nurse offspring. Female-calf pairs generally stay within the calving ground for 2 to 3 months. Other population classes stay in coastal areas for shorter and more variable periods, and generally depart the coast earlier then female-calf pairs (most have left by September) (DSEWPC, 2012a).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 32 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

In Australian coastal waters, the southern right whale occurs along the southern coastline including Tasmania, generally as far north as Sydney on the east coast, and Perth on the west coast. There are occasional occurrences further north, with the extremities of their range recorded as Hervey Bay (Qld) and Exmouth (WA). Southern right whales generally occur within two kilometres of the shore and tend to be distinctly clumped in aggregation areas (DSEWPC, 2012a). Aggregation areas are well known with the largest being:

• Doubtful Island Bay area in WA; • Israelite Bay area in WA; and • Head of Bight in SA. Several smaller established areas (regularly occupied) occur at:

• Yokinup Bay in WA; and • The Warrnambool region (Logan’s Beach) in Victoria. Emerging aggregation areas (sporadically used at present) occur at:

• Flinders Bay in WA; • Hassell Beach in WA; • Cheyne/Wray Bays in WA; • Twilight Cove in WA; • Fowlers Bay in WA; and • Encounter Bay in SA (Figure 9) (DSEWPC, 2012a).

A number of additional areas for the southern right whale are emerging that might be of importance, particularly to the south-eastern population. In these areas, small but growing numbers of non-calving whales regularly aggregate for short periods of time. These areas include coastal waters off Peterborough, Port Campbell, Port Fairy and Portland in Victoria.

Source: DSEWPC (2012a). Figure 9. Aggregation areas for southern right whales in Australia

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 33 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Southern right whales in Australian waters were, until recently, considered to be one population. It is possible, based on differentiation in mtDNA haplotype but not nuclear gene frequencies, that south-east Australian southern right whale population may be demographically separate from those in south-west Australia, although some genetic transfer is known to occur. The ‘western’ Australian sub-population occupies areas between Cape Leeuwin in Western Australia and Ceduna in South Australia, with an estimated population size of 2,500 individuals. The ‘eastern’ sub-population, consisting of fewer than 300 individuals, can be found along the south eastern coast, including Tasmania and rarely further north than Sydney. Despite the ‘western’ sub-population showing signs of recovery, the ‘eastern’ sub-population is not (Charlton, 2014). The closest known calving/nursery grounds to the acquisition area occur at Logan’s Beach off the coast of Warrnambool in southwest Victoria (approximately 36 km northwest of the closest point of the survey area) and intermittently at Portland (106 km west-northwest of the survey area) (DoE, 2005a). The acquisition area lies within the potential emerging aggregation area at Port Campbell and, while the area is currently located outside the current BIA for feeding, breeding or aggregation, it does lie in the BIA for migration (& resting on migration) present in all Victorian State waters identified in the National Conservation Values Atlas (Figure 10).

Source: National Conservation Values Atlas. The magenta rectangle represents the location of the survey area.

Figure 10. Southern right whale BIA in southwest Victoria

Southern right whales have few natural predators. Calves, juveniles or weakened adults may be killed by sharks, which are common in some Australian calving grounds, or by killer whales. Adult southern right whales rarely strand, but small numbers of calves are regularly found dead or stranded near calving grounds (DSEWPC, 2012a).

The foraging ecology of the southern right whale is poorly understood and observations of feeding whales are rare. Coastal Australian waters are not generally used for feeding. Llikely foraging grounds for the southern right whale that breed and or calve in Australia and New Zealand have been identified as:

• The Naturaliste Plateau off south-west Western Australia, where southern right whale were historically whaled in the Austral summer (Townsend, 1935); • The Subtropical Front (Childerhouse et al., 2010; Bannister, 2001), an area of high of elevated primary production (Moore and Abbott, 2000) which typically occurs between latitudes 39°- 42°S; and • Antarctic waters. Analysis of stomach contents of southern right whale harvested at latitudes below 40°S indicated that their diet was dominated by copepods, whilst those taken above 50°S were dominated by krill, with a mixture of both prey items in stomachs from animals taken from intervening latitudes (Tormosov et al., 1998).

As a highly mobile migratory species, southern right whale travel thousands of kilometres between habitats used for essential life functions. Movements along the Australian coast are reasonably well understood, but little is known of migration travel, non-coastal movements and offshore habitat use. A defined near-shore coastal migration corridor is unlikely given the absence of any predictable directional movement of the southern right whale such as that observed for humpback whales. A predominance of westward movements amongst long- range photo-identification re-sightings may indicate a seasonal westward movement in coastal habitat.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 34 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Exactly where the southern right whale approach and leave the Australian coast from, and to, offshore areas remains poorly understood (Gill et al., 2015). Data was obtained on the migratory movements of three adult females (accompanied by calves) implanted with satellite telemetry devices at the Head of Bight during September 2014 by Mackay et al (2015). Two whales migrated directly south from Head of Bight, while one, after a period without data transmissions, moved west from Albany, Western Australia, into the Naturaliste Plateau. All whales had begun migration away from the Head of Bight by the 6th October 2014.

On the Australian coast, individual southern right whale use widely separated coastal areas (200 to 1,500 km apart) within a season, indicating substantial coast-wide movement. The longest movements are undertaken by non-calving whales, though calving whales have also been recorded at locations up to 700 km apart within a single season. Such movements indicate that connectivity of coastal habitat is important for the southern right whale. Both non-calving and calving whales also move occasionally between Australia and sub-Antarctic New Zealand coastal habitat between years.

The winter distribution of whales not appearing on the Australian coast is unknown. It is thought that fewer than 10% of females calving on the coast in any one year use the waters off Victoria, South Australia, NSW and Tasmania (DoE, 2005a). Southern right whales are thought to be solitary during migration, or accompanied by a dependent calf or occasionally a yearling offspring.

Gill et al (2015) undertook 123 aerial surveys of western Bass Strait and the eastern Great Australian Bight between 2002 to 2013 and detected the southern right whale only between between May and September. A survey in early November 2010 did not observe any whales in the Warrnambool area and it was assumed that cows and calves had already left the calving and aggregation areas (M. Watson, pers. comm., 2010). No southern right whales were encountered during Origin’s Enterprise 3DTZSS undertaken during November 2014 (immediately adjacent to this proposed survey area) (RPS, 2014), or during spotter flights of the coastline undertaken prior to the survey in late October.

The proposed timing of the Enterprise 3DTZSS significantly reduces the likelihood of encountering the southern tight whale by avoiding peak times for coastal migration and inshore nursing.

Sei whale (vulnerable, migratory) The sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) has been infrequently recorded between November and May (but not during April) during aerial surveys in the region (Gill et al., 2015). Sei whales are considered a cosmopolitan species, ranging from polar to tropical waters, but tend to be found more offshore than other species of large whales. They show well defined migratory movements between polar, temperate and tropical waters. Migratory movements are essentially north-south with little longitudinal dispersion. Sei whales do not penetrate the polar waters as far as the blue, fin, humpback and minke whales (Horwood, 1987), although they have been observed very close to the Antarctic continent. There are no known mating or calving areas in Australian waters.

Sei whales move between Australian waters and Antarctic feeding areas, sub-Antarctic feeding areas (e.g., Subtropical Front), and tropical and subtropical breeding areas. The proportion of the global population in Australian waters is unknown as there are no estimates for sei whales in Australian waters.

Sei whales feed intensively between the Antarctic and subtropical convergences and mature animals may also feed in higher latitudes. Sei whales feed on planktonic crustacea, in particular copepods and amphipods. South of the Antarctic convergence, sei whales feed exclusively upon Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba).

Based upon the infrequent occurence of this species in the western Bass Strait, their preference for offshore waters and the nearshore location of the survey, it is considered unlikely that this species will be encountered during the Enterprise 3DTZSS.

Fin whale (vulnerable, migratory) The fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) has been infrequently recorded in western Bass Strait between November and February during aerial surveys in the region by Gill et al (2015) and during March at the edge of the continental shelf south of Portland (Miller et al., 2012). Fin whales are considered a cosmopolitan species and occur from polar to tropical waters, and rarely occur in inshore waters (Gill, 2002). They show well defined migratory movements between polar, temperate and tropical waters. Migratory movements are essentially north– south with little longitudinal dispersion. Fin whales regularly enter polar waters. Unlike blue whales and minke whales, fin whales are rarely seen close to ice, although recent sightings have occurred near the ice edge of Antarctica. There are stranding records of this species from most Australian states, but they are considered rare in Australian waters (Bannister et al., 1996).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 35 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Based upon the infrequent occurence of this species in the western Bass Strait, the preference for offshore waters and the nearshore location of the survey, it is considered unlikely that this species will be encountered during the Enterprise 3DTZSS.

Humpback whale (vulnerable, migratory) Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) are present around the Australian coast in winter and spring. Humpbacks undertake an annual migration between the summer feeding grounds in Antarctica to their winter breeding and calving grounds in northern tropical waters. Along the southeast coast of Australia, the northern migration starts in April and May while the southern migration peaks through the area around November and December (DEH, 2005b). A discrete population of humpback whales have been observed to migrate along the west coast of Tasmania and through Bass Strait. The exact timing of the migration period varies between years in accordance with variations in water temperature, extent of sea ice, abundance of prey, and location of feeding grounds (DEH, 2005b). Feeding occurs where there is a high krill density, and during the migration this primarily occurs in Southern Ocean waters south of 55°S (DEH, 2005b).

The waters of western Bass Strait are not known feeding, resting or calving grounds for humpback whales, although feeding may occur opportunistically where sufficient krill density is present. The nearest area to the survey representing important resting area for migrating humpback whales is Twofold Bay, a resting area off the NSW coast approximately 640 km to the northeast of the survey area (Figure 11).

During Origin’s Enterprise 3DTZSS undertaken during early November 2014 (adjacent to this proposed survey area), 16 humpback whales were sighted (RPS, 2014). As such, it is possible that low level encounter may occur if the survey is undertaken during November/December.

The recovery of humpback whale populations following whaling has been rapid. The Australian east coast humpback whale population, which was hunted to near-extinction in the 1950s and early 1960s, had increased to 7,090±660 (95% CI) whales by 2004 with an annual rate of increase of 10.6±0.5% (95% CI) between 1987– 2004 (Noad et al., 2011). The available estimates for the global population total more than 60,000 animals.

Source: National Conservation Values Atlas. The magenta rectangle represents the location of the acquisition area. Figure 11. Humpback whale BIA (migration)

Threatened Birds

A diverse array of seabirds and terrestrial birds utilise the Otway region and may potentially forage within or fly over the acquisition area. Infrequently and often associated with storm events, birds that do not normally cross the ocean are sometimes observed over the Otway shelf, suggesting the birds have been blown off their normal course or are migrating.

Twenty seven (27) bird species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are noted as having the potential to occur within the onshore and offshore survey areas, comprised of eighteen (19) marine birds, six (6) woodland and wetland species and two (2) shore birds.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 36 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Seabirds – 12 albatross, 5 petrel and the fairy prion (endangered, vulnerable) Albatrosses and giant-petrels are among the most dispersive and oceanic of all birds, spending more than 95% of their time foraging at sea in search of prey and usually only returning to land (remote islands) to breed (EA, 2001). All Australian waters can be considered foraging habitat for albatross and petrels, with the most important habitat considered to be south of 25°S (DSEWPC, 2011), which includes the survey area. Given these species’ ability to cover vast ocean distances while foraging, it is possible these species may overfly and forage in the vicinity of the survey area. Only five species of albatross, the southern giant petrel and the northern giant petrel are known to breed within Australian waters. Breeding within Australian territory occurs on the isolated islands of Antarctica (Giganteus Island, Hawker Island and Frazier islands) and the Southern Ocean (Heard Island, McDonald Island, Macquarie Island, Bishop and Clerk Islands), as well as islands off the south coast of Tasmania and Albatross Island off the north-west coast of Tasmania in Bass Strait (DSEWPC, 2011). There are no islands with colonies of threatened marine seabirds within the immediate vicinity of the survey area. Albatross Island, supporting a breeding population of approximately 5,000 shy albatross (Thallassarche cauta), is the closest breeding colony of threatened seabird to the survey area, located approximately 236 km to the southeast.

Fairy prion (Pachyptila turtur) are often beachcast on the south-eastern coast of Australia, and are commonly seen foraging offshore over the continental shelf and pelagic waters. The species is common along the entire Victorian coast. The species as a whole has been recorded breeding on subantarctic and cool temperate islands (Bass Strait islands, Tasmania, Macquarie Island) between September and early March. Fairy prions feed mostly on euphausiids and other small crustaceans, but also small quantities of fish and pteropods (free-swimming sea snails and slugs). The species flies just above the surface of the ocean hunting by surface-seizing, dipping, pattering or surface-plunging (DoE, 2016k). Nesting sites for the fairy prion have been recorded on the adjacent Otway coastline and the species hs been observed foraging over the continental shelf and slope. Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species is unlikely to occur within the survey area.

Woodland and wetland birds Orange-bellied parrot (critically endangered) The orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chrysogaster) breeds in Tasmania during summer, migrates north across Bass Strait in autumn and over winters on the mainland. Birds depart the mainland for Tasmania from September to November (Green, 1969). The southward migration is rapid (Stephenson, 1991), so there are few migration records. The northward migration across western Bass Strait is more prolonged (Higgins, 1999).

The parrot’s breeding habitat is restricted to southwest Tasmania, where breeding occurs from November to mid- January mainly within 30 km of the coast (Brown and Wilson, 1984). The species forage on the ground or in low vegetation (Brown and Wilson, 1980; 1984, Loyn et al., 1986).

During winter, on mainland Australia, orange-bellied parrots are found mostly within 3 km of the coast (Starks et al., 1992; cited in DoE, 2016i). In Victoria, they mostly occur in sheltered coastal habitats, such as bays, lagoons and estuaries, or, rarely, saltworks. They are also found in low samphire herbland dominated by beaded glasswort (Sarcocornia quinqueflora), sea heath (Frankenia pauciflora) or sea-blite (Suaeda australis), and in taller shrubland dominated by shrubby glasswort (Sclerostegia arbuscula) (DoE, 2016i).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species is unlikely to occur within the survey area.

Regent honeyeater (critically endangered) The regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) has a patchy distribution between south-east Queensland and central Victoria. It primarily occurs in box-ironbark woodland, but also occurs in other forest types. The species primarily feeds on nectar and, to a lesser extent, insects and their exudates (lerps and honeydew). It mainly feeds on nectar from eucalypts and mistletoes and it prefers taller and larger diameter trees for foraging (DoEE, 2016). The regent honeyeater’s movement through the landscape is governed by the flowering of select eucalypt species. It is nomadic and partly migratory, with some predictable seasonal movements observed.

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species is unlikely to occur within the survey area.

Swift parrot (endangered) The swift parrot (Lathamus discolour) is a small parrot that has rapid, agile flight. During summer, it breeds in colonies in blue gum forest of south-east Tasmania. Infrequent breeding also occurs in north-west Tasmania. The entire population migrates to the mainland for winter. On the mainland it disperses widely and forages on flowers and psyllid lerps in eucalypts. The birds mostly occur on inland slopes, but occasionally occur on the coast (DoE, 2016l).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 37 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species is unlikely to occur within the survey area.

Australasian bittern (endangered) The Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) lives and nests in dense freshwater marshland in the temperate southeast and southwest of Australia (Flegg, 2003). It favours wetlands with tall dense vegetation, where it forages in still, shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep water. It favours permanent and seasonal freshwater habitats, particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and/or reeds (DSEWPC 2012).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species is unlikely to occur within the survey area.

Australian painted snipe (endangered) The Australian painted snipe (Rostratula australis) is a stocky wading bird that occurs at wetlands across Australia, most commonly in eastern Australia. It inhabits shallow terrestrial freshwater (occasionally brackish) wetlands, including temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and claypans along with inundated or waterlogged grassland or saltmarsh, dams, rice crops, sewage farms and bore drains. Typical sites include those with rank emergent tussocks of grass, sedges, rushes or reeds, or samphire. Nest records are all, or nearly all, from or near small islands in freshwater wetlands. This species feeds on vegetation, seeds, insects, worms, molluscs and insects and are likely to disperse in response to drying and flooding conditions. A loss and alteration of wetland is the key threatening process for this species (DoE, 2016m).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species is unlikely to occur within the survey area.

Painted honeyeater (vulnerable) The painted honeyeater (Grantiella picta) is a small black, white and yellow honeyeater that is widespread in eastern Australia and found in open woodland and forest, usually where trees host mistletoes, and in scrub including mallee and mulga (Flegg, 2003).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species has a low likelihood of occurrence within the survey area.

Shorebirds Curlew sandpiper (critically endangered, migratory) The curlew sandpiper (Calidris furruginea) breeds breeds in northern Siberia and is a non-breeding vistor to Australia during summer. In Australia, curlew sandpipers occur around the coasts and are also quite widespread inland, though in smaller numbers. In Victoria, they are widespread and common in coastal bays and inlets and are widespread in near-coastal wetlands, and inland in suitable habitats such as the Kerang area, Mildura, and western districts. Habitat is predominatly intertidal mudflats in sheltered coastal areas, such as estuaries, bays, inlets and lagoons, and also around non-tidal swamps, lakes and lagoons near the coast, and ponds in saltworks and sewage farms. The closest site of international importance for the curlew sandpiper is Lake Martin (Bamford et al., 2008), located approximately 80 km northeast of the survey area.

Western Alaskan bar-tailed godwit (vulnerable, migratory) and Northern Siberian bar-tailed godwit (critically endangered, migratory) The Western Alaskan bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica baueri) breeds in eastern Russia and Alaska. The Northern Siberian bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica menzbieri) breeds in northern central Russia. Both birds are non-breeding vistors to Australia during summer. The bar-tailed godwit (both sub-species combined) has been recorded in the coastal areas of all Australian states. It is widespread in the Torres Strait and along the east and south-east coasts of Queensland, NSW and Victoria. The bar-tailed godwit (western Alaskan) occurs mainly in coastal habitats such as large intertidal sandflats, banks, mudflats, estuaries, inlets, harbours, coastal lagoons and bays. It has also been recorded in coastal sewage farms and saltworks, saltlakes and brackish wetlands near coasts, sandy ocean beaches, rock platforms, and coral reef-flats The closest site of international importance for both sub-species is Corner Inlet (Bamford et al., 2008), located approximately 290 km east of the survey area.

Eastern curlew (critically endangered, migratory) The eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) breeds in eastern Russia and northeast China and the bulk of the population is considered to spend the non-breeding period in Australia. During the non-breeding season in Australia, the eastern curlew is most commonly associated with sheltered coasts, especially estuaries, bays, harbours, inlets and coastal lagoons, with large intertidal mudflats or sandflats, often with beds of seagrass.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 38 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Within Australia, the eastern curlew has a primarily coastal distribution. In Victoria, the main strongholds are in Corner Inlet and Western Port Bay, with smaller populations in Port Phillip Bay and scattered elsewhere along the coast. The closest site of international importance for the eastern curlew is Western Port Bay (Bamford et al., 2008), located approximately 180 km northeast of the survey area.

Australian fairy tern (vulnerable) The Australian fairy tern (Sternula nereis nereis) occurs along the coasts of Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. It is a fish-eating bird and nests on sheltered sandy beaches, spits and banks above the high tide mark and below shoreline vegetation where the substrate is sandy and the vegetation sparse. The fairy tern is an aerial diver for bait-sized fish in shallow, inshore waters often observed near the shoreline and is rarely found out of the sight of land. The species forages by working against the tidal flow in estuaries, periodically hovering 5-15 m above the water surface (Pulham & Wilson, 2013).The species can also feed on plant material, molluscs and crustaceans in inshore waters and undergoes long distance movements within Australia. It is reported that there are only a few pairs in Victoria (International, 2016). The species breeds between October to February and is very vulnerable to extreme weather events such as storms, floods, high-tide or wind-blown events (j). While no specific locations have been identified on the Otway coastline, this species may be present along and within sandy embayments on the adjacent Otway coastline.

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species is unlikely to occur within the survey area.

Hooded plover (vulnerable) Hooded plovers (Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis) are sedentary and inhabit sandy ocean beaches feeding on tiny invertebrates (insects, sand-hoppers, small bivalves and soldier crabs) from the sand near the water’s edge. The species lays their eggs in shallow scrapes in the sand either on the upper beach (above high tide mark) or adjacent backing sand dune. The highest densities of hooded plover occur on broad, flat and wide wave-washed zone with large amounts of beach-washed seaweed. Densities are lowest on narrow steep beaches where there are few or no dunes (Birdlife Australia, 2016). The species captures its prey by running across the surface for marine worms, molluscs, crustaceans, insects, water plants and seeds. They nest in solitary pairs and defend their breeding territories (ranging from 400-1,800 m near the shoreline) from August to March (Barton et al., 2012).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) notes that this species is unlikely to occur adjacent to roadsides within the survey area but the species is known to occur on beaches in the Otway region. The Otway coastline contains recognised hooded plover habitats at Station Beach, Johanna Beach, Milanesian Beach, Princetown Beach, Clifton Beach, Loch Ard Gorge, Shelley Beach, London Bridge, Schomberg Rock, Crofts Bay and BICP.

Reptiles

Three threatened marine reptile species (turtles) may be present in or around the survey area. The EPBC Act PMST erroneously identifies that breeding is likely to occur in the area. There are no identified BIAs for these reptiles in western Bass Strait.

Loggerhead turtle (endangered) The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) is globally distributed in sub-tropical waters and is rarely seen off the Victorian coast. The loggerhead is a carnivorous turtle, feeding primarily on benthic invertebrates in habitat ranging from nearshore to 55 m depth (DoE, 2015f; Plotkin et al., 1993).

The main Australian breeding areas for loggerhead turtles are generally confined to southern Queensland and Western Australia (Cogger et al., 1993). Loggerhead turtles will migrate over distances in excess of 1,000 km, but show a strong fidelity to their feeding and breeding areas (Limpus, 2008). No known loggerhead foraging areas have been identified in Victoria waters although foraging areas have been infrequently identified in waters off South Australia (EA, 2003; DoE, 2015f).

This species is not expected to be encountered during the survey.

Leatherback turtle (endangered) The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is a pelagic feeder found in tropical, sub-tropical and temperate waters throughout the world. Unlike other marine turtles, the leatherback turtle utilises cold water foraging areas, with the species most commonly reported foraging in coastal waters between southern Queensland and central NSW, southeast Australia (Tasmania, Victoria and eastern SA), and southern WA (DoE, 2015g). This species is an occasional visitor to the Otway shelf and has been sighted on a number of occasions during aerial surveys

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 39 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

undertaken by the Blue Whale Study Group, particularly to the southwest of Cape Otway. It is mostly a pelagic species, and away from its feeding grounds is rarely found inshore (EA, 2003).

No major nesting has been recorded in Australia, with isolated nesting recorded in Queensland and the Northern Territory. This species nests only in the tropics. The waters of the acquisition area do not represent critical habitat for the species and the it is not expected to be encountered during the survey.

Green turtle (vulnerable) Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nest, forage and migrate across tropical northern Australia. They usually occur between the 20°C isotherms, although individuals can stray into temperate waters as vagrant visitors. Green turtles spend their first 5-10 years drifting on ocean currents. During this pelagic (ocean-going) phase, they are often found in association with drift lines and floating rafts of Sargassum. There are no known nesting or foraging grounds for green turtles offshore Victoria; they occur only as rare vagrants in these waters (EA, 2003).

This species is not expected to be encountered during the survey.

Amphibians

The growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis) is a large frog (females may exceed 10 cm in length) that was formerly distributed across large areas of south-east Australia (DEWHA, 2009). In the last 35 years, its range has contracted substantially as a result of wetland degradation and drought, with DEWHA distribution mapping (2009) noting that in southwest Victoria, species or their habitat may occur (with isolated pockets of known species or habitat).

Habitat for this species comprises still waterbodies (including artificial waterbodies) and slow-flowing streams and rivers, with important microhabitats being submerged and emergent vegetation, rocks and bare ground (DEWHA, 2009). Breeding in southern Victoria occurs during spring and summer with the larval stage lasting up to 15 months. Growling grass frogs have a varied diet, feeding on tadpoles, other frogs, lizards, snakes and small fish (DEWHA, 2009).

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) concluded that there is a low likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area, with the last documented record of the species in the area being in 2002.

Plants

Seven threatened plants listed under the EPBC Act are noted as having the potential to occur within the survey area, with five of these being orchids, as described below. None of these species were detected during targeted surveys of the survey area undertaken by Biosis during October 2016.

Clover glycine (vulnerable) Clover glycine (Glycine latrobaena) is a small perennial herb with leaves that look similar to common pasture clover (DoEE, 2016). A distinguishing feature is the stipules (pair of outgrowths occurring at base of leaf stalk) that are egg or kidney shaped and wrap around the stem. The flowers are purple to pink, pea like, and up to 6 mm long (DoEE, 2016). In Victoria it is widespread in the north-east, Gippsland, central Victoria and western Victoria regions.

Clover glycine is found across south-eastern Australia in native grasslands, dry sclerophyll forests, woodlands and low open woodlands with a grassy ground layer and over sandy or sandy loam soils (DoEE, 2016). Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as low, with the last documented record being in 1980.

Wingless raspwort (vulnerable) In Victoria, populations of the wingless raspwort (Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata) occur in southwest Victoria from near the Glenelg River and Curdies River, and is known to occur from a range of vegetation types (DSEWPC, 2014). The raspwort is a post-disturbance colonizer, and no habitat critical for its survival has been identified. This species if a perennial herb growing to 1.5 m high with square stems and small inconspicuous flowers (DSEWPC, 2014).

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as unlikely, with the last documented record being in 1979.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 40 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Maroon leak-orchid (endangered) The maroon leakhood (Prasophyllum frenchii) is widespread across southern Victoria but of disjunct occurrence, found mostly in loose colonies in grasslands, heathlands and grassy woodlands (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995). This orchid has a single leaf with a flower stem growing to 60 cm tall, with 20-60 fragrant greenish flowers arranged densely (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995). Flowering occurs from October to December.

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as unlikely.

Dense leek-orchid (vulnerable) The dense leak-orchid (Prasophyllum spicatum) is scattered over coastal and hinterland areas of Victoria but of disjunct occurrence, found mostly in grasslands, heathlands and heathy woodlands (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995). This orchid has a single leaf with a flower stem growing to 80 cm tall, with 10-50 widely-opening fragrant white flowers (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995). Flowering occurs from September to November.

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as moderate, with the last documented record being in 1998.

Leafy greenhood (vulnerable) The leafy greenhood (Pterostylis cucullata) is widespread across southern Victoria, growing in closed scrublands on the landward slopes, swales and tops of coastal sand dunes (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995). This orchid has three to seven leaves in a ground-hugging rosette, and has a flower stem growing to 20 cm tall with a single large reddish-brown flower up to 4 cm long. Flowering occurs from July to November, with a peak during September and October (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995).

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as low.

Swamp greenhood (vulnerable) The swamp greenhood (Pterostylis tenuissima) is confined to a few disjunct coastal and hinterland areas west from Wilsons Promontory (but mostly west of Cape Otway), growing exclusively in tall, dense closed scrublands dominated by woolly tea-tree (Leptospermum lanigerum) and found along watercourses and in wetlands (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995). This orchid has three to eight leaves in a ground-hugging rosette, and has a flower stem growing to 30 cm tall with a single flower up to 2 cm long that is translucent white with dark green stripes. The principal flowering months are October and February (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995).

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as moderate, with the last documented record of 30 individual plants being in 2009.

Metallic sun-orchid (endangered) The metallic sun-orchid (Thelymitra epipactoides) is usually found in coastal and hinterland areas west from Bairnsdale, growing primarily in mesic coastal heathlands, grasslands and woodlands on moist or dry sandy loams (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995). This orchid has a single leaf with a flower stem growing to 50 cm tall that hold 5-20 bronze, pink, green, blue to reddish flowers up to 4 cm across. Flowering occurs from September to November (Backhouse and Jeanes, 1995).

Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as moderate, with the last documented record of 29 individual plants being in 2000. Advice from Parks Victoria is that most occurrences of the metallic sun-orchid within the PCNP occur on track verges.

Based on the habitat present within the study area, landscape context and the proximity of previous records, the Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) study notes that the survey area may contain suitable habitat for the dense leek-orchid, swamp greenhood and metallic sun-orchid. Most of the EVCs that occur in the survey area contain a heathy or shrubby component and occur in wet, sandy environments, and are likely to provide habitat for these species although Herb-rich Foothill Forest (EVC 23) typically occurs on more well-drained environments and contains a sparser shrub understorey compared to the other EVCs (Ecology & Heritage Partners, 2016).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 41 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Listed migratory species Migratory species listed in the PMST that have not been described in the section above (because they are not threatened species) are listed in Table 7 and described in this section.

Table 7. EPBC Act listed migratory species that may occur within the Enterprise 3DTZSS area (excluding migratory species already described in Table 6)

Scientific name Common name

Fishes Lamna nasus Porbeagle shark Cetaceans Caperea marginata Pygmy right whale Balaenoptera edeni Bryde’s whales Lagenorhynchus obscurus Dusky dolphin Orcinus orca Killer Whale Birds Apus pacifica Fork-tailed swift Migratory wetland birds Ardea ibis Cattle egret Ardea alba Great egret Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe Gallinago megala Swinhoe’s snipe Gallinago stenura Pin-tailed snipe Numenius minutus Little curlew Tringa nebularia Common greenshank Pandion haliaetus Osprey Migratory terrestrial birds Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated needletail Merops ornatus Rainbow bee-eater Motacilla flava Yellow wagtail Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin flycatcher Rhipidura rufifrons Rufus fantail Migratory seabirds Puffinus carneipes Flesh-footed shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris Short-tailed shearwater Sterna albifrons Little tern

Porbeagle shark The porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) is widely distributed in the southern waters of Australia including Victorian and Tasmanian waters. The species preys on bony fishes and cephalopods, and is an opportunistic hunter that regularly moves up and down in the water column, catching prey in mid-water as well as at the seafloor. It is most commonly found over food-rich banks on the outer continental shelf, but does make occasional forays close to

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 42 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

shore or into the open ocean, down to depths of approximately 1,300 m (DoE, 2015b). It also conducts long- distance seasonal migrations, generally shifting between shallower and deeper water (Pade et al., 2009). The porbeagle shark may occasionally transit the survey area but is not expected to occur in significant numbers.

Pygmy right whale The pygmy right whale (Caperea marginata) is a little-studied baleen whale species that is found in temperate and sub-Antarctic waters in oceanic and inshore locations. The species, which has never been hunted commercially, is thought to have a circumpolar distribution in the Southern Hemisphere between about 30°S and 55°S. Distribution appears limited by the surface water temperature as they are almost always found in waters with temperatures ranging from 5° to 20°C (Baker, 1985) and staying north of the Antarctic Convergence. There are few confirmed sightings of pygmy right whales at sea (Reilly et al., 2008a). The largest reported group was sighted (100+) just south-west of Portland in June 2007 (Gill et al., 2008).

Species distribution in Australia is found close to coastal upwellings and further offshore it appears that the Subtropical Convergence may be important for regulating distribution (Bannister et al., 1996). Key locations include south-east Tasmania, Kangaroo Island (SA) and southern Eyre Peninsula (SA) close to upwelling habitats rich in marine life and zooplankton upon which it feeds (Bannister et al., 1996).

Based upon the species habitat preferences, it is possible this species may be encountered during the survey period given the location of the Bonney upwelling, however this species was not observed during the 2010 Speculant MSS and 2014 Enterprise MSS.

Bryde’s whale Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni) are generally found between latitudes of about 40°N and 40°S in tropical and warm temperate waters exceeding 16.3°C, but generally in the 20°C isotherm and have been recorded off all Australian states (Bannister et al., 1996). Bryde’s whales can be found in both oceanic and inshore waters with the only key localities recognised in Australia being in the northern parts of the continent, with only one confirmed sighting off the Victorian coast (DoE, 2015d).

Population estimates are not available for Bryde’s whales, globally or in Australia, and no migration patterns have been documented in Australian waters (DoE, 2015d). Offshore populations have been recorded in depths of between 500 and 1,000 m. Due to the shallow waters (<60 m) of the survey area, and the temperature range of waters present in the survey area (10-18°C), it is unlikely to represent critical habitat for this species and encounter with significant numbers are not expected. This species was not observed during 123 aerial surveys in western Bass Strait conducted between 2002 and 2013 (Gill et al., 2015).

Dusky dolphin The dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscures) is rare in Australian waters and has been primarily reported across southern Australia from Western Australia to Tasmania with a handful of confirmed sightings near Kangaroo Island and off Tasmania (Gill et al., 2000). Only 13 reports of the dusky dolphin have been made in Australia since 1828, and key locations are yet to be identified (Bannister et al., 1996). The species is primarily found from approximately 55°S to 26°S, though sometimes further north associated with cold currents. They are considered to be primarily an inshore species, but can also be oceanic when cold currents are present (Gill et al., 2000; Ross, 2006).

Given the lack of sightings in Australian waters, it is unlikely that significant numbers of dusky dolphins would be present in the vicinity of the survey area.

Killer whale Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are thought to be the most cosmopolitan of all cetaceans and appear to be more common in cold, deep waters, however they have often been observed along the continental slope and shelf particularly near seal colonies (Bannister et al., 1996). The killer whale is widely distributed from polar to equatorial regions and has been recorded in all Australian waters with concentrations around Tasmania. The only recognised key locality in Australia is Macquarie Island and Heard Island in the Southern Ocean (Bannister et al., 1996). The habitat of killer whales includes oceanic, pelagic and neritic (relatively shallow waters over the continental shelf) regions, in both warm and cold waters (DoE, 2016f).

Killer whales are top-level carnivores. Their diet varies seasonally and regionally. The specific diet of Australian killer whales is not known, but there are reports of attacks on dolphins, young humpback whales, blue whales, sperm whales, dugongs and Australian sea lions (Bannister et al., 1996). In Victoria, sightings peak in June/July, where they have been observed feeding on sharks, sunfish, and Australian fur seals (Morrice, 2004; Mustoe, 2008).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 43 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

The breeding season is variable and the species moves seasonally to areas of food supply (Bannister et al., 1996; Morrice et al., 2004). It is possible that killer whales may occur in the vicinity of the survey area, however given the distance to the nearest seal colonies (22 km southeast), the survey area is unlikely to represent an important habitat for this species and significant numbers of this species are not expected during the survey period.

Migratory birds Many of the migratory bird species noted in Table 6 and Table 7 have widespread distributions and/and occupy relatively broad habitats. Notably both egrets, the fork-taled swift and all of the migratory terrestrial birds have broad distributions across eastern Australia. The osprey is distributed around the entire Australian coastline whilst the flesh footed shearwater is is a trans-equatorial migrant widely distributed across the south-western Pacific during breeding season (early September to early May). None of the migratory wetland birds have sites of international importance in the region encompasing the survey area. The closest site of international importance is Eastern Port Phillip Bay (for the common greenshank) some 130 km east of the survey area. There is no plausible risk of the survey significantly impacting these migratory species and they are not considred further in this referral.

The two species described below are known to occupy coastal shoreline habitats in the region encompassing the survey area. Impacts to these species are considered further in this referral.

• The short-tailed shearwater is known to occur and breed in western Bass Strait. This species is Australia’s most abundant seabird, with millions of birds converging on small offshore islands along the southern Australia’s coast during their summer breeding season, with Bass Strait being their stronghold (BirdLife Australia, 2016). It breeds in Australia and winter in the North Pacific, and returns to southern Australia in summer to breed. The species has a bi-modal feeding strategy while breeding, alternating short foraging trips to local waters with long foraging trips (up to 17 days) (Birdlife international, 2016). The species feeds on krill, small fish and other marine creatures, mostly feeding on the water surface (Lindsey, 1986). A colony of approximately 12,000 short-tailed shearwaters nest on Mutton Bird Island (located 5 km southeast of the survey area) in Victorian waters from September through to April. The BICP (Schlomburg Beach, adjacent to survey area) also contains shearwater habitat. This species may overfly and forage within the survey area during the survey period. • The little tern is widespread, migratory and occurring around the Australian coastline from Broome, around the northern coastline to south-eastern South Australia. The species inhabits sheltered coastal environments (lagoons, estuaries, river mouths and deltas, exposed sand spits or sandbanks and exposed ocean beaches (least preferred)). Breeding occurs between September and February in a shallow scrape in the sand sometimes laced next to debris (driftwood, etc.) above the high-tide mark (DoE, 2016o). The species forages in shallow waters of estuaries, coastal lagoons and lakes and frequently over channels next to spits and banks or entrances on small fish crustaceans, insects and molluscs taken by plunge diving. They forage along open coasts, less often at sea and usually within 50 m of the shore. This species may be present along sandy embayments on the adjacent Otway coastline during the survey period.

Nature and extent of likely impact to threatened and migratory species Origin has undertaken a thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS on the onshore and offshore physical, ecological and socio-economic environments within the survey area, with detailed results presented in the onshore EMP and offshore EP. The EIA presented here is focused solely on impacts and risks that may affect MNES.

For this survey, impacts resulting from the survey with the potential to affect MNES are: • Offshore

o Underwater sound. o Vessel light. o Vessel strike of entanglement with cetaceans. o Introduction of invasive marine species. • Onshore

o Noise and vibration

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 44 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

o Damage to vegetation. o Interference with fauna. o Introduction of weeds/pathogens.

OFFSHORE Underwater sound

The following activities will generate underwater sound: • Sound pulses from the seismic airgun array; and • Engine noise transmitted through the hull and propeller noise from the survey vessels. Seismic source The dominant source of underwater sound during the seismic survey will be from the operation of the seismic source (airgun array), which is proposed to be in frequent operation for the duration of the survey. The seismic contractor has not been selected at time of writing and, therefore, the configuration of the successful contractor airgun arrays is unknown. For accurate imaging in shallow waters, Origin anticipates using airgun arrays with a maximum volume of 900 cui, and an effective source volume of 270 cui. The EIA is based on modelled outputs from a 900 cui airgun.

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

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

Vessel sound The survey vessels will generate low levels of machinery noise. The sound levels and frequency characteristics of underwater noise produced by vessels are related to ship size and speed. Tugboats, crew boats, supply ships, and many research vessels in the 50-100 m size class typically have broadband source levels in the 165-180 dB re 1µPa range (Gotz et al., 2009). In comparison, underwater noise levels generated by trawlers can peak at around 175 dB re 1µPa, large ships can produce levels exceeding 190 dB re 1µPa (Gotz et al., 2009) and vessels up to 20 m size class typically 151-156 dB re 1µPa (Richardson et al., 1995). Survey vessels selected for the Enterprise 3DTZSS are expected to be up to 20 m given the survey methodology and coastal location.

Sound emissions from survey vessels will be at a much lower level than that emitted from the active airgun array. While both these sources are in operation, the underwater sound generated by vessels will be a negligible addition to the cumulative underwater sound levels. There will be limited periods of time when the seismic source is not operational (e.g., during maintenance and marine fauna shut-downs), during which engine noise will be the major source. However, it is unlikely that engine noise levels will be greater than that of any other vessel normally operating in the area. The assessment of underwater sound from general vessel operations below is, therefore, based upon underwater sound from the airgun arrays being the dominant sources.

Known and potential environmental impacts The potential environmental impacts to marine fauna from high levels of underwater sound are:

• Physical injury to auditory tissues or other air-filled organs; • Hearing loss, temporary threshold shift (TTS) or permanent threshold shift (PTS);

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 45 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

• Direct behavioural effects through disturbance or displacement, and consequent disruption of natural behaviours or processes (e.g., migration, resting, calving or spawning); and • Indirect behavioural effects by impairing/masking the ability to navigate, find food or communicate, or by affecting the distribution or abundance of prey species.

Specifically, underwater sound from seismic sources has the potential to affect adversely the following environmental values and associated MNES within and in the vicinity of the survey area, to varying degrees:

• Fish:

o The great white shark, porbeagle and Australian grayling are mobile species that are likely to move away from the source as sound levels increase; • Cetaceans (whales and dolphins):

o Foraging habitat for blue whales (offshore survey area within foraging BIA); o Nursing and/or migrating habitat for southern right whales (offshore survey area within migration BIA and adjacent to aggregation BIA);

o Other migrating and transient whales known to occur in the region; o Dolphin species likely to occur in temperate near shore habitats (e.g., bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin). • Threatened and migratory seabirds:

o Foraging habitat. • Threatened and migratory reptiles:

o Possible foraging habitat. The potential impact on individual animals from exposure to elevated sound levels above ambient in a given area depends on a number of factors, including the individual’s proximity to the sound source, its ability to avoid the sound field generated by the source, its specific physiological tolerance and the overlap between its hearing range and the sound source frequency range. Most of the sound energy of the seismic airgun pulses is in the low frequency range of 10 to 200 Hz (McCauley, 1994; OGP, 2011). This overlaps with the frequency range of some marine fauna groups, but is unlikely to be heard by many marine species. Those marine species most at risk from acoustic disturbance from seismic operations are species that hear and communicate in a similar low frequency range to the range of noises produced by seismic sources (namely cetaceans migrating through the area, particularly baleen whale species). In addition, those fish and invertebrate species that are deemed as truly site- attached (i.e., less able to swim away from the moving seismic source due to close associations with benthic features), are at increased risk from acoustic disturbance.

Sound propagation modelling

Origin commissioned the Centre for Marine Science and Technology (CMST), Curtin University, to complete sound transmission loss modelling (STLM) for the Enterprise 3DTZSS (Duncan, 2016) to allow for the determination of sound impacts from the survey. Sound decay characteristics were modelled with an air gun array of volume 900 cui (effective volume 270 cui) and source pressure of 2,000 psi, in three different locations (and depths) to estimate the seabed sound level impact, sound transmission loss across the survey area, and the maximum received sound level at sensitive subsea features such as The Marine Arches Marine Sanctuary. The theoretical array source SEL was calculated to be 216.6 dB re 1µPa2.s @ 1 m with the equivalent SPL of 241.9 dB re 1µPa.s @ 1 m. The coastal location of the survey in shallow water required both short and long-range modelling to generate the sound transmission loss curves. Figure 12 provides the locations used for short and long-range modelling. Table 8 provides the modelled maximum received SEL and SPL data for these locations.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 46 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Source: Duncan (2016).

Figure 12. Survey area showing short range modelling source locations (S1, S2 and S3) and long range modelling locations (L1 and L2). White polygon is the survey area boundary, the yellow square is the boundary of The Arches marine Sanctuary and magenta lines are the proposed survey lines.

Table 8. Modelling sound predictions for the Enterprise 3DTZSS

Maximum seabed (direct Source Maximum at marine park boundary Source vertical) distance to location Marine SEL (dB re 1 SPL (dB re SEL (dB re 1 SPL (dB re 1µPa) (depth) 2 Sanctuary 2 µPa .s) 1µPa) (m) µPa .s) S1 (50 m) 185.5 212.3 4500 135.5 157.5 S2 (30 m) 190.9 216.5 730 155.0 179.0 S3 (5 m) 206.8 233.7 310 160 186 Source: Duncan (2016).

The following figures summarises the results of this study: • Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15 provide the modelled sound attenuation characteristics (SEL and SPL) as a function of distance for the array in water depths of 5 m, 30 m and 50 m respectively. As illustrated in these diagrams, particularly Figure 13 (5 m depth), the increased spread of SELs at a nominated distance from the source shows the effects of greater attenuation of sound in shallower waters. Importantly within all these figures, and at all depths:

2 o The SEL has decreased to below 160 dB re 1µPa .s within 1 km of the source location at all locations. For shallow and intermediate water depths, this threshold is predicted 200–500 m from the source. In deeper waters (50 m) this threshold is predicted between 200–600 m from the source. The SEL threshold of 160 dB re 1µPa2.s has been adopted by the DoEE, under the EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 (Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales, DEWHA 2008) to determine whale exclusion zones during seismic survey operations, where the acoustic power output must be reduced or shut down completely to prevent significant exposure, and induce TTS in hearing, to whales.

2 o The SEL at 3 km lies between 130-145 dB re 1µPa .s (SPL of 155 to 165 dB re 1µPa); and at 5 km lies between 80–140 dB re 1µPa2.s. The increased SEL variance between 3 km and 5 km is attributed to the rapid attenuation of sound in the inshore direction (shallow waters). • Figure 16 provides the maximum SEL at any depth from the acoustic source when located at L1 and L2. As indicated by Duncan (2016), SELs attenuate more rapidly in the inshore direction, propagate greater distances in the downslope direction, and shows variability with depth and distance from source.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 47 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

These SEL contours must be placed in the context of background sound levels experienced in the coastal zone (i.e., received SELs due to surf noise of 113, 108 and 105 dB re 1µPa2.s at 2.8, 4.4 and 8.5 km respectively from the coast have been modelled) (Parsons and Duncan, 2009) and shoreline wave sound footprints (@ 10m depth) in excess of 175 dB re 1µPa2.s calculated for median wave heights at median period frequencies (Duncan et al., 2012).

Source: Duncan (2016). Figure 13. Maximum SEL and SPL at any depth in the water column as a function of range from the source coordinate origin for all azimuths for a source at S3 (5 m water depth)

Source: Duncan (2016). Figure 14. Maximum SEL and SPL at any depth in the water column as a function of range from the source coordinate origin for all azimuths for a source at S2 (30 m water depth)

Source: Duncan (2016). Figure 15. Maximum SEL and SPL at any depth in the water column as a function of range from the source coordinate origin for all azimuths for a source at L1 & S3 (50 m water depth). In all graphs, blue dots are from flat seabed modelling, red crosses are from short range modelling, green crosses are from long- range modelling

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 48 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Source: Duncan (2016). Figure 16. Predicted geographical dependence of the maximum SEL at any depth for the source at L1 (top) and L2 (bottom)

Additionally, Origin previously commissioned the deployment of three passive acoustic monitors (PAM) in coastal areas between Moonlight Head and Warrnambool between April 2012 and January 2013. Data was successfully obtained from only one of these loggers, situated 5 km from the coastline east of Warrnambool. This logger identified high ambient underwater spectral levels, with a mean of 110 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz, and peaks up to 161 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz (McCauley & Gavrilov 2013). Impacts to fish Underwater noise levels significantly higher than ambient levels can have a negative impact on fish, ranging from physical injury or mortality, to temporary effects on hearing and behavioural disturbance effects. The hearing system of most fishes is sensitive to sound pressures between 50 and 500 Hz, the lower end of which (< 200 Hz) overlaps the predominant frequency range of seismic noise emissions (Ladich, 2012; McCauley et al., 2000). Sound is perceived by fish through the ears and the lateral line (the acoustico-lateralis system), which is sensitive to vibration. The effects of underwater sound on fish within the vicinity of the seismic array will vary depending on the size, age, sex and condition of the receptor among other physiological aspects, and the topography of the benthos, water depth, sound intensity and sound duration. The effect of noise on a receptor may be either physiological (e.g. injury or mortality) or behavioural. Direct physical damage may occur to fish if they approach within a few metres (<5 m) of the seismic source (Gausland, 2000; McCauley et al., 2000; Parvin et al., 2007). Behavioural

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 49 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

changes such as startle or alarm responses are expected to be localised and temporary, with displacement of pelagic or migratory fish likely to have insignificant repercussions at a population level (McCauley, 1994; McCauley & Kent, 2012; Popper et al., 2007; 2015). Lethal effects of seismic surveys on fish have not been reported, but those with a swim bladder closely connected to the inner ear are more susceptible than those without (McCauley, 1994). Fish with thin-walled, lightly damped and large swim bladders with a resonant frequency near 100 Hz will be most susceptible to mechanical damage or trauma from seismic shots. Other fish, including the elasmobranchs (sharks and rays), family Scombridae (mackerels and tuna) and many of the flatfish and flounder species do not possess a swim bladder and so are not susceptible to swim bladder-induced trauma (McCauley, 1994). According to Turnpenny and Nedwell (1994), inshore, shallow water fish communities are largely benthic species without a swim bladder and are therefore also less sensitive to sound. Available studies supporting the observed no lethal effects to fish from seismic source exposure include: • Weinhold and Weaver (1972, cited in Turnpenny et al., 1994) exposed caged coho salmon smolts to impulses from 330 and 660-in3 airguns at distances ranging from 1 to 10 m, resulting in received levels estimated at ~214 to 216 dB (units not given). No lethal effects were observed. • Santulli et al (1999) exposed caged European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) to a moving seismic airgun array with a source SPL of about 256 dB re 1 μPa·m 0-p. The airguns were discharged every 25 seconds during a 2 hour period and the minimum distance between fish and seismic source was 180 m. The received SEL was not reported but can be estimated to be in the vicinity of 195 dB re 1 μPa2·s. Samples were collected from both exposed fish (6 hours post-exposure) and control fish (6 hours pre-exposure). The authors did not indicate any observed pathological injury to the sea bass but found evidence of biochemical stress responses as measured by cortisol, glucose and lactate levels. Elevated levels of cortisol, glucose and lactate returned to pre-exposure levels within 72 hours of exposure (Santulli et al., 1999). • McCauley et al (2003) exposed caged snapper (Pagrus auratus), a species widely distributed in southern and eastern Australian waters, to sound pressures up to 190 dB re 1 μPa RMS or an approximate SEL of 180 dB re 1 μPa2·s. This study showed that the ears of exposed fishes sustained damage to their sensory epithelia that was apparent as ablated hair cells, with no evidence of repair or replacement of the damaged sensory cells up to 58 days after air gun exposure. There was no mortality and the fishes continued to feed for the whole post-exposure time. Although this study provides information on the potential effects of seismic airguns on fish, it was carried out in cages where the fish were not able to swim away from the sound source. Additionally sensory hair cells are constantly added in fishes (Popper & Hoxter, 1984; Lombarte & Popper, 1994) and are also replaced when damaged (Lombarte et al., 1993; Smith et al., 2006; Schuck & Smith, 2009). Therefore, any impacts to the hair cells of fish that could not avoid the seismic source would be temporary. • Popper et al (2005) tested the hearing sensitivity of three caged freshwater fish species (northern pike Esox lucius, broad whitefish Coregonus nasus, and lake chub Couesius plumbeus) in the Mackenzie River, northern Canada, after exposure to five discharges from a seismic airgun. The mean received peak SPL was 205 to 209 dB re 1 μPa per discharge, and the approximate mean received SEL was 176 to 180 dB re 1 μPa2·s per discharge. While the broad whitefish showed no TTS as a result of the exposure, adult northern pike and lake chub exhibited TTS of 10 to 15 dB, followed by complete recovery within 24 hours of exposure. The same animals were also examined to determine whether there were observable effects on the sensory cells of the inner ear as a result of exposure to seismic sound. No damage to the ears of the fishes was found, including those that exhibited TTS (Song et al., 2008). • Boeger et al (2006) reported observations of coral reef fishes in field enclosures before, during and after exposure to seismic airgun sound. This study used an array of eight airguns that was presented to the fishes as both a mobile sound source and a static sound source. Minimum distances between the sound source and the fish cage ranged from 0 to 7 m. Received sound levels were not reported. Neither mortality nor external damage to the fishes was observed in any of the experimental scenarios. Most of the airgun array discharges resulted in startle responses although these behavioural changes lessened with repeated exposures, suggesting habituation. • Hastings et al (2008) found that close passes of a seismic array with measured cumulative SEL of up to 190 dB re 1 µPa, at ~45 m from the seismic source, did not damage the hearing sensitivity of caged hearing specialist reef fish (pinecone soldierfish, Myripristis murdjan) and non-hearing specialist reef fish species (blue green damselfish, Chromis viridis; sabre squirrelfish, Sargocentron spiniferum and bluestripe seaperch, Lutjanus kasmira). • A study conducted by Casper et al (2012) did not identify any mortal or potentially mortal injuries in the four fish species studied exposed to piling noise levels above a peak SPL of 207 dB re 1 µPa.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 50 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

• A recent study by Wagner et al (2015) exposed gobies to six discharges of seismic sound at an average peak SPL of 229 dB re 1 µPa. Fish were monitored for 60 hours post exposure and no mortality, significant hair cell loss or otolith damage was observed. • Gausland (2000) postulates that while seismic airgun operation causes little direct physical damage to fish at distances greater than 1-2 m from the source, it is evident that fish respond to sounds emitted from air guns, and that avoidance seems to be the primary response for all species. Damage to seismic survey hydrophone cables by pelagic fish imply that some fish species show no long distance avoidance reaction to seismic sounds (McCauley, 1994). • Available evidence suggests that behavioural change for some fish species may occur, however this is thought to be localised and temporary, with displacement of pelagic or migratory fish populations having insignificant repercussions at a population level (McCauley, 1994). Other studies indicate: • Slotte et al (2004) examined potential effects of on fish abundance to exposure to a seismic airgun array (source SPL of 222.6 dB re 1 μPa·mp-p) during a period of one month. The SPLs received by the fish were not measured. Acoustic surveys of the local distributions of various kinds of pelagic fish, including herring, blue whiting, and mesopelagic species, were conducted during the seismic surveys. There was no strong evidence of short-term horizontal distributional effects. With respect to vertical distribution, blue whiting and mesopelagics were distributed deeper (20 to 50 m) during the seismic survey compared to pre-exposure. • Wardle et al (2001) used video and telemetry to make behavioural observations of marine fishes (primarily juvenile saithe, adult pollock, juvenile cod, and adult mackerel) inhabiting an inshore reef off Scotland before, during, and after exposure to discharges of a stationary airgun. The received SPLs ranged from about 195 to 218 dB re 1 μPa0-p. Pollock did not move away from the reef in response to the seismic airgun sound, and their diurnal rhythm did not appear to be affected. However, there was an indication of a slight effect on the long-term day-to-night movements of the pollock. Video camera observations indicated that fish exhibited startle responses (‘C-starts’) to all received levels. There were also indications of behavioural responses to visual stimuli. If the seismic source was visible to the fish, they fled from it. However, if the source was not visible to the fish, they often continued to move toward it. • Trials of effects of nearby airgun operations on captive fish, undertaken by McCauley et al (2000) showed a generic fish ‘alarm’ response of swimming faster, swimming to the bottom, tightening school structure, or all three. From a review of trials and available published information, McCauley et al (2000) concluded the following effects on fish:

o Demersal fish could be expected to begin to change their behaviour by increasing speed and swimming deeper in the water column;

o As air gun level increases, fish would be expected to form compact schools probably near the bottom in continental shelf water depths (<200 m);

o Eventually levels may be reached at which involuntarily startle responses occur in the form of the classic C-turn (involuntary flexing of the body and subsequent darting swim away from the source);

o In deeper water (>200 m), any effects would be expected to lessen with increasing depth, as the airgun signal level dropped accordingly;

o Startle responses may be generated by fish within 300 m and up to 2,000 m of an operating airgun array; and

o Flight response could be expected up to several kilometres. • These trials, as well as studies by Wardle et al (2001), Dalen et al (1996) and Gausland (2000) also indicate the following:

o Fish generally show little evidence of increased stress from exposure to seismic signals unless restricted from moving away from the source; and

o Fish may become acclimatised to seismic signals over time. Thresholds for the observed initial increase in swimming behaviour were of the order of 156 dB re 1µPa RMS, and at levels of around 161-168 dB re 1µPa RMS active avoidance of the airgun source would be expected to occur. For the 3D array measured (2,678 cui in 100–120 m water depths) as part of the study, these SPLs corresponded to a range of around 3–5 km and 1–2 km from the source, respectively (McCauley et al., 2000). Injuries to fish only appear to occur at sound levels in the order of 220 dB re 1µPa, that is, very close to the source (Turnpenny and Nedwell, 1994). However, avoidance by fish occurs at ~160–180 dB re 1µPa. As such, whilst lethal effects to fishes from seismic testing have not been observed, behaiovoural effects have been reasonably well documented. Given the research context described above, seismic sound generated during

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 51 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

the survey may result in the localised and temporary displacement of any Australian grayling present. Any such effect is not expected to be significant. Impacts to elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) Limited research has been conducted on shark and ray responses to marine seismic surveys. Sharks and rays differ from bony fish in that they have no accessory organs of hearing (i.e., a swim bladder) and therefore are unlikely to respond to acoustical pressure (Myrberg, 2001). The lateral line system does not respond to normal acoustic stimuli, and is unable to detect sound-induced water displacements beyond a few body lengths, even with large sound intensities (Myrberg, 2001). Sharks are highly sensitive to low frequency sound between 40 and 800 Hz (Myrberg, 2001), sensed solely through the particle-motion component of an acoustic field. This range overlaps with seismic sound frequencies. However, sharks do not appear to be attracted by continuous signals or higher frequency sounds which presumably they cannot hear (Popper & Løkkeborg, 2008). Klimey and Myrberg (1979) established that an individual shark will suddenly turn and withdraw from a sound source of high intensity (more than 20 dB re 1 µPa above background ambient noise levels) when approaching within 10 m of the sound source. The available evidence indicates sharks will generally avoid seismic sources and, with the management measures provided, the likely impacts on sharks are expected to be limited to short-term behavioural responses, such as avoidance of waters around the operating seismic array. The proposed acquisition area does not contain BIAs for any threatened shark species that may occur in the region and these species are not expected to occur in large numbers in the area. Coupled with their lack of a swim bladder and their known avoidance response to sudden sound increases, it is anticipated that the survey will have minimal impacts on elasmobranch populations or their normal movements through the region. Any effects to the great white shark or porbeagle from the survey are expected to be very localised and transitory and it is considered that no significant impacts will be experienced. Impacts to cetaceans The survey area spatially overlaps a BIA for pygmy blue whales and southern right whales and overlaps habitat for several other cetacean species. Research on energy levels from seismic surveys that may cause TTS in baleen whales is limited. An experiment on an individual beluga whale has demonstrated a small, but distinct TTS after exposure to a single seismic shot at an energy level of 186 dB re 1µPa2.s (Finneran et al., 2002). Duncan (2016) also states that instantaneous physiological damage is only likely to occur to cetaceans if peak sound levels exceed 265–275 dB re 1 μPa. To account for uncertainties and the cumulative effect of multiple exposures, the EPBC Act policy Statement 2.1 (DEWHA, 2008) adopts an SEL threshold of 160 dB re 1 μPa2.s for a single seismic ‘shot’ to prevent damage to cetaceans. This threshold value is used in the policy to determine whale exclusion zones where seismic surveys must lower their acoustic power output, or shut down completely, in order to prevent significant exposure to sound levels that could induce TTS. If it can be demonstrated that SELs from air-gun shots fall below this at less than 1 km, a reduced 1 km ‘low-power’ exclusion zone can be adopted, while if they are above this threshold, the surveys must operate with a 2 km exclusion zone. Given the acoustic source selected for the survey and its modelled maximum SPL of 241.9 dB re 1µPa (or 216.6 dB re 1µPa2.s) (Duncan, 2016) sound levels whereby TTS may be expected (>186 dB re 1µPa2.s) lie within 30 m of the operating source (a very limited area). A secondary concern arising from sound generation is the potential non-physiological effects on cetaceans including: • Increased stress levels; • Disruption to underwater acoustic cues; • Behavioural changes; and • Localised avoidance. • These aspects are discussed further in this section. Toothed whale species that may traverse the area include the killer whale and dolphin species. The auditory bandwidths and frequency of calls produced by toothed whale species are well above the low frequency range of marine seismic surveys (NOO, 2001). The majority of toothed cetaceans have their highest sensitivity to sound in the ultrasonic range (>20,000 Hz), though most have a moderate sensitivity from 1,000–20,000 Hz (APPEA, 2006). The killer whale and dusky dolphin have hearing in this mid-frequency bandwidth of 150 Hz to 16,000 Hz (Southall et al., 2007), with killer whales producing pulsed sounds typically of 500 Hz to 25 kHz (Richardson et

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 52 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

al., 1995). These frequencies are above those generated by seismic sound and, as such, it is considered unlikely that these species will be impacted. The small oceanic dolphins likely to be encountered during the survey (bottlenose dolphin and common dolphin) have very broad distributions and habitat requirements. Both of these species are known to ride the bow waves of vessels (Bannister et al., 1996, Perrin, 1998; Ross, 2006; Hawkins & Gartside, 2009; Barkaszi et al., 2012; Barry et al., 2012). Bow riding of seismic vessels is also a common occurrence, though likely to occur less frequently when the source is operating. Barry et al (2012) examined marine fauna observational data for 21 offshore seismic surveys from Europe, West Africa and Australia to assess the behaviour of bottlenose and common dolphins. This analysis found no significant difference in the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins when the seismic array was active or inactive, including ‘close to boat’ behaviours of approaching the vessel and bow riding. Common dolphins were found to show significantly more ‘close to boat’ behaviour when the seismic array was not active, though such behaviours still accounted for approximately 20% of activity when the seismic source was active. Goold (1996) also observed common dolphins bow riding during seismic surveys off the coast of Wales, though the observation rate was lower when the source was active. Baleen whales communicate using low frequency sound and are therefore considered to be the most sensitive marine mammals to the low frequency noise produced by seismic surveys (McCauley, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995). Richardson et al (2005) reported that baleen whales seem tolerant of low- and moderate-level sound pulses from distant seismic surveys, usually continuing their normal activities when exposed to pulses with received levels as high as 150 dB re 1 μPa, and sometimes even higher (typically 50 dB+ above typical ambient noise levels). SELs greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa2.s are known to cause behavioural responses in baleen whales (as per EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1). Studies also indicate that cetaceans are less responsive when migrating or feeding than when resting, suckling or socialising (SCAR, 2002). Blue whales produce most of their vocalisations in the frequency range 15 to 20 Hz in the North Atlantic and 10 to 30 Hz off Western Australia (Gill & Morrice, 2003). As this frequency range overlaps with seismic arrays (McCauley, 2004) there is potential for acoustic disturbance of blue whales by seismic surveys. Johnson et al., (2007) summarized detailed investigations into the behavior of eastern north pacific gray whales exposed to air gun pulses. These studies of feeding gray whales in the Bering Sea and migrating gray whales off California suggested that approximately 10% of gray whales would probably behaviorally respond by moving away from the seismic vessel if received SELs were ≥156 dB re 1µPa2.s as measured in the water column. SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s are predicted to occur within 700 m of the proposed source to be utilised on the Enterprise 3DTZSS (Duncan, 2016). As such, the area affected by SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is 1.54 km2 for any individual seimic pulse. This equates to an affected area of 0.006% of the blue whale foraging area (annual high use area) described in the conservation management plan for the species. The aggregated area exposed to SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s from a daily survey section (17 km2) is approximately 0.1% of the blue whale foraging area (based on annual high use area). Such affected areas are negligible relative to the size of the foraging area and are not considered biologically significant given the mobility of the pygmy blue whale. The primary measure proposed to mitigate impacts of seismic sound to blue whales is to limit the size of the acoustic source to reduce sound impacts as far as possible while achieving survey objectives. Another influencing factor is the survey location in water depths up to 60 m. Most sightings of blue whales during the upwelling period indicate that they occupy deeper waters (>50 m), and no blue whales were sighted within 5.7km of the shore in the eastern zone by Gill et al (2011). As such, the very near shore survey area significantly reduces the potential for spatial overlap. The time period selected for the survey (November to March) overlaps the period of peak blue whale abundance (February/March) in the Otway Basin identified by Gill et al (2011). Recognising the possible presence of blue whales, a range of additional mitigation measures have been identified, and assessed, to mitigate impacts should blue whales be present whilst the survey is being undertaken. These mitigation measures, listed in Section 5, are designed to increase the likelihood of detecting blue whales in the survey area and avoid or mitigate impacts to any blue whales present. These measures conform with the management actions detailed in the Blue Whale Conservation Management Plan (DoE, 2015c) by: • Adopting measures whereby anthropogenic noise in BIAs will be managed such that any blue whale continues to utilise the area without injury and is not displaced from a foraging area (A.2(3)); • Adopting EPBC Policy Statement 2.1 – Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales is applied to all seismic surveys (A.2(4)); and • Ensuring the risk of vessel strikes on blue whales is considered when assessing actions that increase vessel traffic in areas where blue whales occur, and, if required, appropriate mitigation easures are implemented (A.4 (3)).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 53 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

The suite of mitigation measures detailed in Section 5 exceeds the standard requirements defined in EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 (Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales) (Part A) and includes additional control measures listed in Part B, such as the use of Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) and area surveillance, in recognition of the importance of the area as blue whale feeding habitat. With these measures in place, impacts to blue whales are not predicted to be significant. A southern right whale nursery ground is located at Logan’s Beach, approximately 36 km northwest of the nearest survey point. Victorian state waters also represent a resting/transiting zone for the species when they are present. The timing of the survey avoids the peak presence of mother/calves in these BIAs and it is considered highly unlikely that there will be encounters with this species during the survey period. Figure 15 identifies that sound generated from the acoustic source will reach background levels typically experienced in near-coast waters (~120 dB re 1µPa2.s) approximately 4-40 km from the operating acoustic source. The Otway coastline is known to have high levels of ambient sound and sound levels also have the potential to impact any southern right whale undertaking nearshore coastal migration within the acquisition area. Hydrodynamic modelling undertaken for the 2014 Enterprise 3DTZSS found ambient wave noise in a coastal (cliff) environment at a depth of 10 m was significantly greater than the modelled received acoustic sound at that location from the largest seismic source (3,560 cui) or SELs ≥175 dB re 1µPa2.s. Also, measured ambient sound levels obtained from loggers, situated 5 km from the coastline east of Warrnambool, measured high ambient underwater spectral levels, with a mean of 110 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz, and peaks up to 161 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz (McCauley & Gavrilov, 2013). As such, it is considered unlikely that sound generated from acoustic source operation at the closest point of the survey area to Logans Beach will be detectable above ambient noise. Additionally, it is considered likely that sound from the Enterprise 3DTZSS in nearshore areas will be masked by high levels of ambient noise. Any localised avoidance of an active seismic source when leaving the coastline could plausibly add a few tens of kilometres to migration routes that can be thousands of kilometres. Such a marginal increase is not considered likely to significantly affect the metabolic demands of individuals whose migrations occur over such large distances. Humpback whales have not been observed to be significantly displaced from their migratory pathways as a result of seismic sound, with the most consistent observed response to seismic activity being an alteration of course and swimming speed (McCauley et al., 2000). Cows with young calves may have greater susceptibility to acoustic disturbance (McCauley et al., 2000). A study carried out by McCauley et al (1998) monitored the effects of seismic survey noise on humpback whales in the Exmouth Gulf region of Western Australia, from which the following conclusions were drawn: • Only localised avoidance was seen by migrating whales during the seismic operation, indicating a comparatively short period and small range displacement; • The generalised response of migrating humpback whales to a 3D seismic source was avoidance at 4 km from the source; • Humpbacks were seen actively utilising the ‘sound shadow’ near the surface, suggesting that it is unlikely that animals will be at any physiological risk unless at very short range from a large airgun array, perhaps in the order of a few hundred metres; • Short and localised displacement suggests a low overall risk for migrating animals; and • Humpback pods containing resting cows (as opposed to migrating) were more sensitive and showed an avoidance response estimated at 7–12 km from a large seismic source. Dunlop et al (2013) carried out a behavioural response study of migrating humpback whales off eastern Australia to test the response of groups to one recording of conspecific social sounds and an artificially generated tone stimulus. The artificial tone consisted of a sequence of tones swept in frequency from 2 to 2.1 kHz over a period of 1.5 seconds, repeated every 8 seconds for 20 minutes. Source levels varied from 148 to 153dB re. 1 μPa at 1 m RMS. The response to the artificial tone was found to be consistent, in that groups moved offshore and surfaced more often, suggesting an aversion to the stimulus. Given the small volume of the acoustic source, the observed ability of cetaceans to avoid vessels or the acoustic sound sources, and the procedures that will be implemented during the survey (in particular soft start and start-up delay), cetaceans will not be exposed to sound levels that may cause pathological damage and any behavioural responses (i.e., avoidance) will be limited. There is no conclusive evidence of a link between sounds of seismic surveys and mortality of ceataceans (Gotz et al., 2009).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 54 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Impacts to birds and seabirds The survey area contains potential foraging habitat for a diverse array of seabirds and terrestrial birds may fly over the area. In the event that individual birds or flocks are present in the survey area during operations, vessel movement is expected to temporarily deter them from foraging in the immediate vicinity of the vessel. The risk of underwater sound significantly impacting a population of any given species or even individuals is extremely low. An indirect impact may occur if air gun discharges causes changes to the abundance or behaviour of prey species. However, the extent to which temporary ‘descending’ or ‘tightening’ responses of schooling prey fish such as pilchards (if it occurs) affects availability to avifaunal predators either positively or negatively, is not known. Marine bird species that may occur in the survey area all have considerable foraging habitat along the Otway coastline. The limited size of the daily acquisition area is not significant relative to the scale for these species relative to their normal foraging environment. It is, therefore, considered that any temporary dispersal of prey species due to acquisition would not result in any significant decrease in availability of prey species that is of biological significance for these populations. Other shoreline feeders such as the Australian fairy tern, hooded plover and little tern are not expected to be affected by survey activities, given their prey types (molluscs, worms, crustaceans, etc.) and shallow waters that give rise to rapid decay of sound impacts. Impacts to Commonwealth Marine Reserves The proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS will not be undertake in or near the nearest Commonwealth Marine Reserves (CMRs), Apollo CMR (49 km to the southeast) and Zeehan CMR (123 km to the south). Underwater sound modelling indicates that sound from the survey will not reach these CMRs. Light Emissions

Light emissions will occur from the vessels at all times (which will be more pronounced if activities are undertaken during night hours). The following activities will result in artificial lighting: • Vessel navigation lighting will be maintained while vessels are on location for maritime safety purposes in accordance with the Victorian Marine Safety Regulations 2012 (Regulation 110) and deck lighting for the safety of personnel working on deck. Seabirds may be attracted to the vessels at night due to the light glow. Bright lighting can disorientate birds, thereby increasing the likelihood of seabird injury or mortality through collision with infrastructure, or mortality from starvation due to disrupted foraging at sea (Wiese et al., 2001 in DSEWPC, 2011). The relatively small size of the survey vessels, which is comparable to other similarly-sized fishing vessel in the region, together with the short periods of light exposure (~4 hrs) means there are unlikely to be any measureable impacts from vessel lighting. Nesting birds may be disorientated where lighting is adjacent to rookeries. Coastal light pollution can cause significant impacts on burrow-nesting petrels and shearwaters. Fledglings often become disoriented and grounded as a result of artificial light as thery attempt to make their first flights to sea, a phenomenon known as ‘fallout’ (Birdlife International, 2012). While no petrel nesting sites are in proximity to survey activities, the adjacent shoreline supports nesting populations of short-tailed shearwaters that breed from September to April. Rodriguez at al (2014) identified in a Phillip Island study, which investigated the effects of artificial lighting on short-tailed shearwater fledgings, that by turning off road lights along sections of road in close proximity to nesting areas, there was a decrease in grounded fledgings thereby reducing the chance of fatality in these birds. Marine operations will operate at distance from the shore-based colonies of this species. The relatively small size of the survey vessels, comparable to other similarly-sized vessels in the region, together with few if any night- time operating hours means there are unlikely to be any measureable impacts on fledglings from vessel lighting. Light pollution along, or adjacent to, turtle nesting beaches poses a particular issue for turtles because it alters critical nocturnal behaviours, particularly the selection of nesting sites and the passage of adult females and emerging hatchlings from the beach to the sea (Limpus, 2009 in DSEWPC, 2011). Light impacts to turtle hatchlings will not occur due to the absence of nesting sites in Bass Strait. There is no evidence to suggest that artificial light sources adversely affect the migratory, feeding or breeding behaviours of cetaceans (DSEWPC, 2011). Cetaceans predominantly utilise acoustic senses to monitor their environment rather than visual sources (WDCS, 2004), so light is not considered to be a significant factor in cetacean behaviour or survival. Based on this information, it is considered that impacts to marine fauna species as a result of light emissions will be negligible.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 55 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Vessel Strike or Entanglement with Cetaceans Movement of the vessels throughout the survey area has the potential (albeit very low) to result in vessel strike or entanglement with marine fauna (particularly large fauna, such as whales and dolphins), which may cause injury or death to these species. Cetaceans are naturally inquisitive marine mammals that are often attracted to offshore vessels, and dolphins commonly ‘bow ride’ with offshore vessels. The reaction of whales to the approach of a vessel is quite variable. Some species remain motionless when in the vicinity of a vessel (e.g., narwhals) while others are known to be curious and often approach ships that have stopped or are slow moving, although they generally do not approach, and sometimes avoid, faster moving ships (Richardson et al., 1995). Peel et al (2016) reviewed vessel strike data (2000-2015) for marine species in Australian waters and identified the following: • Whales including the humpback, pygmy blue, Antarctic blue, southern right, dwarf minke, Antarctic minke, fin, bryde’s, pygmy right, sperm, pygmy sperm and pilot species were identified as having interacted with vessels. The humpback whale exhibited the highest incidence of interaction followed by the southern right whale. A number of these species have been identified as potentially present in the survey area during the survey period. • Dolphins including the Australian humpback, common bottlenose, Indo-pacific bottlenose and Risso’s dolphin species were also identified as interacting with vessels. The common bottlenose dolphin exhibited the highest incidence of interaction. A number of these species have been identified as potentially present in the survey area during the survey period. • There were no vessel interaction reports during the period for either the Australian or New Zealand fur seal. There have been incidents of seals being injured by boat propellers, however all indications are rather than ‘boat strike’ these can be attributed to be the seal interacting/playing with a boat, with a number of experts indicating the incidence of boat strike for seals is very low. • All turtle species present in Australian waters (green, loggerhead, leatherback, hawksbill, olive ridley and flatback) are identified as interacting with vessels. The green and loggerhead species exhibited the highest incident of interaction. The presence of turtles in the survey area is considered remote. Collisions between vessels and cetaceans occur more frequently where high vessel traffic and cetacean habitat coincide (WDCS, 2006). There have been recorded instances of cetacean deaths in Australian waters (e.g., a Bryde’s whale in Bass Strait in 1992) (WDCS, 2006), though the data indicates this is more likely to be associated with container ships and fast ferries. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) (2006) also indicates that some cetacean species, such as humpback whales, can detect and change course to avoid a vessel. When the survey vessels are stationary or slow moving, the risk of collision with cetaceans is extremely low, as the vessel sizes and underwater noise ‘footprint’ will alert cetaceans to its presence and thus illicit avoidance. Laist et al (2001) identifies that larger vessels moving in excess of 10 knots may cause fatal or severe injuries to cetaceans with the most severe injuries caused by vessels travelling faster than 14 knots. Enterprise 3DTZSS survey vessels will be small and will typically be travelling at speeds of 4-5 knots (8-9 km/hr) or less while acquiring data. Given these factors the risk of cetacean strike is low, and the risk of injury or death to fauna struck by a vessel is lower again due to the size of the vessels engaged for the survey. Trailing equipment in this survey will be limited to a single trailing source array extending to approximately 12 m behind the source vessel. Given the short length, compared with trailing streamers of 6,000 m on standard 3D seismic surveys, entanglement is considered very unlikely. No incidents of collision or entanglement with cetaceans, seals or turtles have occurred during any of the previous seismic surveys conducted by Origin in the Otway Basin. Diesel Spill Accidental spills of oil, including marine diesel oil (MDO), and chemicals have the potential to impact on water quality. Small amounts of lubricating oils on deck are the most likely potential sources of release of contaminants to the marine environment, and may occur as a result of hydraulic hose ruptures or handling incidents. Such spills are generally small in volume (1 litre to 100 litres) and would generally occur where equipment is contained on the deck of the vessel. In the event that hydraulic oil or small amounts of diesel did enter the water, the shallow water depths and high degree of wave energy would result in rapid natural weathering of the product. No significant impacts on marine fauna or ecosystems would be expected from such events. While there will be no offshore refuelling of vessels during the survey, a collision between survey vessels or between a survey vessel and a third-party vessel during the survey may result in a spill of MDO.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 56 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Due to rapid and high levels of evaporation when spilt at sea, the environmental effects of diesel spills are generally short-term. When spilled at sea, diesel will spread and thin out quickly and approximately half of the volume can be lost by evaporation within 12 hours depending upon sea temperature and winds. Diesels also have low viscosities and can result in hydrocarbons becoming physically dispersed as fine droplets into the water column when winds exceed 10 knots. Droplets of diesel oil that are naturally or chemically dispersed will be sub- surface and will behave quite differently to surface oil. Diesel droplets will now move 100% with the currents under water but on the surface are affected by both wind and currents. Natural dispersion of diesel reduces the hydrocarbons ability to evaporate into the air. Although evaporation reduces the level of hydrocarbons on the water surface, it increases the level of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere and able to be inhaled. This increased hydrocarbon vapour exposure can affect any air breathing animal including whales, dolphins, seals and turtles. The environmental effects of diesel spills are not as visually obvious as those of heavier fuel oils or crude oils. Diesel oils are considered to have a higher aquatic toxicity in comparison to many other crudes oils and condensates due to the types of hydrocarbons present and that dispersed droplets of diesel can be more bio- available to marine organisms. Diesel oils have components with the potential to bio-accumulate in organisms and have high water solubility along with a higher potential to naturally entrain into the water column than heavy fuel oils (HFO). Diesel in the water column can adhere to fine-grained suspended sediments that can settle out and result in oiled sediments being deposited on the seabed. Diesel spills that reach shorelines are usually still mobile residues and will penetrate shoreline sediments due to the low viscosity (i.e., easy spreadability) of the oil and have direct consequences on in-faunal organisms. The nature of the oil, location, volume, concentration levels, exposure time and how much it has weathered may also affect the potential impacts. Individual animals exposed to hydrocarbons early in a spill may be exposed to its more toxic components by direct contact and ingestion and suffer greater toxicity per unit time and volume than those affected by a more weathered hydrocarbon. As such, the known and potential environmental impacts of a diesel spill are: • Temporary decrease in marine water quality; • Injury or death of exposed marine fauna; and • Habitat damage where spill residue reaches shorelines. The proposed survey area is in a low density shipping area and an errant vessel collision with the survey vessels is highly unlikely. DNV (2011) indicates that for the period 1982-2010, there were no spills over 1 tonne (1 m3) for offshore vessels caused by collisions. The same DNV (2011) report also states that there were 24 recorded passing vessel collisions with offshore installations worldwide during 1990-2002, with the total oil spill frequency (per ship year) being 3.1 x 10-6 (0.0000031). Analysis of oil spill data for southwest Victorian waters resulting from vessel incidents (i.e., area coincident with the survey area – 0 to 12 to 50 nm from shoreline) indicates the following frequency of spills (from all causal pathways including collision): • Over 1 tonne: estimated as ‘high’ at 0.01-0.1 per year; and • Over 100 tonnes: estimated as ‘moderate’ at 0.001-0.01 per year relative to the Australian average (DNV, 2011). Frequencies provided by DNV (2011) relate to the total number of events in each identified sub-region of Australia however they are relative to the Australian average. DNV (2011) identifies that in absolute terms the frequencies in all sub-regions should be considered low to very low. The volume of diesel to be carried by the survey vessels cannot be provided as the vessels have yet to be selected. However, based upon similarly sized vessels used in Origin’s Speculant survey, maximum fuel tank sizes on individual vessels were approximately 3 m3. A significant spill event would require multiple survey vessels to simultaneously perforate their largest fuel tank when full and release all of the stored diesel. Given the statistics presented above, such a significant spill event as a result of the survey is not considered a real remote possibility. A project-specific Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (OPEP) has been developed. The objective of the OPEP is to provide procedures to be implemented to minimise impacts of a diesel spill on sensitive resources. In the event of a diesel spill that does contact the coastline, the options for response will be significantly limited by the high- energy nature of the area and difficulties accessing shorelines. The OPEP describes a range of spill response options that would be considered. Each response option would be evaluated through a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA), taking account of the degree to which the response option improves protection and recovery of

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 57 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

sensitive resources, together with any potential impacts from the response (as described in the OPEP). Operational and scientific monitoring is also described in the Operational and Scientific Monitoring Program (OSMP) that Origin has developed for its Otway Basin projects. Introduction of invasive marine species The following activities have the potential to result in the introduction of invasive marine species (IMS): • Discharge of vessel ballast water containing exotic species; and • Translocation of species through biofouling of the vessel hull or niches (e.g., sea chests, bilges, strainers). The known and potential environmental impacts of IMS introduction (assuming their survival, colonisation and spread) are: • Competition with, native species for resources, reducing native species diversity and abundance; and • Predation on native species. Successful IMS invasion requires the following three steps (AQIS, 2009): • Colonisation and establishment of the marine pest on a vector (e.g., vessel hull) in a donor region (e.g., home port). • Survival of the settled marine species on the vector during the voyage from the donor to the recipient region. • Colonisation (e.g., dislodgement or reproduction) of the marine species in the recipient region, followed by successful establishment of a viable new local population. The risk of introduction of IMS will be mitigated by implementation of controls described in Section 5, including AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. With the adoption of these ballast water management and biofouling control measures, the likelihood of IMS introduction during the proposed survey is considered to be remote. ONSHORE Noise and vibration The following activities will generate noise and vibration hazards: • Engine and road noise from the vibroseis trucks and survey vehicles; and • Vibrations generated by the activation of the base plate on the vibroseis trucks. Noise Fauna living or moving within the dense heathland along the GOR are likely to detect the noise generated by the vibroseis trucks and associated vehicles. Fauna residing within or moving along roadside vegetation are likely to be habituated to traffic noise along the GOR, meaning they may not be as disturbed by this noise as fauna residing within roadside vegetation along roads not subject to such high traffic levels. If disturbed, they may move away from the noise until it no longer causes any behavioural response, before resuming normal activities again. This is not expected to be significant (i.e., will not impact on breeding, feeding, nesting, etc) given the temporary nature of the activity (a few minutes in any one location). The same considerations are likely to apply to livestock. Along roads where receiver nodes will be installed (without vibroseis vehicles operating), noise associated with survey vehicles and personnel deploying and retrieving equipment will be transient and no greater than normal rural activities in the region, and therefore should not result in inconvenience, disturbance or annoyance to nearby residents, fauna or livestock. If receiver nodes are used within the rifle range, noise associated with vehicle access in the range to deploy and retrieve the nodes will be within normal background noise for this area, given its use as a shooting range and it’s location between the GOR and the coast that is exposed. Vibration The vibrations emitted from the vibroseis vehicles during a ‘sweep’ will be detectable under foot if standing in close proximity of the vehicle. The vibrations will deplete significantly at approximately 10 m away from the base plate and will become undetectable to the immediate surrounds at distances beyond 10 m. While there is no specific Australian Standard referring to structural vibration in buildings, Australian Standard 2187.2:1993 recommends maximum peak particle velocities (PPV) measured at the ground surface due to blasting activities. The lower recommended PPV in this standard is 5 mm/s.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 58 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

PPV tests have been conducted on an envirovibe vehicle to obtain a reference for safe operating distances from sensitive targets. The seismic energy for these tests was generated by a single INOVA UNIVIB vehicle (a type of Envirovibe vibroseis vehicle) and was tested at both 80% and 50% drive levels. The PPV measurements were taken in two directions from the Envirovibe, both in-line (front and behind) and cross-line (to the sides). The tests demonstrated that the vibration output >10 m is significantly less than the 5 mm/s recommendation. There are no sensitive buildings or other structures within 10 m of the northern verge of the GOR. This, combined with the results of the PPV tests, indicates that the vibration from the vibroseis vehicles is unlikely to create damage to sensitive structures. Fauna living or moving within the dense heathland along the GOR may detect the vibrations, and may or may not be disturbed by this given that vibrations will be similar to that created by road traffic. Animals with the most contact with the ground (such as lizards and snakes) may be more disturbed than bipeds (e.g., kangaroos) or quadrupeds (e.g., wombats, echidnas, mice). If disturbed, they are likely to move away from the disturbance until it no longer causes any behavioural response, before resuming normal activities again. This is not expected to be significant (i.e., will not impact on breeding, feeding, nesting, etc) given the temporary nature of the activity (a few minutes in any one location). Damage to protected vegetation The following activity may risk damage to protected vegetation: • Vehicle travel over road verges containing native vegetation; • Deployment of receiver nodes; and • Slashing of vegetation. No clearing of remnant vegetation is proposed for the survey. Localised slashing of pasture grasses on road and track verges may occur to enable effective access for the survey. In areas where native vegetation has encroached into road verges, such as that along some sections of Jarvis Road, vehicle and personnel access will be restricted and seismic receiver nodes will be laid along the edge of the road surface. Slashing will not occur in the PCNP. Any slashing of pasture grasses on road and track verges will result in minor, localised and temporary loss of vegetation that will regrow. There is some potential for use of vehicles and placement of nodes to disturb highly localised occurrences of threatened plants, such as orchids, which may be present on the verges of access tracks within the PCNP proposed for inclusion in the survey. To mitigate this risk, a survey for threatened flora was undertaken along these tracks during October 2016 (Biosis, 2016, Appendix 4). No populations of threatened plants were detected. The generally very dense nature of the heathland throughout the survey area will preclude accidental access of vibroseis and other survey vehicles from entering vegetated areas. Access to the BICP will not be necessary and access within the PCNP will be restricted to public access tracks only. Interference with protected fauna The following activity may risk interference with protected fauna: • Noise and vibration associated with vehicle travel; • Vehicle strike in the survey area; and • Slashing of vegetation. The impacts of noise and vibration on fauna are assessed under ‘noise and vibration.’ As remnant vegetation will not be cleared for the survey, there is unlikely to be injury or death of native vertebrate fauna (or interruption of resting, feeding and/or breeding activities due to the loss of habitat), and as farmland will not be accessed, injury or death or livestock is also highly unlikely. Pasture vegetation slashed along road and track verges is unlikely to harbour native fauna of conservation significance, as verified by the recent threatened species survey (see Appendix 4). Most of the significant fauna records from roadsides in the survey area are birds, which are highly mobile and able to avoid disturbance. Vehicle travel through the survey area could result in vehicle strike. This risk exists for all vehicles on Australian roads, but is particularly pronounced during dawn and dusk when crepuscular animals, such as kangaroos, emerge from bushland and farmland to feed on roadsides. While survey vehicles are unlikely to be travelling through the survey area during hours of darkness (thereby minimising the duration of risk exposure), there is likely to be travel at dawn (for mobilisation to site from local hotels) and some travel at dusk (for return travel back to hotels), so there is potential for animal strike.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 59 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Introduction of weeds and pathogens The following activity may risk the introduction of weeds and pathogens: • Survey vehicles or nodes introducing or spreading local or foreign soil or other organic material over road verges and other areas; and • Slashing of vegetation. The known and potential risks of weed and pathogen introduction are: • Disease and/or death of native vegetation; and • Loss of fauna habitat. The risk of introduction of weeds and pathogens will be mitigated by implementation of controls described in Section 5, including inspection and cleaning of vibroseis, nodes and survey vehicles prior to commencing operations and avoiding survey operations during periods of heavy rain (and immediately afterwards) to prevent soil rutting and churning. With the adoption of these control measures, the likelihood of introduction of weeds and pathogens during the proposed survey is considered to be remote. Assessment against MNES significant impact criteria The Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE, 2013) have been used to assess the project’s impact on MNES, guided by the impact assessment outlined in the section above. A summary of this impact assessment for threatened ecological communities and species is provided in Table 9 and for migratory species in Table 10. Table 9. Significant impact assessment for threatened ecological communities and species

MNES Assessment

Threatened This TEC is highly unlikely to occur in the survey area. Ecological If the TEC is present within the survey area it is highly unlikely that adverse impacts will occur due to project activities. Communities As substrates within the survey acquisition area are predominantly rocky, damage to benthic habitats from placement Giant kelp marine of receivers is unlikely. The high-energy coastal habitat within the survey area is regularly subjected to significant forests of South swell and winter storms, and so is highly resistant to damage from physical impacts. Casement and Svane (1999) East Australia undertook field investigations into the impacts to shallow rocky reef habitat caused by snagged or lost commercial rock lobster fishing pots, an activity that is widespread and repeated annually on shallow southern Australian reefs. The results for this study showed that lobster fishing in South Australia, using the investigated traps and methods, had little physical effect on shallow water rocky reefs. Given that Casement and Svane (1999) estimated 3,429 pots were lost annually across the South Australian fishing zones, it can be predicted that the localised and short term nature of node deployment for the Enterprise 3DTZSS will not result in significant effects to rocky reef habitat. Any damage to benthic habitat attached to the rocky reefs is likely to re-establish rapidly in this dynamic environment. A such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • reduce the extent of the ecological community • fragment or increase fragmentation of the ecological community • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the ecological community • modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for the ecological community’s survival, including reduction of groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns • cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of the ecological community, including • causing a decline or loss of functionally important species • cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of the ecological community, • interfere with the recovery of the ecological community. No significant impact. Vulnerable fish The Australian grayling and great white shark may occasionally occur in the survey area. The survey area is not Australian known to comprise important habitat for these species and important populations of these species are not known to grayling be present in the survey area. Sound generated by the survey could result in temporary displacement of any individuals present in the survey area at the time of the survey. Measures to prevent the introduction of IMS by survey Great white shark vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real or remote possibility and a minor spill from a single vessel is unlikely to cause signifcant effects. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 60 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

MNES Assessment • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Endangered A summary of the ecology of the pygmy blue whale and impacts and risks to the species introduced by the project cetaceans has been provided in the previous sections. An assessment of impacts and risks to the species introduced by the Pygmy blue whale project against EPBC Act significant impact criteria is presented below. • Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Standard mitigation measures as outlined in EPBC Policy 2.1 will be implemented during the survey, in addition to a suite of additional measures outlined in Section 5. These measures will mitigate risks and impacts risks to the pygmy blue whale such that there is no real chance or possibility that the project will lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population. • Reduce the area of occupancy of the species The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of an annual foraging area of the pygmy blue whale. Gill et al (2011) did not observe any pygmy blue whales within 5.7km of the shore in the region surrounding the survey area during 69 aerial surveys and on this basis it is considered unlikely that the pygmy blue whale will use habitat within the survey area. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction to the foraging area. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will reduce the area of occupancy of the species. • Fragment an existing population into two or more populations A single population of the pygmy blue whale occurs in Australian waters, with a more or less continuous distribution from Tasmania to Indonesia. There is no plausible risk that the survey will fragment this population. • Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of an annual foraging are of the pygmy blue whale. An SEL of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is assessed as having potential to cause disruption to foraging of the pygmy blue whale. SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s are predicted to occur within 700 m of the proposed source to be utilised on the Enterprise 3DTZSS (Duncan, 2016). As such, the area affected by SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is 1.54 km2 for any individual seimic pulse. This equates to an affected area of 0.006% of the blue whale foraging area (annual high use area) described in the conservation management plan for the species. The aggregated area exposed to SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s from a daily survey section (17 km2) is ~0.1% of the blue whale foraging area (based on annual high use area). Such affected areas are negligible relative to the size of the foraging area and are not considered biologically significant given the mobility of the pygmy blue whale. Gill et al (2011) did not observe any pygmy blue whales within 5.7km of the shore in the region surrounding the survey area during 69 aerial surveys and on this basis it is considered unlikely that the pygmy blue whale will use habitat within the survey area. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction of the foraging area. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real or not remote possibility and a minor spill from a single vessel is unlikely to cause signifcant effects. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will have significant adverse affects to habitat critical to the survival of a species. • Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Breeding of the pygmy blue whale occurs in low latitudes (including Indonesia) during the austral winter although there may be more than one breeding habitat given observed females with small calves recorded seasonally moving through Geographe Bay (WA) from September to December (DoE, 2015c). There is no known breeding habitat for the species within Bass Strait. As such, there is no plausible risk that the survey will disrupt the breeding cycle of this population. • Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of an annual foraging are of the pygmy blue whale. An SEL of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is assessed as having potential to cause disruption to foraging of the pygmy blue whale. SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s are predicted to occur within 700 m of the proposed source to be utilised on the Enterprise 3DTZSS (Duncan, 2016). As such, the area affected by SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is 1.54 km2 for any individual seimic pulse. This equates to an affected area of 0.006% of the blue whale foraging area (annual high use area) described in the conservation management plan for the species. The aggregated area exposed to SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s from a daily survey section (17 km2) is ~0.1% of the blue whale foraging area (based on annual high use area). Such affected areas are negligible relative to the size of the foraging area and are not considered biologically significant given the mobility of the pygmy blue whale. Gill et al (2011) did not observe any pygmy blue whales within 5.7 km of the shore in the region surrounding the survey area during 69 aerial surveys and on this basis it is considered unlikely that the pygmy blue whale will use habitat within the survey area. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction of the foraging area. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real or not remote possibility and a minor spill from a single vessel is unlikely to cause signifcant effects. As such, there is no plausible risk that the survey will modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline. • Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 61 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

MNES Assessment Measures to prevent the introduction of invasive marine species by survey vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. There is no real chance or possibility that the project will result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established. • Interfere with the recovery of the species The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of an annual foraging are of the pygmy blue whale. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction to the foraging area. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will interfere with the recovery of the species. Southern right A summary of the ecology of the southern right and impacts and risks to the species introduced by the project has whale been provided in the sections above. An assessment of impacts and risks to the species introduced by the project against EPBC Act significant impact criteria for endangered species is presented below. • Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population The survey has been scheduled to avoid the southern right whale breeding season. It is considered highly unlikely that the southern right whale will be present in the survey area, migration area or nearest known nursery area during November, which is the earliest possible start time of the survey. Standard mitigation measures as outlined in EPBC Policy 2.1 will be implemented during the survey, in addition to a suite of additional measures outlined in Section 5. These measures will mitigate risks and impacts risks to the pygmy blue whale such that there is no real chance or possibility that the project will lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population. • Reduce the area of occupancy of the species The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of an annual migration area of the southern right whale. It is considered highly unlikely that the southern right whale will be present in the survey area, migration area or nearest known nursery area during November, which is the earliest possible start time of the survey. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction to the migration area. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will reduce the area of occupancy of the species • Fragment an existing population into two or more populations The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of an annual migration area of the southern right whale. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction of the foraging area. There is no plausible risk that the survey will fragment this population. • Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of a migration area of the southern right whale. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction of the migration area. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real or not remote possibility and a minor spill from a single vessel is unlikely to cause signifcant effects. It is considered highly unlikely that the southern right whale will be present in the survey area, migration area or nearest known nursery area during November, which is the earliest possible start time of the survey. Standard mitigation measures as outlined in EPBC Policy 2.1 will be implemented during the survey, in addition to a suite of additional measures outlined in Section 5. These measures will mitigate risks and impacts risks to the southern right whale such that there is no real chance or possibility that the project will have significant adverse affects to habitat critical to the survival of the species. • Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Peak periods for mating of the southern right whale in Australian coastal waters are from mid-July through August. Pregnant females generally arrive during late May/early June and calving/nursery grounds are generally occupied until October. The survey has been scheduled to avoid these breeding periods. It is considered highly unlikely that the southern right whale will be present in the survey area, migration area or nearest known nursery area during November, which is the earliest possible start time of the survey. The nearest known nursery location to the survey area is Logans Beach, approximately 36 km northwest. At this distance behavioural impacts from seismic sound generated by the survey are not expected. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the survey will disrupt the breeding cycle of this population. • Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of a migration area of the southern right whale. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction of the migration area. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real or not remote possibility and a minor spill from a single vessel is unlikely to cause signifcant effects. It is considered highly unlikely that the southern right whale will be present in the survey area, migration area or nearest known nursery area during November, which is the earliest possible start time of the survey. Standard mitigation measures as outlined in EPBC Policy 2.1 will be implemented during the survey, in addition to a suite of additional measures outlined in Section 5. These measures will mitigate risks and impacts risks to the southern right whale such that there is no real chance or possibility that the project will modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline. • Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline Measures to prevent the introduction of invasive marine species by survey vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. There is no real chance or possibility that the project will result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established. • Interfere with the recovery of the species

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 62 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

MNES Assessment The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of an annual migration area of the southern right whale, at a time when the species is highly unlikely to be present. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction of the migration area. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will interfere with the recovery of the species. Vulnerable The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) undertakes an annual migration between the summer feeding cetaceans grounds in Antarctica to their winter breeding and calving grounds in northern tropical waters. The waters of western Humpback whale Bass Strait are not known feeding, resting or calving grounds for humpback whales, although feeding may occur opportunistically where sufficient krill density is present. The nearest area to the survey representing important resting Sei whale area for migrating humpback whales is Twofold Bay, a resting area off the NSW coast approximately 640 km to the Fin Whale northeast of the survey area Both the sei whale and the fin whale are infrequently recorded in the western Bass Strait and both species demonstrate a preference for offshore waters or waters at the edge of the continental shelf. Given the nearshore location of the survey it is considered unlikely that these species will be encountered. Standard mitigation measures as outlined in EPBC Policy 2.1 will be implemented during the survey, in addition to a suite of additional measures outlined in Section 5. These measures will mitigate risks and impacts risks to the humpback whale, fin whale and sei whale such that there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Endangered These likelihood of these species occurring within the survey area was assessed by EHP (2016) as low (smoky terrestrial mouse), unlikely (spot-tailed quoll) or moderate (southern brown bandicoot, long-nosed potoroo). As no clearing of mammals remnant vegetation will occur there will be no direct impacts to any habitat suitable for these species within the survey Spot-tailed quoll area. Any disturbance to individuals of these species by noise and vibration generated by the survey is assessed to be minor and temporary. The risk of introduction of invasive species will be mitigated by implementation of standard Southern brown controls including vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during bandicoot periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: Long-nosed • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population potoroo • reduce the area of occupancy of the species Smoky mouse • fragment an existing population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Vulnerable These likelihood of these species occurring within the survey area was assessed by EHP (2016) as moderate. As no terrestrial clearing of remnant vegetation will occur there will be no direct impacts to any habitat suitable for these species within mammals the survey area. Any disturbance to individuals of these species by noise and vibration generated by the survey is Broad-toothed rat assessed to be minor and temporary. The risk of introduction of invasive species will be mitigated by implementation of standard controls including vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of Swamp operations during periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the antechinus project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population • reduce the area of occupancy of the species • fragment an existing population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Critically This species is known to occupy a maternity cave (Starlight Cave near Warrnambool) approximately 30 km west of endangered the survey area. There will be no impacts to this maternity cave from the survey. aerial mammals

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 63 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

MNES Assessment Southern bent- It is unlikely that this species will forage in the airspace above the survey area during the survey due to the significant wing bat distance to Starlight Cave. There will be no direct impacts to potential foraging habitat for this species within the survey area. Any disturbance to individuals of this species by noise and vibration generated by the survey is assessed to be minor and temporary, noting that foraging of this species above the survey area is highly unlikely and would only occur during evening and night periods when survey activities will be minimal. The risk of introduction of invasive species will be mitigated by implementation of standard controls including vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population • reduce the area of occupancy of the species • fragment an existing population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Vulnerable aerial Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as unlikely, mammals with no documented records of the species in the survey area. There are no known roost sites for this species within Grey-headed the survey area and an important population is not known to occur. flying fox It is possible that this species will forage in vegetation within the survey area during the survey. As no clearing of remnant vegetation will occur there will be no direct impacts to any foraging habitat suitable for this species within the survey area. Any disturbance to individuals of this species by noise and vibration generated by the survey is assessed to be minor and temporary, noting that foraging of this within the survey area would only occur during evening and night periods when survey activities will be minimal. The risk of introduction of invasive species will be mitigated by implementation of standard controls including vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Critically The likelihood of these species occurring within the survey area was assessed by EHP (2016) as low (Australasian endangered and bittern) or unlikely to occur within the survey area, noting that the swift parrot and orange-bellied parrot are unlikely Endangered to be present on the Victorian mainland during the period proposed for the survey. As no clearing of remnant woodland and vegetation or disturbance of wetlands will occur there will be no direct impacts to any habitat suitable for these species wetland birds within the survey area. Any disturbance to individuals of these species by noise and vibration generated by the survey Regent is assessed to be minor and temporary. The risk of introduction of invasive species will be mitigated by honeyeater implementation of standard controls including vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. As such, there is no real chance or Swift parrot possibility that the project will: Orange-bellied • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population parrot • reduce the area of occupancy of the species Australasian • fragment an existing population into two or more populations bittern • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species Australian painted • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population snipe • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Vulnerable Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) notes the likelihood of this species occurring within the survey area as low. An woodland birds important population is not known to occur. Painted It is possible that this species will forage within mistletoe within the survey area during the survey. As no clearing of honeyeater remnant vegetation will occur there will be no direct impacts to any foraging habitat suitable for this species within the survey area. Any disturbance to individuals of this species by noise and vibration generated by the survey is assessed to be minor and temporary. The risk of introduction of invasive species will be mitigated by implementation

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 64 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

MNES Assessment of standard controls including vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Critically There will be no direct impacts to the intertidal habitats relevant ot these species within the survey area due to survey endangered and activities. The closest site of international importance for any of these birds is Lake Martin for the curlew sandpiper Endangered (Bamford et al., 2008), located approximately 80 km northeast of the survey area. There are no plausible impacts to shore birds Lake Martin from the survey. Any disturbance to individuals of these species or their prey species by noise and Eastern curlew vibration generated by the survey is assessed to be minor and temporary. The risk of introduction of invasive marine or terrestrial species will be mitigated by implementation of controls including AQIS clearance to enter Australian Curlew sandpiper waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration, management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations Northern Siberian and protocols, vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during bar-tailed godwit periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real possibility. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population • reduce the area of occupancy of the species • fragment an existing population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Vulnerable The hooded plover is a sedentary species and inhabits sandy ocean beaches. The Australian fairy tern occurs along shorebirds the coasts of Victoria and nests on sheltered sandy beaches, spits and banks above the high tide mark and below Fairy tern shoreline vegetation where the substrate is sandy and the vegetation sparse. The western Alsakan bar-tailed godwit occurs mainly in coastal habitats such as large intertidal sandflats, banks, mudflats, estuaries, inlets, harbours, Hooded plover coastal lagoons and bays. Western Alaskan There will be no direct impacts to the shore habitats relevant to these species within the survey area due to survey bar-tailed godwit activities. Any disturbance to individuals of these species or their prey species by noise and vibration generated by the survey is assessed to be minor and temporary. The risk of introduction of invasive marine or terrestrial species will be mitigated by implementation of controls including AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration, management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols, vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real possibility. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Endangered and All Australian waters can be considered foraging habitat for albatross and petrels, with the most important habitat vulnerable considered to be south of 25°S (DSEWPC, 2011), which includes the offshore survey area. Given these species’ seabirds ability to cover vast ocean distances while foraging, it is possible these species may overfly and forage in the vicinity Northern royal of the survey area. It is also possible that air gun discharges may causes localised changes to the abundance or albatross behaviour of prey species for these marine birds.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 65 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

MNES Assessment Southern giant The survey will be undertaken in localised discrete sections on a daily basis which will minimise the spatial extent of petrel any potential temporary displacement of prey species. The size of the daily survey area is also not significant relative Gould’s petrel to the scale at which these marine birds interact with their environment for foraging. There are no plausible impacts to breeding colonies of these marine birds from the project as there are no breeding colonies within 200km of the Grey-headed survey area. The risk of introduction of invasive marine species will be mitigated by implementation of controls albatross including AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of Vulnerable marine ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of birds diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real possibility. Antipodean As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: albatross • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Southern royal • reduce the area of occupancy of the species albatross • fragment an existing population into two or more populations Wandering • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species albatross • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Blue petrel • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline Northern giant • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming petrel established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the Fairy prion species to decline, or Sooty albatross • interfere with the recovery of the species. Soft-plumaged There is also no real chance or possibility that the project will: petrel • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species Buller’s albatross • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population Shy albatross • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species Campbell • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population albatross • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species Black-browed is likely to decline albatross • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable Salvin’s albatross species’ habitat White-capped • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or albatross • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Endangered The loggerhead turtle is globally distributed in sub-tropical waters and is rarely seen off the Victorian coast. The marine reptiles leatherback turtle is an occasional visitor to the Otway shelf. Neither of species breeds in the temperate habitats of Loggerhead turtle the Southern Ocean and there are no plausible impacts to breeding colonies of these marine reptiles. There are no known nesting or foraging grounds for the green turtle offshore Victoria and the species occurs only as rare vagrants Leatherback turtle in these waters (EA, 2003). No important populations of these marine reptiles are known to occur within the survey Vulnerable area and it is highly unlikely that these species will be encountered during the survey. marine reptiles It is possible that air gun discharges may causes behavioural reactions for any turtles present, or cause localised Green turtle changes to the abundance or behaviour of prey species for these marine reptiles. The survey will be undertaken in localised discrete sections on a daily basis which will minimise the spatial extent of any temporary displacement of prey species. The risk of introduction of invasive marine species will be mitigated by implementation of controls including AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real possibility. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population • reduce the area of occupancy of the species • fragment an existing population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Vulnerable The growling grass frog inhabits still waterbodies (including artificial waterbodies) and slow-flowing streams and terrestrial rivers, with important microhabitats being submerged and emergent vegetation, rocks and bare ground (DEWHA, amphibians 2009). Ecology & Heritage Partners (2016) concluded that there is a low likelihood of this species occurring within Growling grass the survey area, with the last documented record of the species in the area being in 2002. There is no known important frog population of the species within the survey area. The survey avoids creeks and wetlands and will not require clearing of remnant vegetation. As such there will be no direct impacts to any suitable habitat for this species. Any disturbance to individuals of this species by noise and vibration generated by the survey is assessed to be minor and temporary. The risk of introduction of invasive species will be mitigated by implementation of standard controls including vehicle and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during periods of heavy rain to prevent soil rutting. As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will:

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 66 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

MNES Assessment • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population • reduce the area of occupancy of the species • fragment an existing population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species. No significant impact. Endangered and There is some potential that these species could occur on grassy verges of road sides proposed to be utilised for the vulnerable survey, with associated potential for disturbance by survey vehicles or placement of nodes. Biosis undertook targeted terrestrial plants surveys during October 2016 for these species on roadsides proposed for the survey. No individuals or populations Maroon leak- were detected. orchid The risk of introduction of invasive species will be mitigated by implementation of standard controls including vehicle Metallic sun- and node washdowns prior to survey commencement and avoidance of operations during periods of heavy rain to orchid prevent soil rutting. Vulnerable As such, there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: terrestrial plants • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Clover glycine • reduce the area of occupancy of the species • fragment an existing population into two or more populations Wingless raspwort • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species Dense leek-orchid • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Leafy greenhood • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is Swamp likely to decline greenhood • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species. There is also no real chance or possibility that the project will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. No significant impact.

Table 10. Significant impact assessment for migratory species

MNES Assessment Migratory fish The great white shark and porbeagle shark may occasionally transit the survey area but are not expected to occur in Great white shark significant numbers. The survey area is not known to comprise important migratory habitat for these species and an ecologically significant proportion of any population does not occur in the survey area. Sound generated by the survey Porbeagle shark could result in temporary displacement of any individuals present in the survey area at the time of the survey. Measures to prevent the introduction of invasive marine species by survey vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real possibility. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species • result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or • seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species. No significant impact. Migratory A summary of the ecology of the southern right whale and impacts and risks to the species introduced by the project cetaceans has been provided in the sections above. An assessment of impacts and risks to the species introduced by the project against EPBC Act significant impact criteria for migratory species is presented below.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 67 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Southern right • Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering whale hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species The survey is a short term activity with no permanent changes to marine habitat or introduction of long term barriers to movement. Any survey activities during November has potential to cause minor disruption by localised aviodance of any southern right whale migrating south from the coastline through the survey area. As the species migrates thousands of kilometres annually as part of its’ lifecycle, minor localised avoidance is not considered a serious disruption. The proportion of the south east population remaning in near shore waters during November is not likely to be ecologically significant as most southern right whales have departed by by this time. Measures to prevent the introduction of invasive marine species by survey vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real or not remote possibility. • Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species Measures to prevent the introduction of invasive marine species by survey vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. • Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species The nearest known calving/nursing location for the southern right whale is Logans Beach Warrnambool, approximately 36km north west of the survey area. There are no plausibe impacts to any southern right whale at Logans Beach from the survey at this distance. Any survey activities during November has potential to cause minor disruption by localised aviodance of any southern right whale migrating south from the coastline through the survey arsea. As the species migrates thousands of kilometres annually as part of its’ lifecycle, minor localised avoidance is not considered a serious disruption. The proportion of the south east population remaning in near shore waters during November is not likely to be ecologically signifcant as it highly likely that southern right whales have departed copastal areas for Antarctic waters by this time. No significant impact. Migratory A summary of the ecology of the pygmy blue whale and impacts and risks to the species introduced by the project cetaceans has been provided in the sections above. An assessment of impacts and risks to the species introduced by the project Pygmy blue whale against EPBC Act significant impact criteria for migratory species is presented below. • Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species The project will result in a localised, short term increase in sound levels for a small proportion of an annual foraging area of the pygmy blue whale. There will be no permanent disturbance, modification or reduction of the foraging area. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real or not remote possibility. An SEL of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is conservatively assessed as having potential to cause disruption to foraging of the pygmy blue whale. SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s are predicted to occur within 700 m of the proposed source to be utilised on the Enterprise 3DTZSS (Duncan, 2016). As such, the area affected by SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is 1.54 km2 for any individual seimic pulse. This equates to an affected area of 0.006% of the blue whale foraging area (annual high use area) described in the conservation management plan for the species. The aggregated area exposed to SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s from a daily survey section (17 km2) is ~0.1% of the blue whale foraging area (based on annual high use area). Such affected areas are negligible relative to the size of the foraging area and are not considered biologically significant given the mobility of the pygmy blue whale. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will substantially modify, destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species. • Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species Measures to prevent the introduction of invasive marine species by survey vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species. • Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species Breeding of the pygmy blue whale occurs in low latitudes (including Indonesia) during the austral winter although there may be more than one breeding habitat given observed females with small calves recorded seasonally moving through Geographe Bay (WA) from September to December (DoE, 2015c). There is no known breeding habitat for the species within Bass Strait. As such, there is no plausible risk that the survey will disrupt the breeding cycle of an ecologically significant proportion of this population. An SEL of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is conservatively assessed as having potential to cause disruption to foraging of the pygmy blue whale. SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s are predicted to occur within 700 m of the proposed source to be utilised on the Enterprise 3DTZSS (Duncan, 2016). As such, the area affected by SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s is 1.54 km2 for any individual seimic pulse. This equates to an affected area of 0.006% of the blue whale foraging area (annual high use area) described in the conservation management plan for the species. The aggregated area exposed to SELs of 156 dB re 1µPa2.s from a daily survey section (17 km2) is ~0.1% of the blue whale foraging area (based on annual high use area). Such affected areas are negligible relative to the size of the foraging area and are not considered biologically significant given the mobility of the pygmy blue whale. As such, there is no plausible risk that the survey will disrupt the feedng of an ecologically significant proportion of this population. No significant impact.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 68 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Migratory The survey is a short term activity with no permanent changes to marine habitat or introduction of long term barriers cetaceans to movement. The survey area is not known to comprise important migratory habitat for these species and an Humpback whale ecologically significant proportion of any population does not occur in the survey area. Sound generated by the survey could result in temporary displacement of any individuals present in the survey area at the time of the survey. Sei whale Measures to prevent the introduction of IMS by survey vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, Fin whale anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and Pygmy right whale protocols. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real possibility. Bryde’s whale As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: Dusky dolphin • substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering Killer whale hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species • result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or • seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species. No significant impact. Migratory marine All Australian waters can be considered foraging habitat for albatross and petrels, with the most important habitat birds considered to be south of 25°S (DSEWPC, 2011), which includes the offshore survey area. Given these species’ Albatross and ability to cover vast ocean distances while foraging, it is possible these species may overfly and forage in the vicinity petrel species of the survey area. It is also possible that air gun discharges may causes localised changes to the abundance or behaviour of prey species for these marine birds. Short-tailed shearwater The survey will be undertaken in localised discrete sections on a daily basis which will minimise the spatial extent of any temporary displacement of prey species potentially targeted by these migratory birds. The size of the daily survey Little tern area is also not significant relative to the scale at which these marine birds interact with their environment for foraging. Eastern curlew There are no plausible impacts to breeding colonies of migratory albatross or petrels from the project as there are no Curlew sandpiper breeding colonies within 200km of the survey area. The risk of introduction of invasive marine species will be mitigated by implementation of controls including AQIS clearance to enter Australian waters, anti-fouling system Bar-tailed godwit certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real possibility. No impacts are predicted to shore and intertidal habitats that may be used by the migratory shorebirds. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering • hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species • result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of • important habitat for the migratory species, or • seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

No significant impact. Migratory marine The survey is a short term activity with no permanent changes to marine habitat or introduction of long term barriers reptiles to movement. The survey area is not known to comprise important migratory habitat for these species and an Loggerhead turtle ecologically significant proportion of any population does not occur in the survey area. Sound generated by the survey could result in temporary displacement of any individuals present in the survey area at the time of the survey. Green turtle Measures to prevent the introduction of invasive marine species by survey vessels include AQIS clearance to enter Leatherback turtle Australian waters, anti-fouling system certification/declaration and management of ballast in accordance with Victorian regulations and protocols. A significant diesel spill (simultaneous release of diesel from multiple survey vessels) is not considered a real possibility. As such there is no real chance or possibility that the project will: • substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species • result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or • seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species. No significant impact.

3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area Description Not applicable. The offshore survey area is located entirely within Victorian state waters.

Nature and extent of likely impact No direct, indirect or downstream impacts will occur from the survey.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 69 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

3.1 (g) Commonwealth land Description Not applicable.

Nature and extent of likely impact Not applicable.

3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Description Not applicable.

Nature and extent of likely impact Not applicable.

3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development or large coal mining development Description Not applicable.

Nature and extent of likely impact Not applicable.

3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action? No

3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the No Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency?

3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a Commonwealth No marine area?

3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on Commonwealth No land?

3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the Great Barrier No Reef Marine Park?

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 70 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

3.3 Description of the project area and affected area for the proposed action

3.3 (a) Flora and fauna

Onshore The survey area lies within the Warrnambool Plain bioregion, one of 27 bioregions in Victoria. This bioregion has been largely cleared of native vegetation (~90% cleared) and modified with the introduction of pasture grass species, with most remnant vegetation occurring within conservation reserves and along waterways and roadsides (CCMA, 2005). Vegetation communities in Victoria are classed as Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs). EVCs are the standard unit for classifying vegetation types in Victoria, and are described through a combination of floristics, lifeforms and ecological characteristics, and through an inferred fidelity to particular environmental attributes. Each EVC includes a collection of floristic communities that occur across a biogeographic range, and although differing in species, have similar habitat and ecological processes operating. Within the survey area, there are 12 EVCs, as follows: • EVC 1 – Coastal Dune Scrub/Coastal Dune Grassland Mosaic; • EVC 10 – Estuarine Wetland; • EVC 16 – Lowland Forest; • EVC 23 – Herb-rich Foothill Forest; (isolated patches along Old Peterborough Rd) • EVC 53 – Swamp Scrub; (isolated patch beside inlet) • EVC 160 – Coastal Dune Scrub; • EVC 161 – Coastal Headland Scrub (the most widespread EVC); • EVC 163 – Coastal Tussock Grassland; • EVC 165 – Damp Heath Scrub (the second most widespread EVC); • EVC 181 – Coast Gully Thicket; • EVC 746 – Damp Heathland/Damp Heathy Woodland Mosaic; • Generic wetland mapping unit 684 – Permanent Saline (comprises 24 wetland EVCs). These EVCs and their distribution in the survey area are described in Appendix 2. The majority of the road verges proposed for inclusion in the survey are dominated by introduced species, mostly common pasture grasses. Common pasture grasses also dominate the Port Campbell Rifle Range, which is mown on a regular basis. Ecology and Heritage Partners (2016) report that 45 significant flora species were identified within the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) search area (including the EPBC Act-listed species in Table 6) (incorporating a 5 km buffer around the survey area) (Appendix 2). The accuracy of VBA records within the study area is between 0.02 km and 10 km. As such, the records in Appendix 2 are not a true indication of where threatened flora may have been recorded, and that it is possible that records outside of the study area may occur in roadsides and vice versa. There was however, one record with reasonable accuracy (± 20 m) for metallic sun-orchid directly adjoining the road-reserve along GOR, approximately 125 m east of the intersection with McCue Street, Port Campbell. For the EPBC Act listed species, the most significant records were for swamp greenhood (Pterostylis tenuissima) and metallic sun-orchid (Thelymitra epipactoides), with 30 and 29 records respectively, identified in the study area and both species recorded as recently as 2000. A description of EPBC Act-listed flora species is included in Section 3.1(d)(e) of this document. Offshore The marine invertebrates in the region include: • Porifera (e.g., sponges); • Cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish, corals, anemones, seapens); • Bryozoans (microscopic filter feeders);

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 71 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

• Arthropods (e.g., sea spiders); • Crustaceans (e.g., rock lobster, krill); • Molluscs (e.g., bivalves, sea slugs, gastropods, abalone); • Echinoderms (e.g., urchins, sea cucumbers); and • Annelids (e.g,. polychaete worms). Fish species present in the ZPI are either pelagic, residing in the water column, or demersal (benthic) fish. Fish species inhabiting the region are largely cool temperate species, common within the South Eastern Marine Region. Studies of the subtidal reefs of the Arches Marine Sanctuary (Edmunds et al., 2010, cited in Barton et al., 2012) have observed sea sweep (Scorpis aequipinnis), barber perch (Caesioperca razor), blue throat wrasse (Notolabrus tetricus), bastard trumpeter (Latridopsis forsteri), magpie perch (Cheilodactylus nigripes) and the dusky morwong (Dactylophora nigricans). Other common fish species that have been reported from this sanctuary include the zebra fish (Girella zebra), snapper (Chrysophrys auratus), marble fish (Aplodactylus arctidens), Australian salmon (Arripis truttacea), scaly fin (Parma victoriae) and Port Jackson shark (Heterodontus portusjacksoni) (Plummer et al., 2003). The short-fin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) is known from surrounding waters (Plummer et al., 2003). Additional subtidal reef fish recorded in the Twelve Apostles Marine National Park include rosy wrasse (Pseudolabrus psittaculus), senator wrasse (Pictilabrus laticlavius), butterfly perch (Cheilodactylus lepidoptera), marble fish (Aplodactylus arctidens), bullseye (Pempheris multiradiata) and blue morwong (Nemadactylus valenciennesi) (Edmunds et al., 2010). Sygnathids (listed marine species) Most of the listed marine species species identified in the EPBC Act PMST (Appendix 1) are sygnathiformes, which includes seahorses and their relatives (seadragon, pipehorse and pipefish). The majority of these fish species are associated with seagrass meadows, macroalgal seabed habitats, rocky reefs and sponge gardens located in shallow, inshore waters (e.g., protected coastal bays, harbours and jetties) less than 50 m deep (Fishes of Australia, 2015). They are sometimes recorded in deeper offshore waters, where they depend on the protection of sponges and rafts of floating seaweed such as Sargassum.

The PMST species profile and threats profiles indicate that the sygnathiforme species listed for the survey area are widely distributed throughout southern, south-eastern and south-western Australian waters. The diverse range of ecological niches afforded by the patch reefs across the survey area would be expected to provide suitable habitat for these listed species, so these species may be present in the survey area.

See also Section 3.1(d)(e) for a description of the EPBC Act-listed species that may be present in the survey area. 3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows

Onshore The dominant hydrological feature in the survey area is the Curdies Inlet, located on the eastern side of the town of Peterborough. This inlet intermittently opens or closes depending on the prevailing conditions (e.g., freshwater inflows, changes in tidal movements) (CCMA, 2014), though it is generally closed to the sea. Waterways feeding into the Curdie River include Wallaby, Mosquito, Whisky and Fenton creeks to the north of the survey area. Campbell’s Creek (often referred to as Port Campbell Creek) is the other major water feature in the survey area. The Campbell’s Creek catchment covers an area of 74.4 km2 (Woodside, 2003) and is about 10 km in length. Its valley is located along the Paaratte geological fault line (Goodwin, 1995). The creek is generally no wider than 2 m. Remnant riparian vegetation is sparse and generally in poor condition. Two main groundwater aquifers occur in the survey area, these being the: • Port Campbell Limestone Aquifer (shallow regional aquifer) – underlies the entire survey area and is used for stock watering and irrigation and potable water for domestic and industrial consumption to towns including Koroit, Casterton, Sandford and Lismore (west of the survey area). • Dilwyn Formation Aquifer – separated from the shallower Port Campbell Limestone Aquifer by more than 300 m of low permeability calcareous clays belonging to the Gellibrand and Narrawatuk Marls (SKM, 1999). This aquifer provides town water for Port Campbell and Peterborough and several towns further west of the survey area.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 72 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Offshore Factors influencing current flow in western Bass Strait are tidal forcing, waves, wind and large scale ocean circulation. Winds tend to be the primary factor driving currents in western Bass Strait, predominantly from west to east. Bottom currents can exceed 0.5 m/s in nearshore areas during storms (BHP-Santos, 1999; cited in Santos, 2004). Current velocities through Bass Strait are highly correlated with local wind stress (Butler et al., 2002a; cited in Santos, 2004). In the Port Campbell area, the predominant south-westerly swell direction means that there are minimal longshore currents as most waves reach the shore parallel to the coast. Lateral flushing within Bass Strait results from inflows from the South Australian Current, East Australian Current, and sub-Antarctic surface waters (RPS APASA, 2015). During winter, the South Australian current moves dense, salty warmer water eastward from the Great Australian Bight into the western margin of the Bass Strait. In winter and spring, waters within the strait are well mixed with no obvious stratification, while during summer the central regions of the straight become stratified (RPS APASA, 2015). 3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics

Onshore The geomorphology of the Otway region has been characterised by Robinson et al (2003) into geomorphic divisions, second tier subdivisions and third tier units. All third tier geomorphic units have an associated range of soil-landforms which describe soils, landform, climate, vegetation and land characteristics. Using this classification system, the survey area is located within the Western Plains (6) geomorphic division and the Sedimentary Plains (6.2) subdivision. Third tier subdivisions within the survey area are dominated by dissected plains (6.2.2) with small occurrences of karst plains with depressions (6.2.3) and plains and plains with low rises (6.2.4). In the dissected plains, the drainage has been strongly influenced by the deposition of strand lines from the retreating sea, forming a rectilinear pattern of parallel arcuate tributaries perpendicular to rivers draining south-west. The development of the drainage has been associated with the Late Neogene uplift of the adjacent Otways Ranges, between 2 million years ago (Mya) and 1 Mya. The deep dissection has resulted in numerous landslides in the marl, many of which remain active. It includes undulating alluvial plains and valley sides of the Curdies River (covering an area of 148 km2). Offshore The south-eastern section of Australia’s continental margin comprises the Otway Shelf and the Bonney Coast, Bass Strait, and the western shelf of Tasmania. The survey area is within the 400 km-long Otway Shelf, where the narrowest point is off Portland, where the shelf is less than 20 km wide. It broadens progressively westward, to 60 km off Robe, SA, and eastward to 80 km off Warrnambool (James et al., 2010). The Otway shelf is comprised of Miocene limestone below a thin veneer of younger sediments. Boreen et al (1993) examined 259 sediment samples collected over the Otway Basin and the Sorell Basin of the west Tasmanian margin. The authors concluded the Otway continental margin is a swell-dominated, open, cool- water, carbonate platform. In the shallow shelf are exhumed limestone substrates that host dense encrusting mollusc, sponge, bryozoan and red algae assemblages. The middle shelf is a zone of swell-wave shoaling and production of mega-rippled bryozoan sands. The deep shelf is described as having accumulations of intensely bioturbated, fine, bioclastic sands. The seabed of the survey acquisition area on a macro-scale to the 25 m isobath is predominantly rocky (limestone) reef interspersed with reef/sediment areas (DPTLI, 2014). Fishing operators within the previous Speculant MSS area, 6 km to the northwest of the survey area, advised the seabed to comprise of predominantly rocky substrates with patches of highly mobile sand. The rocky seabed varies substantially in relief with some areas of relatively flat limestone and other areas of crevices, gutters, pillars and overhanging shelves. Multibeam and Laser Airborne Depth Sounder (LADS) surveys have been conducted in the area. Analysis of this data for Origin’s Speculant seismic survey shows that from the low tide mark to 5 m depth, the seabed is mainly comprised of rocky reef. In water depths from approximately 10 to 22 m water, the seabed comprises of sand on a sloping gradient and at 24 m the seabed is irregular reef (Origin, 2009). Boreen et al (1993) reported that the benthic communities associated with hard limestone substrates common in the survey area are comprised of sponges, encrustlng and branching coralline algae, poysonellid algae, bryozoa, benthic forams, robust sarpullds, brachiopods, bivalves, gastropods, fleshy red algae and kelp.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 73 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features

Numerous sites of geological and geomorphological exist along the coastline within and adjacent to the survey area. The PCNP was first registered under the Register of the National Estate in 1980 for its national natural significance. The geological exposures and landforms are of national significance (Parks Victoria, 1998). Two Mile Bay was rated as regionally significant by the Land Conservation Council in 1993. However, in addition to the site being of regional significance, the assessment of the area for the Minerva Project by Goodwin (1995) classifies the site as being of possible state significance. Parks Victoria (1998) has classified Two Mile Bay as a Special Protection Area, based on its geology, wetlands, Indigenous heritage and faunal diversity. 3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation

Most of the southwest region of Victoria, including the survey area, are dominated by pasture for dairy grazing. Remnant vegetation in the survey area exists within the PCNP and along some roadsides. The EVCs present in the survey area are described and mapped in Appendix 2. 3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area)

Onshore The onshore survey area is a gently undulating environment.

Offshore The proposed survey will take place in water depths ranging from approximately 2 m to 50 m.

3.3 (g) Current state of the environment

Onshore The landscape in which the onshore section of the survey area is located is dominated by extensively cleared agricultural lands utilised for grazing and dairy farming purposes. The PCNP provides an area of remnant vegetation with high biodiversity value within this predominatly cleared landscape. Offshore The offshore section of the survey area has been subject to many decades of fishing pressure for the southern rock lobster and abalone. Such fishing pressure is likely to have significantly altered the community structure of rocky reefs in the survey area, however there are no studies that describe fishing impacts to community structure in this area. 3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values

There are no CMRs, sites on the Commonwealth Heritage List or World Heritage Properties in the vicininty of the survey area. Other places recognised as having heritage values are historic shipwrecks Shipwrecks over 75 years old are protected within Commonwealth waters under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Cth) and in Victorian waters under the Victorian Heritage Act 1995 (Vic). The stretch of coastline adjacent to the survey area is known as the ‘Shipwreck Coast’ because of the number of shipwrecks present with most wrecked during the late nineteenth century. The strong waves, rocky reefs and cliffs of the region contributed to the loss of these ships. The wrecks represent significant archaeological, educational and recreational (i.e., diving) opportunities for locals, students, and tourists (Flagstaff Hill, 2015). Shipwrecks known to occur in and around the acquisition area, as illustrated in Figure 17, are (Victorian Heritage Database, 2016): Within the survey area: • Napier – wrecked in 1878, the vessel was contracted to undertake salvage on the Loch Ard wreck. While returning to Port Campbell it lost sternway while rounding the eastern reef and bluff, and swell forced it onto rocks on the western side of the cove. • Nowra – wrecked in 1891 after experiencing very bad weather after leaving Penguin (Tasmania). It was unable to reach Port Phillip Heads and was driven onto the ‘London Bridge’ rocks. • Newfield – wrecked in 1892, the vessel struck rocks approximately 100 m from shore one mile east of Curdies Inlet due to navigational error when Cape Otway light was mistaken for King Island lighthouse.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 74 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

• Young Australian – wrecked in 1877 at Curdies Inlet while on a voyage from Maryborough (Qld) to Adelaide (SA) it struck heavy weather off Cape Nelson. • Schomberg – wrecked in 1855 at Curdies Inlet as a result of a navigational error. • Falls of Halladale – wrecked in 1908 at Massacre bay Peterborough as a result of a navigational error. • Unnamed – located west of Peterborough in waters less than 10 m deep. Outside of but in proximity to acquisition area • Loch Ard – wrecked in 1878 as a result of bad weather, which prevented navigational fixes from being made. The wreck is located approximately 1.7 km east of the survey area.

Figure 17. Shipwrecks within and in the vicinity of the proposed survey area

3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values

Onshore Indigenous groups inhabited the southwest Victorian coast as is evident from the terrestrial sites of indigenous archaeological significance throughout the area. During recent ice age periods (the last ending approximately 14,000 years ago), sea levels were significantly lower and the coastline was a significant distance seaward of its present location, enabling occupation and travel across land that is now submerged. Indigenous peoples have lived in the area now known as the Corangamite region for thousands of generations. The Wadawurrung language was spoken throughout most of the area; other Traditional Owner language groups included the Kirrae Whurrong, Gadubanud, Gulidjan and Djargurd Wurrung (CCMA, 2013). Origin commissioned Ochre Imprints to undertake a desktop study of the indigenous and non-indigenous heritage values of the survey area (Ochre Imprints, 2016). An examination of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) determined that a number of Aboriginal archaeological sites/Aboriginal places have been registered in the region surrounding the survey area. The majority of these are found along the coastline, and predominantly consist of shell middens or stone artefact scatters (Ochre Imprints, 2016). The Ochre Imprints Aboriginal and cultural heritage study report is provided in Appendix 3.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 75 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

The majority of these places were recorded prior to the Aboriginal Victoria requirement that spatial data recorded in the field records the extent of cultural material (as opposed to a single point data reading) along with other site information. Indeed, many places were recorded prior to GPS and Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies being commonly used by or available to archaeologists in the field. As a result, the spatial extent of many of the registered sites is not available, and the exact location of the registered material is not certain. In order to correct for this limitation, data have been collected from the VAHR for all places for which the primary grid coordinate location is situated within 100 m of the roads and tracks proposed for seismic activities. There are six sites located within 100 m of roads and tracks proposed for the survey, these being shell middens and small quartz artefact scatters. One of the Aboriginal places currently listed on the VAHR (7420-0019) is located adjacent to a track in the Rifle Range which may be utilised by the seismic survey. If seismic activities within the Rifle range are required they will be restricted to existing access tracks in the vicinity of this record to avoid impacts. Site records suggest that all other located VAHR registered places are at least 90 m from the relevant road reserve. The survey will not, therefore, have an impact on any currently registered Aboriginal place (Ochre Imprints, 2016). This conclusion is tempered by the fact that there remains the possibility that an Aboriginal place registered beyond 100 m of roads and tracks proposed for seismic activities may physically extend onto such roads and tracks, even if the spatial data for that place does not account for a spatial extent beyond the point registration. This analysis concludes that it is unlikely that any of the Aboriginal places recorded on the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register and Information Service (ACHRIS) within 100 m of the roads and tracks proposed for seismic activities extend onto theses roads and tracks (Ochre Imprints, 2016). Given that the survey will not impact on any registered Aboriginal place, a Cultural Heritage Permit under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) is not required prior to the works commencing. A seismic survey is not listed as a ‘high impact activity’ in Division 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 and Aboriginal Victoria has previously confirmed that it is not a ‘high impact activity’ (Ochre Imprints, 2016). Areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity as defined under r.41(2) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 are located: • Within 200 m of a waterway; • Within 200 m of the high water mark of the coastal waters of Victoria; • Within a Park; and • In coastal dune deposits. Offshore Aboriginal groups inhabited the southwest Victorian coast as is evident from the terrestrial sites of Aboriginal archaeological significance throughout the area. During recent ice age periods (the last ending approximately 14,000 years ago), sea levels were significantly lower and the coastline was a significant distance seaward of its present location, enabling occupation and travel across land that is now submerged. Coastal Aboriginal heritage sites include mostly shell middens, some stone artefacts, a few staircases cut into the coastal cliffs, and at least one burial site. The various shell middens within the PCNP and Bay of Islands Costal Park are close to coastal access points that are, in some cases, now visitor access points (ParksVic, 1998). A search of the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) database identifies a claim exists over the adjacent coastal shoreline (and terrestrial component of the survey area) by the Eastern Maar people. This claim, registered in 2013, extends seaward 100 m from the mean low-water mark of the coastline (NNTT, 2016). There is currently no determination registered over the area of the claim (still active) in the National Native Title Register. An Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) (BHPP-Minerva, VIA1999/001) exists over the Minerva gas pipeline corridor and was registered in November 1999. It is a 30 m wide ‘finger’ extending south to the Minerva gas field, with the parties to the ILUA being the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust and Kirrae Whurrong Native Title Group (NNTT, 2015).

3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment

Onshore The survey area is located within and adjacent to the PCNP and the BICP, declared under the Victorian National Parks Act 1975 and managed by Parks Victoria. These reserves are described in this section, with the focus being on landscape and ecology. The PCNP covers a narrow linear section of the coastline (~27 km), stretching from Peterborough to Princetown, covering 1,750 ha. The park was proclaimed in 1964 (and extended in 1981) to preserve and protect the natural

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 76 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

environment, allow natural environmental processes to continue with the minimum of interference, maintain biodiversity and conserve features of archaeological, historical and cultural significance. The park is assigned the IUCN Category II (National Parks) (managed primarily for ecosystem conservation and appropriate recreation) (Parks Victoria, 1998). The park is world famous for its sheer limestone cliffs and the Twelve Apostles wave-sculpted rock formations that can be viewed from the park. Loch Ard Gorge, site of the 19th century shipwreck Loch Ard, as well as The Arch, London Bridge and The Grotto are other notable features of the park that attract significant tourist numbers to the region (ParksVic, 2015a). The PCNP provides numerous coastal lookouts and walking tracks, though no camping facilities are provided (these are available at Port Campbell and Peterborough). The vegetation of the park is dominated by the Coastal Scrubs Grasslands and Woodlands (EVC 1.1) (a subset of EVC 1), Coastal Headland Scrub (EVC 161), Damp Heath Scrub (EVC 165) and Sandy and/or well drained Heathlands (EVC 16.1) (a subset of EVC 16) (see Appendix 2 for descriptions of these EVCs), though areas of estuarine swamp sedgeland, open forest, dune swale community and swamp communities also occur (DPI, 2016; Parks Victoria, 1998). Eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) are common in the park. Notable fauna species found in the park include the: • Rufous bristlebird (Dasyornis broadbenti), which favours mature Leptospermum scoparium-Baumea juncea heathland and moist gully areas; • Migratory short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) that breed and nest in the park each September, often in high numbers of 50,000 or more (offshore stacks and islands provide protection from predators); • Hooded plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) prefer high energy beaches and unvegetated cliff top areas or scalds; and • Little penguins (Eudyptula minor) are known to have rookeries in sand dune areas on beaches backed by cliffs (Parks Victoria, 1998). • The PCNP’s natural features, as reported by Parks Victoria (1998) include: • A stretch of coastline where the wild Southern Ocean meets rugged limestone cliffs, which are being rapidly and spectacularly eroded; • Extraordinary geomorphological features, including cliffs, rock stacks, caves, headlands and embayments; • A wide range of remnant coastal vegetation types, including important coastal heathlands, which provide a valuable link between other patches of remnant vegetation in the area; • High biodiversity, including a remarkable diversity of plants; • Significant flora species, including the metallic sun-orchid (Thelymitra epipactoides) and swamp greenhood (Pterostylis tenuissima); and • Significant fauna species, including the hooded plover, rufous bristlebird and swamp antechinus (Antechinus minimus).

The BICP has outstanding ocean views and geological features and covers an extensive area of the coastline (33 km in length and 950 ha), stretching from east of Warrnambool to Peterborough. The BICP was proclaimed in 1997 (though the land was initially reserved in 1873) to preserve and protect the natural environment, allow natural environmental processes to continue with the minimum of interference, maintain biodiversity and conserve features of archaeological, historical and cultural significance. The park is assigned the IUCN Category III (Natural Monuments) (managed for the protection of outstanding natural features and appropriate recreation, education and research) (Parks Victoria, 1998). Sheer cliffs and rock stacks dominate the bays, with beaches accessible at some points. The vegetation between Point Ronald and Clifton Beach is in good condition due to its inaccessibility and is included within a Special Protection Zone (Parks Victoria, 1998). The vegetation of the BICP is dominated by the Coastal Scrubs Grasslands and Woodlands and Sandy and/or well drained Heathlands (see Appendix 2 for descriptions and mapping of these EVCs) and low eucalypt woodland (DPI, 2016; Parks Victoria, 1998).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 77 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Offshore Victoria has a representative system of 13 Marine National Parks and 11 Marine Sanctuaries established under the National Parks Act 1975 (Vic). Parks located within the ZPI of the survey area: • The Arches Marine Sanctuary - located immediately adjacent to the survey acquisition area; • Twelve Apostles Marine National Park - located 600 m east of the acquisition area; • BICP - located on the coast immediately adjacent to the marine survey area; • PCNP- located on the coast immediately adjacent to the marine survey area; and • Great Otway National Park – located 11 km southeast of the survey area. The Arches Marine Sanctuary protects 45 ha of ocean directly south of Port Campbell. Located 5 to 25 m below the water surface is a labyrinth of limestone canyons, caves, arches and walls characterised by high-energy waves. The complex limestone structures provide a foundation for seaweeds and sponges to grow on. Due to the shaded underside of the underwater arches, habitats here are typical of those found in the deeper waters of Bass Strait. A diverse array of life including sponges, bryozoans and sea stars exist in the sanctuary, with the upper side of the structures covered in the thick, brown kelp (Ecklonia radiata) with an understory of delicate red algae. The sanctuary has a very low abundance of sessile invertebrates. Sea stars are the dominant mobile invertebrates in the sanctuary and include Nectria macrobrachia, Nepanthia troughtoni and Tosia magnifica. These habitats support schools of reef fish, seals and a range of invertebrates such as lobster, abalone and sea urchins (ParksVic, 2015b). These features make the area a popular dive site (ParksVic, 2006). The Twelve Apostles Marine National Park (75 km2) is located 7 km east of Port Campbell and covers 16 km of coastline from east of Broken Head to Pebble Point to an offshore limit of 5.5 km (Plummer et al., 2003). The area is representative of the Otway Bioregion and is characterised by a submarine network of towering canyons, caves, arches and walls with a large variety of seaweed and sponge gardens plus resident schools of reef fish (DSE, 2012). The park contains areas of calcarenite reef supporting the highest diversity of intertidal and sub- tidal invertebrates found on that rock type in Victoria (Handreck & O'Hara, 1994). The park includes large sandy sub-tidal areas consisting of predominantly fine sand with some medium to coarse sand and shell fragment (Plummer et al., 2003). Benthic sampling undertaken within the park in soft sediment habitats at 10 m, 20 m and 40 m water depths identified 31, 29 and 32 species respectively based upon a sample area of 0.1 m2. These species were predominantly polychaetes, crustaceans and nematodes with the mean number of individuals decreasing with water depth (Heisler & Parry, 2007). No visible macroalgae species are present within these soft sediment areas (Holmes et al., 2007; Plummer et al., 2003). These sandy expanses record high number of smaller animals such as worms, small molluscs and crustaceans; larger animals are less common. 3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (e.g. freehold, leasehold)

Onshore The proposed survey will not access any private property. The survey will take place within:

• PPL 8 (Origin). • PEP 168 (Beach Energy 50% [operator], Cooper Energy 50%); and • PEP169 (Lakes Oil 49% [operator], Armour Energy 51%).

Offshore The waters of the survey area are designated as Victorian state waters. The survey will predominantly be undertaken within Origin’s exploration permit VIC/P42(V), but will enter waters outside the permit to its east in order to produce seamless data coverage with existing seismic surveys. Access to this area will be undertaken in accordance with a Petroleum Access Authority under Section 241 of the OPGGS Act 2010 (Origin has applied for this authority, with approval pending).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 78 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

3.3 (l) Existing uses of area of proposed action

Onshore The proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS area occurs in the southern extreme of the Western Plains and the Curdies Landscape Zone (CCMA, 2009). This is one of the largest milk producing regions in Australia, with 82% of land use occupied by dairy grazing, following by 11% in non-dairy grazing and 5% as conservation (CCMA, 2014). The key land uses in the survey area are conservation (the PCNP and the BICP) and dairy farming (most of the land north of the GOR). Infrastructure in and around the survey area is primarily related to rural living (e.g., the small townships of Peterborough and Port Campbell) and tourism (access roads, tracks and lookouts in the PCNP and BICP). Petroleum exploration and production has been undertaken within the Otway Basin since the early 1960s. Up to 2015, the DEDJTR reports that 23 PJ of liquid hydrocarbons (primarily condensate) has been produced from its onshore and offshore basins, with 65 PJ remaining, while 85 PJ of gas has been produced (Victoria and South Australia), with 1,292 PJ remaining (DEDJTR, 2016). A public jetty is located within Port Campbell bay and a boat ramp and small jetty are located on the western shore of Curdies Inlet, immediately north of the Curdies River road bridge. Waste transfer stations are located at Peterborough (off Macgillivray Rd) and at Pounds Rd in Port Campbell. A rifle range, which was established in the early 1900s, is located on the clifftops to the immediate west of Port Campbell.

The survey area lies within the GOR tourism campaign region (as designated by Tourism Victoria). This region encompasses all of the south-west region of Victoria (from Geelong to the Victoria-South Australia border). In 2013-14, the tourism industry contributed an estimated $1.9 billion to the GOR economy (10.8% of gross regional product) and employed approximately 20,700 people (12% of regional employment) (Tourism Victoria, 2015). Accommodation was the largest industry to benefit from tourism, followed by retail trade, dwelling ownership (e.g., holiday homes) and food services (cafes, restaurants and takeaway services) (Tourism Victoria, 2015). Given the large size of this tourism region, the survey area would be responsible for a small portion of this. The BICP, PCNP, Great Otway National Park, Twelve Apostles Marine National Park and the Arches Marine Sanctuary, when considered together, form one of Australia’s most recognisable landscapes and are one of 16 iconic national landscapes (Parks Victoria, 2015). Offshore Commonwealth fisheries are managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), with Commonwealth fisheries operating from the 3 nm baseline out to 200 nm (the extent of the Australian Fishing Zone, AFZ). The survey area lies within an area surrounded by several Commonwealth-managed fisheries, these being: • Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop. • Eastern Tuna and Billfish. • Skipjack (eastern). • Small Pelagic (western sub-area). • Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark. • Southern Bluefin Tuna. • Southern Squid Jig. None of these fisheries operates within the survey area. Victorian fisheries are managed by the DELWP (Fisheries) and may overlap Commonwealth fisheries areas. The survey area lies within an area encompassed by several State-managed fisheries, these being: • Victorian Rock Lobster Fishery - operates throughout the survey area but is concentrated over ‘the Big Reef’, located 56 km south-southwest of the proposed survey area. • Victorian Giant Crab Fishery - is concentrated around the continental shelf break with some operations further inshore, and is unlikely to operate in the proposed survey area. • Abalone Fishery - operates nearshore in depths of up to 30 m (mainly using divers with a surface air supply), so is likely to occur within the survey area. • Scallop Fishery - does not operate in the survey area (seabed substrate is too hard to support scallops).

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 79 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

• Wrasse Fishery - likely to operate within the survey area, though catches are highest off the central Victorian coast and off Portland. • Snapper Fishery (Open Fishery Access Licence) - likely to operate within the survey area. Recreational diving occurs along the Otway coastline. Popular diving sites near Peterborough includes a number of shipwrecks such as the Newfield, which lies in 6 m of water and the Schomberg in 8 m of water. Peterborough provides a number of good shore dives at Wild Dog Cove, Massacre Bay, Crofts Bay and the Bay of Islands. In addition, there is the wreck of the Falls of Halladale (4-11 m of water) which can be accessed from shore or via boat. These sites are all located within the survey area. Consultation with local vessel charterers and providers of SCUBA tank fills has confirmed that diving activity near to the survey area is generally concentrated around The Arches Marine Sanctuary and the wreck sites of the Loch Ard (outside the acquisition area) and sometimes at the Newfield and Schomberg shipwrecks. Diving activity peaks during the rock lobster season with the bulk of recreational boats accessing the area launching from Boat Bay at the Bay of Islands or Port Campbell.

3.3 (m) Any proposed uses of area of proposed action

Origin is not aware of any other proposed uses of the survey area.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 80 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

4 Environmental outcomes

The environmental outcomes (i.e., objectives) provided in Table 11 are consistent with those included in the Enterprise 3DTZSS EMP and EP. These outcomes are linked to environmental performance standards and measurement criteria that will be tracked during the project and reported to regulatory agencies. Table 11. Environmental outcomes for the Enterprise 3DTZSS

Hazard Outcome Confidence in ability to achieve outcome Offshore Underwater sound The risk of behavioural or physiological impacts to sound-sensitive High fauna is reduced to ALARP. Light emissions Light emissions are limited to those required by maritime safety Very high standards. Vessel strike or No injury or death of marine fauna as a result of vessel strike or Very high entanglement with entanglement with trailing equipment during the survey. cetaceans Diesel spill No diesel spill to sea. Very high Protect sensitive sites in the event of a spill. Introduction of IMS Comply with biofouling and ballast water guidelines to prevent the Very high introduction of IMS to the acquisition area. Onshore Noise and vibration Disturbance to protected fauna is minimised. Very high Damage to No remenant vegetation or threatened species are cleared. Very high vegetation Interference with No death of native vertebrate fauna. Very high protected fauna Introduction pf No introduction or spread of weeds or pathogens into or throughout Very high weeds/pathogens the onshore survey area from survey vehicles or equipment.

5 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts

Control measures to avoid, reduce, mitigate and manage environmental impacts and risks associated with the proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS are provided in Table 12. These are consistent with those included in the Enterprise 3DTZSS EMP and EP and are linked to environmental performance standards and measurement criteria. All of the listed control measures have been assessed as ‘substantially effective (75%)’ or ‘fully effective (100%)’ in meeting the stated outcome using Origin’s risk management toolkit. Origin is committed to ensuring that the control measures are implemented and the outcomes are met. Origin’s HSE and environmental personnel assigned to the project are experienced in ensuring that seismic surveys are implemented in compliance with commitments made to regulatory authorities. Table 12. Environmental controls for the Enterprise 3DTZSS

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 81 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Hazard Control Offshore Underwater No survey activity (acquisition or node laying) will take place in marine reserves. sound Trained and experienced MMOs will be present on the source vessel and two cliff locations. All crew aboard the seismic survey vessel are inducted into the EPBC Act Policy requirements.

Seismic survey operations are conducted in accordance with the EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 (Part A, standard management procedures), to minimise acoustic disturbance to cetaceans. Seismic survey operations will incorporate additional management measures in general accordance with the EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 Part B to minimise acoustic disturbance to the pygmy blue whale and southern right whale: • The acoustic source will be shut down if a southern right whale or blue whale approaches within 2 km of the seismic source. Soft start procedures will commence once the whale has been observed to move outside the 2 km zone or has not been observed for 1 hr. • The acoustic source will be shut down if any other species of whale approach within 2 km of the seismic source. Soft start procedures will commence once the whale has been observed to move outside the 2 km zone or has not been observed for 30 mins. • At night time or other times of low-visibility, start-up of the acoustic source in accordance with soft- start procedures may commence provided there have not been two or more blue whale* instigated power-downs or shut-downs in the preceding 24 hour period. (* or three or more ‘other whale’ species). • If the survey experienced three or more blue whale instigated shutdowns or power-downs per 24 hour period for three consecutive days, the seismic operations must not be undertaken at night- time or during low visibility conditions until there has been a 24 hour period, which included seismic operations during daylight hours and good visibility conditions, during which there are no whale instigated shutdown or power down events. • A pre-commencement survey of the acquisition area will be undertaken by two experienced MMOs located on cliff tops adjacent to the proposed survey area in the 24 hours prior to survey commencement. In the event that whale encounter is considered high based on observations, survey acqusition will be timed to avoid whales in the vicinity of the acquisition area. • In the event that Origin is made aware of the potential for another marine seismic survey/s to take place in the same area at the same time as the Enterprise 3DTZSS, at least a 40 km (21 nm) separation will be maintained between the survey’s active sources to ensure sound from one source doesn’t interfere with sound from the other and to reduce the possibility of cumulative sound impacts. • A cetacean strategy meeting (will be held each evening to assess all available data on whale presence. This information will be used to inform the acquisition strategy for the following day. Light Vessel deck and navigational lighting is in line with the Victorian Marine Safety Regulations 2012 emissions (Regulation 110) so that light glow is minimised while ensuring the vessel is visible to other vessels. Vessel strike The Australian Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching (2005) for sea-faring activities will be or implemented. entanglement MMOs will be on duty to undertake marine fauna observations. with cetaceans Cetacean observations will be recorded and reported to the DoEE. Entanglement with marine fauna will be reported to the DELWP. Any survey-related fauna injury or death will be reported to regulatory authorities. Diesel spill The Origin Community Relations Specialist will undertake ongoing consultation with potentially impacted fishermen. The location of the survey vessel will be communicated to other marine users through the provision of project advice to AMSA and Transport Safety Victoria prior to mobilisation. Signage is placed at local boat launching ramps (e.g., Port Campbell, Peterborough) to advise of the survey activities. The vessels and source equipment will be readily identifiable to other vessels. Vessels will have an approved Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan (or equivalent appropriate to class) and the survey will have an accepted OPEP that will be implemented in the event of a spill. Navigation, identification and communication equipment is functional and in use in accordance with AMSA Marine Order Part 30 (Prevention of collisions) or National Standard for Commercial Vessel 2015 (as appropriate). Vessel masters will initiate action to reduce fuel loss in the event of a tank rupture. Reporting and monitoring of spills will take place in accordance with the OPEP.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 82 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Introduction of Pre-survey assurance check of contracted vessels takes place. IMS The survey vessels are cleared to enter Australian waters (if mobilised from outside Australian waters). Vessels have anti-fouling paint applied to hulls and internal niches. Non-regional vessels are dry-docked and cleaned prior to survey. Vessels only discharge low-risk domestic ballast water into Victorian State waters. Onshore Noise and Mini-vibroseis technology will be used to minimise ambient noise from the survey operation. vibration Vibroseis vehicles will only work along the GOR and will not enter the PCNP or the rifle range. Vibroseis vehicles will be maintained in good working order to ensure noise abatement devices (e.g., engines, mufflers) are operating efficiently. Damage to No clearing of remnant vegetation will take place. vegetation Damage to vegetation will be limited to slashing of tall grass on the road verge and trimming of tree branches or shrubs where they encroach on the survey line. Slashed vegetation will remain on site so as to prevent the potential spread of weeds. An ecological desktop study has been undertaken to identify locations of previously recorded species of conservation concern. The project induction will reinforce that no vegetation clearing is to take place. Flora surveys for threatened plants will be undertaken within suitable habitat (as determined by a suitably qualified person) along road and track verges prior to the seismic survey and during a season when the likelihood of detecting such plants is high (likely to be October 2016). This will include surveys for EPBC Act-listed orchids within PCNP track verges. The locations of any populations of threatened plants detected during the flora survey will be logged and the area avoided during seismic activities. Origin will liaise with ParksVic prior to the threatened orchid survey commencing to determine if locations of threatened species along access tracks of the PCNP are known, so that the placement of receiver nodes can avoid these locations. Mini-vibroseis vehicles will not enter the PCNP or BICP (exempting road verges of the GOR). Receiver nodes will be laid within the existing firebreaks (immediately adjacent to the access tracks) within the PCNP. If the firebreaks are unkempt at the time of the survey, the nodes will be laid along the track and no vegetation slashing will take place. Interference The vibroseis and other survey vehicles will not drive over areas other than roads, access tracks and the with protected GOR verges. fauna Vibroseis vehicles will not enter the PCNP or BICP. Within the PCNP, light vehicles will remain on access tracks and cleared verges at all times. There will be no vehicle or foot access to private farmland. Slashed vegetation will remain on site so as to provide groundcover for invertebrate fauna. Vibroseis and survey vehicles will adhere to all posted speed limits and drive appropriate to conditions (e.g., slower speeds during rain, fog and storms). Vehicle speeds within the PCNP will not exceed 20 km/hr. The on-site environmental advisor will be trained in fauna handling, and will obtain permits under the Wildlife Act 1975 and FFG Act 1988 to handle and relocate injured fauna. Wildlife Victoria (Phone 1300 094 535, 24 hours/7 days) will be contacted if assistance with injured native fauna is required. Introduction of All Origin, contractor and sub-contractor vehicles and machinery will arrive on site ready to commence weeds or operations with a valid Vehicle and Mobile Plant Hygiene Inspection Report. pathogens All Origin, contractor and sub-contractor vehicles and machinery will be washed down upon completion of the survey. Wash down will occur outside of the PCNP and nominally within the laydown yard or commercial car wash facilities. The vibroseis and other survey vehicles will not drive over areas other than roads, the GOR verges or access tracks (i.e., not over farmland or native vegetation). There will be no vehicle access to private farmland. Each node will be inspected and cleaned prior to mobilisation to the survey area. Slashed vegetation will remain on site so as to prevent the potential spread of weeds. Survey operations will be avoided during periods of heavy rain (and immediately afterwards) to prevent soil rutting and churning.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 83 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Use of road verges and tracks by survey vehicles will only be undertaken when verges and tracks are dry enough to prevent soil rutting and churning.

6 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts

6.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?

X No, complete section 6.2 Yes, complete section 6.3

6.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action.

The proposed Enterprise 3DTZSS is not considered to be a controlled action. The nature of the activity and the mitigation measures in place mean there it is not likely to be a significant impact to any MNES as outlined in Table 9 and Table 10.

6.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action

Matters likely to be significantly impacted World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A) National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C) Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B) Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A) Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A) Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A) Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E) Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A) Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28) Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 84 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

7 Environmental record of the person proposing to take the action

Yes No 7.1 Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible X environmental management?

Origin is committed to responsible environmental management. Origin’s Health, Safety and Environment Management System (HSEMS) helps govern all activities and ensures continual improvement in managing environmental risks. Origin sets objectives and targets that promote the efficient use of resources, minimisation of wastes and emissions, and the prevention of pollution.

Origin aims to comply with all environmental regulations and any conditions attached to its approvals to operate, and promptly reports any non-compliance to relevant authorities. Origin encourages its people to report on environmental performance associated with our activities.

To increase its understanding and improve company-wide performance, Origin maintains a register of all environmental incidents, observations and good practices.

Origin is committed to protecting matters of environmental significance, and the survey window selected for the Enterprise 3DTZSS is an example of this commitment (see Section 2.3).

7.2 Provide details of any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory X law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources against: (a) the person proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been applied for in relation to the action - the person making the application.

No. Origin has not been subject to legal court proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

7.3 If the person taking the action is a corporation, please provide details of the X corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework and if and how the framework applies to the action.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 85 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Yes No Origin’s Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Policy provides a public statement of the company’s commitment to minimise adverse effects on the environment and to improve environmental performance (Appendix 4).

Origin operates under a HSEMS to minimise and manage the impacts on employees, contractors, the environment and the communities in which the company operates. The Origin HSEMS has been developed in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management Systems.

Origin works hard to ensure that its HSE Policy is adhered to. Examples of the ways in which compliance with the HSE Policy is achieved are highlighted in the most recent Sustainability Report (2015-16 financial year), which is available on Origin’s website for ease of public access (https://www.originenergy.com.au/about/investors-media/reports-and- results/sustainability-report-20150918.html).

7.4 Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC X Act, or been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?

Reference Title of Referral Date Number Received 2016/7720 Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd/Energy Generation and Supply (non- 7 Sept 2016 renewable)/Approximately 65km north-east of Roma, southern Queensland/Queensland/Spring Gully CSG field extension, southern Queensland 2016/7694 Origin Energy Darling Downs Solar Farm Pty Ltd/Energy Generation and 29 Apr 2016 Supply (renewable)/Lot 119 SP227731/Queensland/Darling Downs Solar Farm, west of Dalby, Qld 2015/7551 Origin Energy Resources Ltd/Energy generation and supply (non- 2 Sept 2015 renewable)/Otway Basin/VIC/Halladale and Speculant Gas Pipeline Project, North of Port Campbell, Vic 2012/6565 Origin Energy Resources Limited/Exploration (mineral, oil and gas - 2 Oct 2012 marine)/Otway Basin/VIC/The Enterprise 3D Seismic Acquisition Survey, Otway Basin, Vic 2012/6545 Origin Energy Resources Limited/Exploration (mineral, oil and gas - 11 Sep 2012 marine)/Otway Basin/VIC/The Enterprise 3D Seismic Acquisition Survey, Withdrawn Otway Basin, Vic 28 Sep 2012 2011/6421 Origin Energy Resources Limited/Exploration (mineral, oil and gas – 7 Jun 2012 marine)/Otway Basin/Commonwealth Marine/Otway Astrolabe 3D Marine Seismic Survey, Otway Basin 2011/6125 Origin Energy Resources Limited/Exploration (mineral, oil and gas – 22 Sep 2011 marine)/S of Vic, the Otway Basin, Southern Eastern Marine region/Commonwealth Marine/Otway Basin Exploration Drilling Campaign, Vic 2011/6091 Origin Energy ATP Pty Limited/Mining/300km west of Brisbane 25 Aug 2011 /QLD/Ironbark Coal Seam Gas Project Withdrawn 4 Apr 2014 2011/6048 Origin Energy Resources Ltd/Exploration (mineral, oil and gas - 26 Jul 2011 marine)/100km northwest King Island/VIC/Astrolabe 3D Marine Seismic Survey 2011/5879 Halladale & Black Watch Gas Field Development Project 11 Mar 2011

2010/5701 Bass Basin between Tasmania and Victoria/ Aroo Chappell 3D seismic 21 Oct 2010 survey 2010/5700 Offshore Otway Region of the Bass Strait/ Undertake a three dimensional 21 Oct 2010 marine seismic survey 2010/5558 Origin Energy Resources Ltd/Exploration (mineral, oil and gas - 5 July 2010 marine)/VIC/RL2, PEP168, PPL10, Otway region, 10km NW of Peterborough/VIC/Speculant 3D Transition Zone Seismic Survey 2009/4913 Origin Energy Power Limited/Energy generation and supply (non- 27 May 2009 renewable)/Approx. 2.2 kms SE of Garvoc/VIC/Gas Pipeline Crossing at Mount Emu Creek

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 86 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Reference Title of Referral Date Number Received 2009/4776 Origin Energy Resources Ltd/Exploration (mineral, oil and gas - 03 Mar 2009 marine)/Approx 160kms North-West of Devonport/TAS/Rockhopper-1 and Trefoil-2 Exploration Drilling in Permit Area T/18P 2008/4456 Origin Energy CSG Limited/Mining/Condamine-Kogan Rd, 15 Sep 2008 Chinchilla/QLD/Proposed Coal Seam Gas Development & Associated Infrastructure 2007/3551 Origin Energy Resources Limited/Exploration (mineral, oil and gas - 18 Jul 2007 marine)/Bass Basin of Bass Strait/Commonwealth Marine/Silvereye 3D Seismic Survey 2007/3377 Origin Energy/Energy generation and supply (non- 28 Mar 2007 renewable)/Braemar/QLD/Darling Downs Power Station 2006/2881 Origin Energy Power Limited/Water transport/Mortlake/VIC/Water 21 Jun 2006 pipelines, Mortlake Power Station 2005/2180 Origin Energy /Exploration (mineral, oil, gas)/Bass Strait/TAS/Shearwater 21 Jun 2005 2D and 3D marine seismic survey 2005/1995 Origin Energy Power Ltd/Energy generation and supply/Spring 10 Feb 2005 Gully/QLD/Construction and operation of a gas fired power station 2005/1984 Origin Energy Power Limited/Energy generation and supply/Port 03 Feb 2005 Campbell-Mortlake/VIC/Victorian Generator Project 2005/1942 Origin Energy Retail Ltd/Energy generation and supply/Poolaijelo to 10 Jan 2005 Penola/VIC & SA/SESA Pipeline 2004/1924 Origin Energy Limited/Energy generation and supply/Spring 21 Dec 2004 Gully/QLD/Spring Gully Gas Field (Stage 2) 2004/1644 Origin Energy CSG Limited/Exploration (mineral, oil, gas)/Spring 15 Jul 2004 Gully/QLD/Spring Gully gas field development (Stage 1) within petroleum leases PL195, PL204, PL200 and PL203 2004/1611 Origin Energy/Energy generation and supply/Yankalilla/SA/Kemmiss Hill 25 Jun 2004 Road Wind Farm 2003/1154 Oil Company of Australia/Water management and use/Durham Ranch 19 Aug 2003 Gas Field/North of Roma/QLD/Discharge of Water From Reverse Osmosis Treatment 2003/1058 Origin Energy Resources Limited/Exploration (mineral, oil, gas)/Bass 08 May 2003 Strait/Commonwealth Marine/Exploration Drilling Well Trefoil-1

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 87 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

8 Information sources and attachments

8.1 References

ABARES. 2015. Fisheries status reports 2015. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra. Agriculture Victoria. 2016. Victorian Commercial Fisheries available at http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/fisheries/commercial- fishing ANZECC and ARMCANZ. 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.Volume 2. Aquatic Ecosystems – Rationale and Background Information. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. AQIS. 2009. National Biofouling Management Guidance for the Petroleum Production and Exploration Industry. Australian Quarantine Inspection Service. Canberra. Arnould J.P.Y. & Kirkwood R. 2007. Habitat selection by female Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Vol. 17, Suppl. 1, pp. S53. AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004. Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use. Australian Standards/New Zealand Standards. AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines. Australian Standards/New Zealand Standards. Baker, A. 1985. Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata (Gray, 1846). In: Ridgway, S H and R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol. 3: The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Page(s) 345-354. Academic Press, London. Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, G and Wahl, J. 2008. Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian - Australasian Flyway; Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites. Wetlands International - Oceania. Canberra, Australia. Bannister, J. L., Pastene, L. A. and Burnell, L. A. 1999. First record of movement of a southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) between warm water breeding grounds and the Antarctic Ocean, south of 60 degrees South. Marine Mammal Science 15(4): 1337-1342. Bannister, J.L. 2001. Status of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) off southern Australia. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 2: 103-110. Bannister, J.L., Kemper, C.M. and Warnecke R.M. 1996. The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans. The Director of National Parks and Wildlife Biodiversity Group. Environment Australia. Canberra. Barkaszi, M.J., M. Butler, R. Compton, A. Unietis, and B. Bennet. 2012. Seismic survey mitigation measures and marine mammal observer reports. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-015. Barlow, J. and Taylor, B.L. 2005. Estimates of Sperm Whale Abundance in the Northeastern Temperate Pacific from a Combined Acoustic and Visual Survey Publications, Agency and Staff of the US Department of Commerce, Paper 237 downloaded on 23rd May at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu. Barousse, C., Rooney, T., Padovani, B., Snyder, R., Unietis, A., and Wyatt, R. 2012. Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) field trial during two wide-azimuth geophysical surveys, The Leading Edge, April 2012. A WWW resource accessed at: http://www.tleonline.org/theleadingedge/201204/?pg=28#pg28. Barry, S. B., Cucknell, A. C. and Clark, N. 2012. ‘A direct comparison of bottlenose dolphin and common dolphin behaviour during seismic surveys when air guns are and air not being utilised.’ In: The effects of noise on aquatic life. Edited by A. N. Popper and A. Hawkins. Barton, J., Pope, A, and Howe, S. 2012. Parks Victoria Technical Series No 79 – Marine Natural Values Study Vol 2: Marine Protected Areas of the Flinders and Twofold Shelf Bioregions. A WWW resource accessed at http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/ 545517/PV_TS79_complete.pdf Barton, J., Pope, A. and Howe, S. 2012. Marine protected areas of the Otway bioregion. Parks Victoria, Melbourne. Best, P. B., Brandao, A. and Butterworth, D. S. 2001. Demographic parameters of southern right whales off South Africa. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 2: 161-169 Bezore, R., Kennedy, D.M., and Ierodiaconou, D., 2016. The Drowned Apostles: The Longevity of Sea Stacks over Eustatic Cycles. In: Vila-Concejo, A.; Bruce, E.; Kennedy, D.M., and McCarroll, R.J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Coastal Symposium (Sydney, Australia). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue, No. 75, pp. 592- 596. Coconut Creek (Florida). Bingham, G., 2011. Status and Application of Acoustic Mitigation and Monitoring Systems for Marine Mammals: Workshop Proceedings: November 17-19, 2009, Boston, Massachusetts, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico, OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-002. 384pp

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 88 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Birdlife Australia. 2016. Species fact sheets. A WWW database accessed in August 2016 at http://birdlife.org.au/. BirdLife International. 2012. Light pollution has a negative impact on many seabirds including several globally threatened species. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. A WWW database accessed at ttp://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/488. Birdlife International. 2016. Species factsheets. A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.birdlife.org. Boeger, W.A., Pie, M.R., Ostrensky, A. and Cardoso, M.F. 2006. The effect of exposure to seismic prospecting on coral reef fishes. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 54(4): 235-239. Boreen, T., James, N., Wilson, C. and Heggie, D. 1993. Surficial cool-water carbonate sediments on the Otway continental margin, southeastern Australia. Marine Geology 112: 35-56. Branch, T. A., Matsuoka, K. and Miyashita, T. 2004. Evidence for increases in Antarctic blue whales based on Bayesian modelling. Marine Mammal Science 20(4): 726-754. Branscomb, E.S., Rittschof, D., 1984. An investigation of low frequency sound waves as a means of inhibiting barnacle settlement. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 79, 149–154. Brown, P.B. and Wilson, R.I. 1980. A Survey of the Orange-bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster in Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia. Tasmanian National Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart. Brown, P.B. and Wilson, R.I. 1984. Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Plan. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. Canberra. Brusati, E.D., Grosholz, E.D. 2006. Native and introduced ecosystem engineers produce contrasting effects on estuarine infaunal communities. Biol Inv 8:683–695. Buscaino, G., Filiciotto, F., Gristina, M., Bellante, A., Buffa, G., Di Stefano, V., MacCarrone, V., Tranchida, G., Buscaino, C. and Mazzola, S. 2011. Acoustic behaviour of the European spiny lobster Palinurus elephas. Mar. Ecol-Prog. Ser. 441, 177-184. Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D. and Ridgway, K. 2002. Assessment of the conservation calues of the Bonney upwelling area: A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002 – 2004: Report to the Environment Australia, CSIRO Marine Research. Casement, D. and Svane, I. 1999. Direct Effects of Rock Lobster Pots on Temperate Shallow Rocky Reefs in South Australia. A study report to the South Australian Rock Lobster Industry. South Australian Research & Development Institute (SARDI). Casper, B.C., A.N. Popper, F. Matthews, T.J. Carlson and M.B. Halvorsen. 2012. Recovery of barotrauma injuries in Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha from exposure to pile driving sound. PLoS ONE, 7(6): e39593. CCMA. 2016. Corangamite CMA Fact Sheet 4: Coastal Scrub. A WWW publication accessed in 2016 at http://www.ccma.vic.gov.au. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. Colac. CCMA. 2014. Corangamite Waterway Strategy 2014-2022. A WWW publication accessed in 2016 at http://www.ccma.vic.gov.au/Publications/Strategies/River-Health-Strategy.aspx. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. Colac. CCMA. 2013. Corangamite Regional Catchment Strategy 2013-2019. A WWW publication accessed at http://www.ccma.vic.gov.au/admin/file/content2/c7/CCMA%20RCS%20FINAL%20JUNE%202013.pdf. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. Colac. CCMA. 2006. Corangamite River Health Strategy. August 2006-2011. A WWW publication accessed at http://www.ccma.vic.gov.au/Publications/Strategies/River-Health-Strategy.aspx. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. Colac. CCMA. 2005. Corangamite Native Vegetation Plan. A WWW publication accessed in 2016 at http://www.ccma.vic.gov.au/admin/file/content2/c7/CORANG1-127[1].pdf. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. CFA. 2013. Impact on Fisheries – Marine Seismic Survey Activities. Key Threatening Process Nomination 2013. Commonwealth Fisheries Authority. Canberra. Chapp, E., D.R. Bohnenstiehl and M. Tolstoy. 2005. Sound-channel observations of ice generated tremor in the Indian Ocean. A WWW document accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/ 2004GC000889. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 6, Q06003. Charlton, C.M., Guggenheimer, S.N. and Burnell, S.R. 2014. Long term Southern Right Whale population monitoring at the Head of the Great Australian Bight, South Australia (1991-2013). Report to the Department of Environment, Australian Antarctic Division, Australian Marine Mammal Centre. May 2014. Childerhouse, S., Double, M. and Gales, N. 2010. Satellite tracking of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) at the Auckland Islands, New Zealand. Paper SC/62/BRG19 presented to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, Agadir, Morocco.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 89 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Clark, C.W. 1983. Acoustic communication and behaviour of the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis). In: Payne R (ed.) Behavior and communication of whales, American Association for the Advancement of Science Selected Symposia Series 76. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. pp 163–198. Clark, C.W. 1982. The acoustic repertoire of the southern right whale: a quantitative analysis. Animal Behaviour 30: 1060– 1071. Clark, C.W. 1980. Sound Playback Experiments with Southern Right Whales (Eubalaena australis). Science. Vol. 207, 8 Feb 1980. Clarke. A.J. and Van Gorder, S. 1994. On ENSO coastal currents and sea levels. Journal of Physical Oceanography 24: 661 – 680. Clarkson, T., Crook, I. and Dahlhaus, P. 2007. Corangamite Soil Health Strategy 2006-2012. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. Colac. Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R.A., and Eggler, P. 1993. The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles. Canberra. Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Cooke, J. G., Rowntree, V. J. and Payne, R. S. 2001. Estimates of demographic parameters for southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) observed off Peninsula Valdes, Argentina. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2: 125-132. Craig, P.D. and McLoughlin R.J. 1994. Modelling scallop larvae movement in Great Oyster Bay. In Sammarco, P. W. and Heron, M.L. (eds) The Bio-Physics of Marine Larval Dispersal. pp. 307–326, AGU, Washington D.C. Cummings, W. C., Fish, J. F. and Thompson, P.O. 1972. Sound Production and other Behavior of Southern Right Whales Eubalaena glacialis. Transactions of The San Diego Society of Natural History 17:1-14 (1972). DAFF. 2015. Marine Pests Interactive Map. A WWW database accessed in March 2015 at http://www.marinepests.gov.au/Pages/marinepest-map.aspx. Dalen, J. and Knutsen, G.M. 1987. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations. pp. 93-102 in Merklinger, H.M. (ed.) Progress in underwater acoustics. Plenum Press, New York. Dalen, J., Ona, E., Soldal, A.V. and Saetre, R. 1996. Seismic investigations at sea: an evaluation of consequences for fish and fisheries. Institute of Marine Research Fisken og Havet. 9: 26 pp. DEDJTR. 2016. Production statistics. A WWW resource accessed in 2016 at http://www.energyandresources.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/victorias-earth-resources/petroleum/production-statistics. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. Melbourne. DEH. 2005a. Southern Right Whale Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra. DEH. 2005b. Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005 - 2010. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra. DEH. 2006. Australian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching. Department of Environment and Heritage. Canberra. DELWP. 2014. Groundwater Resource Report for groundwater catchment Hopkins-Corangamite. A WWW document accessed in 2016 at http://gwv.cloudapp.net/aquiferservice/Report/ aquiferreport201605170623196359213.pdf. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Melbourne. Department of Navy (US). 2001. Final Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Statement for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Act (SURTASS LFA) Sonar, Volume 1 of 2, Department of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, January 2001. A WWW publication accessed in 2016 at www.surtass-lfa-eis.com DEPI. 2014. Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014. A WWW document accessed in 2016 at http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/page/victorian-coastal-strategy-2014. Department of Environment and Primary Industries. Melbourne. Depoorter, M. A., Bamber, J.L., Griggs, J.A., Lenaerts, J.T M., Ligtenberg, S.R.M., van den Broeke M. R. and Moholdt, G. 2013. Calving fluxes and basal melt rates of Antarctic ice shelves. Nature 502, 89–92. DEWHA. 2008. EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1- Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts, Canberra. DFO. 2004. Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Habitat Status Report 2004/003. DNV. 2011. Assessment of the Risk of Pollution from Marine Oil Spills in Australian Ports and Waters. Final Report. Report No PP002916, Rev 4. Report for Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Det Norske Veritas. London. DNV. 2007. Effects of seismic surveys on fish, fish catches and sea mammals, Report 2007-0512, Cooperation Group – Fishing Industry and Petroleum Industry. A WWW document accessed in 2016 at http://www.olf.no/PageFiles/6574/Effects%20of%20seismic%20surveys% 20on%20fish,%20fish%20catches%20and%20sea%20mammals.pdf?epslanguage=no

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 90 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

DoE. 2016a. World Heritage Properties. A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world-heritage-list. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE. 2016b. National Heritage Places. A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/great-ocean-road. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE. 2016c. Wetlands of International Importance. A WWW database access in 2016 at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/0d08923b-a60d-4564-9af2-a7023b7aaf29/files/ramsar- sites0.pdf. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE. 2016d. Protected Matters Search Tool. A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/index.html. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE. 2016e. SPRAT Profile Eastern Dwarf Galaxias. A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=56790 DoE. 2016f. SPRAT Profile (Killer Whale). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=46 DoE. 2016g. SPRAT Profile (Bottlenose Dolphin). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=68417 DoE. 2016h. SPRAT Profile (Indian Bottlenose Dolphin). A WWW database accessed in July 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=68418 DoE. 2016i. SPRAT Profile (Orange bellied parrot). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=747 DoE. 2016j. SPRAT Profile (Fairy Tern). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=82950 DoE. 2016k. SPRAT Database (Fairy Prion). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64445 DoE. 2016l. SPRAT Profile (Swift parrot). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=744 DoE. 2016m. SPRAT Profile (Australian painted snipe). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=77037. DoE. 2016n. SPRAT Profile (Flesh-footed Shearwater). A WWW database accessed in July 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=82404 DoE. 2016o. SPRAT Database (Little Tern). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=813 DoE. 2016p. SPRAT Database (White-bellied Sea Eagle). A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=943 DoE. 2016q. Subantarctic skua Information Sheet provided by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) available at http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/wildlife/animals/flying-birds/skuas DoE. 2015a. Sharks in Australian waters. A WWW database accessed in 2015 at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/sharks/greatwhite/index.html. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE, 2015b. SPRAT Profile (Porbeagle shark). A WWW database accessed in 2015 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=83288. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE. 2015c. Conservation Management Plan for the Blue Whale (2015-2025) – A Recovery Plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the Environment.Canberra. DoE. 2015d. SPRAT Profile (Bryde's Whale). A WWW database accessed in 2015 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=35. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE. 2015e. SPRAT Profile (Common dolphin). A WWW database accessed in 2015 at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=60. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE. 2015f. Marine turtles in Australia, Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). A WWW document accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/turtles/loggerhead.html. Department of the Environment. Canberra. DoE. 2015g. Marine turtles in Australia, Leatherback turtle (Dermochelya coriacea). A WWW document accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/turtles/loggerhead.html. Department of the Environment. Canberra. Dooling, R.J. and S.C. Therrien. 2012. ‘Hearing in birds: What changes from air to water.’ In: The effects of noise on aquatic life. Edited by A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins. Springer, NY.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 91 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

DPI. 2003.A land resource assessment of the Corangamite region. Primary Industries Research Victoria – Bendigo. October 2003. A WWW publication accessed in 2016 at http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/coranregn.nsf/ pages/soillandformlrapdf/$FILE/clrafinal.pdf. Department of Primary Industries. DPTLI. 2014. Oil Spill Response Atlas for Victoria (Warrnambool & Port Fairy, Port Campbell, Cape Otway West). Department of Planning, Transport and Local Infrastructure. Melbourne. DSE. 2008a. Victoria’s Public Land Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Strategy. Department of Sustainability and Environment. Melbourne. DSE. 2008b. Background and Implementation Information for the Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena National Recovery Plan. State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment. East Melbourne. DSE. 2008b. National Recovery Plan for the Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena. State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment. East Melbourne. DSEWPC. 2011. Species group report card – seabirds and migratory seabirds. Supporting the marine bioregional plan for the North-west marine Region. A WWW document accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/ system/files/pages/1670366b-988b-4201-94a1-1f29175a4d65/files/north-west-report-card-seabirds.pdf. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra. DSEWPC. 2012a. Conservation Management Plan for the Southern Right Whale 2011-21. A Recovery Plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra. DSEWPC. 2012b. Fact Sheet: Giant Kelp Forest of South East Australia Ecological Community. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra. Duncan, A. 2016. Underwater sound level prediction for the Enterprise 3D seismic survey off southwestern Victoria, Report 2016-18. Centre for Marine Science and Technology. Curtin University, Perth. Duncan, A. J., Maggi, A. L. and Gourlay, T. 2012. Sound exposure level and ocean wave modelling for the Enterprise 3D seismic survey (Port Campbell). Unpublished report for Origin Energy. Centre for Marine Science and Technology Curtin University. Report 2012-32. Duncan, A.J., Gavrilov, A.N., McCauley, R.D., Parnum, I.M. and Collis, J.M. 2013. Characteristics of sound propagation in shallow water over an elastic seabed with a thin cap-rock layer. J. Acoust. Soc. Am:134, pp. 207-215. Duncan, A.J., Maggi, A.L. and Gourlay, T. 2012. Sound Exposure Level and Ocean Wave Modelling for the Enterprise 3D Seismic Survey (Port Campbell). Report C2012-32. Centre for Marine Science and Technology. Curtin University, Perth. EA. 2001. National Recovery Plan for Albatross and Giant Petrel, Wildlife Scientific Advice, National Heritage Division. A WWW document accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/ biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/albatross/index.html. Environment Australia. Canberra. EA. 2003. Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia. Environment Australia. Canberra. EA. 2002. Blue whale migration and recognised aggregation areas mapping. Environment Australia. Canberra. Ecology & Heritage Partners. 2016. Desktop Flora and Fauna Assessment: Great Ocean Road, Port Campbell, Victoria. Prepared by Ecology and Heritage Partners for Aventus Consulting. June 2016. Edmunds, M., Pickett, P. and Judd, A. 2010b. Reef Surveys at Twelve Apostles Marine National Park and The Arches Marine Sanctuary. Parks Victoria Technical Series No 56. Parks Victoria, Melbourne. Erbe, C. 2013. International Regulation of Underwater Noise. Acoustics Australia 41: No 1. April 2013. Fandry, C. B. 1983. Model for the three-dimensional structure of wind driven and tidal circulation in Bass Strait. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 34:121–141. Fewtrell, J. and R. D. McCauley. 2012. Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64 (5): 984-993. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004. Review of Scientific Information on Impacts of Seismic Sound on Fish, Invertebrates, Marine Turtles and Marine Mammals, Habitat Status Report 2004/002. A WWW resource accessed at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2004/HSR2004_002_E.pdf Fishes of Australia. 2015. Family Syngnathidae. A WWW database accessed in 2015 at http://www.fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/family/34#moreinfo. Flagstaff Hill. 2015. Guide to the Historic Shipwreck Trail on Victoria’s West Coast. A WWW document accessed in 2015 at www.flagstaffhill.com/media/uploads/ShipwreckTrail.pdf Gailey G, McDonald TL, Racca R, Sychenko O, Rutenko A, Bröker K. 2016. Behavioral responses of western gray whales to a 4-D seismic survey off northeastern Sakhalin Island, Russia. Endangered Species Research. Vol. 30: 53–71, DOI 10.3354/esr00713. Gausland, I. 2000. Impact of seismic surveys on marine life. SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and the Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. 26-28 June, 2000.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 92 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Gausland, I. 2003. Seismic Surveys Impact on Fish and Fisheries. Report prepared for the Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF), Stravanger, Norway. Gavine, F. M., Ingram, B. A., Hardy]Smith, P., and Doroudi, M. 2009. Biosecurity Control Measures for Abalone Viral Ganglioneuritis: A Code of Practice. Prepared as part of FRDC Project No. 2006/243. Gavrilov, A. 2012. Seismic signal transmission, Pygmy Blue Whale abundance and passage and ambient noise measurements during and after the Bellerive seismic survey in Bass Strait in 2011. Report prepared for Origin Energy Resources Ltd. Report R2011-65. Gavrilov, A., Alexander N., McCauley, R.D., Salgado-Kent, C., Tripovich, J. and Burton, C. 2011. Vocal characteristics of pygmy blue whales and their change over time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 130 (6): pp. 3651-3660. Georgeson, L., Stobutzki, I. and Curtotti, R. (eds). 2014. Fishery status reports 2013-14. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. Canberra. Gill, P.C., B., Pirzl, R., Morrice, M.G. and Lawton, K. 2015. Cetacean Diversity of the Continental Shelf and Slope off Southern Australia. The Journal of Wildlife Management 79(4):672–681. Gill, P,C., Morrice, M.G., Page, B., Pirzl, R., Levings, A.H. and Coyne, M. 2011. Blue whale habitat selection and within- season distribution in a regional upwelling system off southern Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 421: 243– 263. Gill, P.C., Kemper, C.M., Talbot, M. and Lyons, S.A. 2008. Large group of pygmy right whales seen in a shelf upwelling region off Victoria, Australia. Marine Mammal Science 24(4): 962-968. Gill, P. and Morrice, M. 2003. Cetacean Observations. Blue Whale Compliance Aerial Surveys. Santos Ltd Seismic Survey Program Vic/P51 and P52. November-December 2002. Report to Santos Ltd. Gill, P.C., Ross, G.J.B., Dawbin, W.H. and Wapstra, H. 2000. Confirmed sightings of dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) in southern Australian waters. Marine Mammal Science. 16: 452-459. Goldsworthy, S.D. 2008. The Mammals of Australia. Third Edition. New Holland. Sydney. Goold, J.C. 1996. Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in conjunction with seismic surveying. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 76: 811-820. Gotz, T., Hastie, G., Hatch, L., Raustein, O, Southall, B., Tasker, M, Thomsen, F. 2009. Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment. OSPAR Commission. London. Grant, D.L., Clarke, P.J. and Allaway, W.G., 1993. The response of grey mangrove (Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh) seedlings to spills of crude oil. The Journal of Experimental Marine Biological Ecology 171, 273–295pp. Green, R.H. 1969. The birds of Flinders Island. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum, 34:1-32. Handreck, C. P. and O'Hara, T. D. 1994. Occurrence of selected species of intertidal and shallow subtidal invertebrates at Victorian locations. Marine Research Group of Victoria Inc. A report to the Land Conservation Council. Melbourne. Hastings, M.C., Reid, C.A., Grebe, C.C., Hearn, R.L. and Colman, J.G. 2008. The effects of seismic airgun noise on the hearing sensitivity of tropical reef fishes at Scott Reef, Western Australia. Underwater Noise Measurement, Impact and Mitigation. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 30(5). Hawkins, E. R. and Gartside, D. F. 2009. Interactive Behaviours of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) During Encounters with Vessels. Aquatic Mammals 2009 35(2): 259-268. Hayes, K., Sliwa, C., Mugus, S., McEnnulty, F. and Dunstan, P. 2005. National priority pests: Part 2 Ranking of Australian marine pests. CSIRO marine Research. Heap, A.D. and Harris, P.T. 2008. Geomorphology of the Australian margin and adjacent seafloor. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 55(4): 555-585. Heislers, S. and Parry, G.D. 2007. Parks Victoria Technical Series – Number 53. Species diversity and composition of benthic infaunal communities found in Marine National Parks along the outer Victorian coast. A WWW publicastion accesed in 2016 at http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/314520/19_2096.pdf Parks Victoria, Melbourne Higgins, P.J. (ed.) 1999. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume Four - Parrots to Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Hirst, A. and Rodhouse, P.G.K. 2000. Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. January 2000. Holmes, K.W., Radford, B. Van Neil, K.P., Kendrick, G.A., Grover, S.L. 2007. Parkes Victoria Technical Paper Series No. 43. Mapping the Benthos in Victoria’s Marine National parks. Volume 4: Twelve Apostles MNP. A WWW publication accessed in 2016 at http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/314515/19_2081.pdf Parks Victoria. Melbourne. Horwood, J.W. 1987. Population Biology, ecology and management. The Sei Whale. Croom Helm, New York.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 93 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Hume F., Hindell M.A., Pemberton D. and Gales R. 2004. Spatial and temporal variation in the diet of a high trophic level predator, the Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). Marine Biology 144(3): 407-415. James, N.P. and Bone, Y. 2011. Neritic carbonate sediments in a temperate realm Southern Australia. Springer, Dordrecht. London. Johnson, S.R., Richardson, W.J., Yazvenko, S.B., Blokhin, S.A., Gailey, G., Jenkerson, M.R., Meier, S.K., Melton, H.R., Newcomer, M.W., Perlov, A.S., Rutenko, S.A., Wursig, B., Martin, C.R., & Egging, D.E. 2007. A western gray whale mitigation and monitoring program for a 3D seismic survey, Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 134(1- 2) 1-19. Jones, G.P. and McCormick, M.I. 2002. Numerical and energetic processes in the ecology of fish populations on coral reefs. In: Coral Reef Fishes – Dynamics and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem. Edited by Sale, P.F. Academic Press, San Diego. Kasamatsu, F. and Joyce, G. 1995. Current status of odontocetes in the Antarctic waters. Antarct Sci. 7:365-379. Kasamatsu, F., Matsuoka, K. and Hakamada, T. 2000. Interspecific relationships in density among the whale community in the Antarctic. Polar Biol. 23:466-473. Keevin, T.M. and Hempen, G.L. 1997. The environmental effects of underwater explosions with methods to mitigate impacts. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District 1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2833. Kennish, M.J. 1996. Practical Handbook of Estuarine and Marine Pollution. CRC Press, Florida Kirkwood R, D., Pemberton, R., Gales, A., Hoskins, T., Mitchell, P. Shaughnessy, P. and Arnould, J. 2010. Continued population recovery by Australian fur seas. Marine and Freshwater Research 61:695 -701. Kirkwood, R., Warneke, R.M., Arnould. J.P. 2009. Recolonization of Bass Strait, Australia, by the New Zealand fur seal, Arctocephalus forsteri. Marine Mammal Science 25(2): 441–449. Klimey, A.P. and Anderson, S.D. 1996. Residency patterns of White Sharks at the South Farrallone Islands, California. In: Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Edited by A.P. Klimley & D.G. Ainley. Academic Press, New York USA. Klimey, A.P. and Myrberg, Jr A.A. 1979. Acoustic stimuli underlying withdrawal from a sound source by adult lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris (Poey). Bull. Mar. Sci. 29: 447–458. Kostyuchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea. Hydrobiological Journal 9: 45-48. Ladich, F. 2012. ‘Effects of noise on sound detection and acoustic communication in fishes.’ In: Animal communication and noise. Edited by Brumm, H. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg. Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S. and Podesta, M. 2001. Collisions between Ships and Whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1): 35-75. Lenhardt, M.L., Bellmund, S., Byles, R.A., Harkins, S.W. and Musick, J.A. 1983. Marine turtle reception of bone conducted sound. The Journal of Auditory Research. 23: 119-125. Limpus, C.J. 2008. A biological review of Australian Marine Turtles. 1. Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta (Linneaus). Queensland Environment Protection Agency. Lindsey, T. R. 1986. The Seabirds of Australia. Angus and Robertson. Ling, S.D and Johnson, C.R. 2012. Marine reserves reduce risk of climate-driven phase shift by restoring size and habitat specific trophic interactions. Ecological Applications 22: 1,232–1,245. Ling, S.D., Johnson, C.R., Frusher, S. and Ridgway, K. 2009. Overfishing reduces resilience of kelp beds to climate-driven catastrophic phase shift. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 22,341–22,345. Linnane, A., Gardner, C., Hobday, D., Punt, A., McGarvey, R., Feenstra, J., Matthews, J., Green, B., 2010. Evidence of large-scale spatial declines in recruitment patterns of southern rock lobster Jasus edwardsii, across south-eastern Australia. Fish. Res. 105: 163–171. Lombarte, A. and Popper, A.N. 1994. Quantitative analyses of postembryonic hair cell addition in the otolithic endorgans of the inner ear of the European hake, Merluccius merluccius (Gadiformes, Teleostei). Journal of Comparative Neurology 345: 419-428. Lombarte, A., Yan H.Y., Popper A.N., Chang J.C. and Platt, C. 1993. Damage and regeneration of hair cell ciliary bundles in a fish ear following treatment with gentamicin. Hearing Research 66: 166-174. Lovell, J.M., Findlaya, M.M., Moateb, R.M. and Yanc H.Y. 2005. The hearing abilities of the prawn Palaemon serratus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A. 140, 89–100. Loyn, R.H., Lane, B.A., Chandler, C and Carr, G.W. 1986. Ecology of Orange-bellied Parrots Neophema chrysogaster at their main remnant wintering site. Emu 86:195-206.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 94 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Mackay, A.I., Bailluel, F., Childerhouse, S, Donnelly, D, Harcourt, R, Parra, G.J.and Goldsworthy, S.D. (2015). Offshore migratory movement of southern right whales: addressing critical conservation and management needs. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2015/000526- 1. SARDI Research Report Series No. 859. 40pp Matishov, G.G. 1992. The reaction of bottom-fish larvae to air gun pulses in the context of the vulnerable Barents Sea ecosystem. Fisheries and Offshore Petroleum Exploitation 2nd International Conference, Bergen, Norway. McCauley, R. & Gavrilov, A. 2013. Analysis of sea noise April 2012 to January 2013 in Bass Strait: whales; fish; drill rig; vessel; and ambient noise. Unpublished report for Origin Energy. Centre for Marine Science and Technology Curtin University. Report 2013-17. McCauley, R. D. 1994. ‘Seismic Survey.’ In: Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Developments in Australia – the Findings of an Independent Scientific Review. Edited by Swan J.M., Neff J.M. and Young P.C. Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney. McCauley, R. D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A., Jenner, C., Jenner M-N., Penrose, J. D., Prince, R. T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J. and McCabe, A. K. 2003. ‘Marine seismic surveys: analysis and propagation of source signals; and effects of exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid.’ In: Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Developments in Australia: Further Research. Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Canberra. McCauley, R.D. 1998. Radiated Underwater Noise measured from the Drilling Rig Ocean General, Rig Tenders Pacific Ariki and Pacific Frontier, Fishing Vessel Reef Venture and Natural Sources in the Timor Sea, Northern Australia. A report for Shell Australia, Centre of Marine Science and Technology, Curtain University of Technology, Perth. McCauley, R.D. and Kent, C.S. 2012. ‘A lack of correlation between airgun signal pressure waveforms and fish hearing damage.’ In: The effects of noise on aquatic life. Edited by A.N. Popper and A.D. Hawkins. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York. McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.-N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J. and McCabe, K. 2000. ‘Marine Seismic Surveys: Analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air- gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid.’ In: Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia: Further research. Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Canberra. McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, M-N, Jenner, C., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., McCabe, K. and Murdoch, K. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental implications. APPEA J. 40: 692-708. McInnes, K. L. and Hubbert, G. D. 2003. A numerical modelling study of storm surges in Bass Strait. Australian Meteorological Magazine 52(3). Mellinger, D.K., Stafford, K.M., Moore, S.E., Dziak, R.P., and Matsumoto, H. 2007. An Overview of Fixed Passive Acoustic Observation Methods for Cetaceans. Oceanography 20(4). Middleton, J.F., Arthur, C., Van Ruth, P, Ward, T.M., McClean, J.L, Maltrud, M.E., Gill, P, Levings, A. and Middleton, S. 2007. El Nino Effects and Upwelling off South Australia. Journal of Physical Oceanography 37: 2,458–2,477. Miller, B.S., Kelly, N., Double, M.C., Childerhouse, S.J., Laverick, S. and Gales, N. 2012. Cruise report on SORP 2012 blue whale voyages: development of acoustic methods. Paper SC/64/SH11 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. Møhl, B., M. Wahlberg, P.T. Madsen, L.A. Miller, and A. Surlykke. 2000. Sperm whale clicks: Directionality and source level revisited. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107: 638–648. Mollet, H.F., Cliff, G., Pratt Jr, H.L. and Stevens, J.D. 2000. Reproductive Biology of the female shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus Rafinesque, 1820, with comments on the embryonic development of lamnoids. Fish. Bull. 98: 299-318. Moore, J.K. and Abbott, M.R. 2000. Phytoplankton chlorophyll distributions and primary production in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research. 105(C12): 28, 709-728. Moriyasu, M., Allain, R., Benhalima, K. and Claytor, R. 2004. Effects of seismic and marine noise on invertebrates: A literature Review. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Research Document 2004/126. Morrice, M.G., Gill, P.C., Hughes, J. and Levings, A.H. 2004. Summary of mitigation aerial surveys for the Santos Ltd EPP32 seismic survey, 2-13 December 2003. Report # WEG-SO 02/2004, Whale Ecology Group-Southern Ocean, Deakin University. Mustoe, S.H. 2008. Killer Whale (Orchinus orca) sightings in Victoria. Victorian Naturalist 125 (3): 76-81. Myrberg, A.A. 2001. The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes 60(3), p.31- 45. NNTT. 2015. Extract from Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements. NNTT number VIA1999/001. A WWW database accessed in 2015 at http://www.nntt.gov.au. National Native Title Tribunal. Canberra. NNTT. 2016. Native Title claims map. A WWW database accessed in July 2016 at http://www.nntt.gov.au/mediation-and- agreement-making-services/geospatial-services/maps/pages/national-maps.aspx. National Native Title Tribunal. Canberra.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 95 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

NOO. 2001. South East Regional Marine Plan. Impacts on the Natural System. Prepared by Ecos Consulting Pty Ltd for the National Oceans Office. NOO. 2002. Ecosystems – Nature’s diversity: The South-east Regional Marine Plan Assessment Reports. National Oceans Office. Hobart. NRC. 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. O'Hara, T., McShane, P. E., and Norman, M. 1999. ‘Victoria.’ In: Under Southern Seas, the ecology of Australia's Rocky Reefs. Edited by N. Andrew. University of NSW, Sydney. Ochre Imprints. 2016. Origin Energy 3D Transitional Zone Seismic Survey. Aboriginal and Historical Cultural Heritage Due Diligence. Prepared by Ochre Imprints for Aventus Consulting. June 2016. Packard, A., Karlsen, H.E. and Sand, O. 1990. Low frequency hearing in cephalopods. Journal of Comaparative Physiology 166: 501–505. Pade N. G., Queiroz N., Humphries N. E., Witt M. J., Jones C. S., Noble L. R., Sims D. W. 2009. First results from satellite-linked archival tagging of porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus: area fidelity, wider-scale movements and plasticity in diel depth changes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 2009 370:64-74. ParksVic, 2016. Enviroactive. A www document accessed in July 2016 at http://www.enviroactive.com.au/wetlands/shorebirds. Parks Victoria, Melbourne. ParksVic. 2015a. Port Campbell National Park and Bay of Islands Coastal Park. A WWW document accessed at http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/port-campbell-national-park. Parks Victoria. Melbourne. ParksVic. 2015b. The Arches Marine Sanctuary. A WWW document accessed at http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/the-arches-marine-sanctuary. Parks Victoria. Melbourne. ParksVic 2006. Twelve Apostles Marine National Park and The Arches Marine Sanctuary Management Plan. Parks Victoria, Melbourne. ParksVic, 1998. Port Campbell National Park and Bay of Islands Coastal Park Management Plan. Parks Victoria, Melbourne. Parsons, M. and Duncan, A. 2009. Underwater Sound Exposure Predictions for the Speculant 3D Transition Zone Seismic Survey, Report C2009-30, Centre for Marine Science and Technology. Curtin University, Perth. Parvin S.J., Nedwell, J.R. and Harland, E. 2007. Lethal and physical injury of marine mammals, and requirements for Passive Acoustic Monitoring. Subacoustech Report Reference: 565R0212, February 2007, Submitted to the UK DTI, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET. Published by the UK Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Peel, D., Kelly, N., Smith, J., Childerhouse, S. 2016. National Environmental Science Program Project Project C5 – Scoping of Potential Species for Ship Strike Risk Analysis, Pressures and impacts. Perrin, W.F. 1998. Stenella longirostris. Mammalian Species 599: 1-7. Phillip Island Penguin Foundation. 2015. A WWW database accessed at http://penguinfoundation.org.au/about-little- penguins. Phillip Island Penguin Foundation, Victoria. Pichegru, L., Nyengera, R., Sutton, G., Arnould, J. and Pistorius, P. 2016. Poster presentation titled ‘Influence of Seismic surveys on African and Litlle Penguin Behaviour.’ Percy Fitzpatrick Institute for African Ornithology & Department of Zoology, Nelson Mandela Metrolpolitan University, South Aftrica and Deakin University, Victoria, Australia. Pinzone, G. 2012. Personal observations on the Stena Clyde semi-submersible drill rig. Thistle-1 well (May 2012) and Geographe-3 (August 2012), Otway Basin. Giulio Pinzone, Principal Environmental Consultant, Aventus Consulting Pty Ltd. Pinzone, G. 2013. Personal observations of resting seabirds on the Stena Clyde semi-submersible drill rig. Kidukidu-1 well, Gulf of Papua. August 2013. Giulio Pinzone, Principal Environmental Consultant, Aventus Consulting Pty Ltd. Plotkin, P.T., Wicksten, M.K. and Amos, A.F. 1993. Feeding ecology of the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Biology 115(1):1. Plummer, A., Morris, L., Blake, S and Ball, D. 2003. Marine Natural Values Study, Victorian Marine National Parks and Sanctuaries. Parks Victoria Technical Series No. 1, Parks Victoria, Melbourne. Popper A.N., Halvorsen, M.B., Kane, E., Miller, D.D., Smith, M.E., Stein, P. and Wysocki, L.E. 2007. The effects of high- intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122: 623–635. Popper, A.N. and Hoxter, B. 1984. Growth of a fish ear: Quantitative analysis of sensory hair cell and ganglion cell proliferation. Hearing Research 15: 133-142. Popper, A.N. and Løkkeborg, S. 2008. Effects of anthropogenic sound on fish. Bioacoustics 17: 214-217. Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J. Fish Biol. 75(3):455- 489

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 96 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Popper, A.N., Carlson, T., Gross, J.A., Hawkins, A.D., Zeddies, D.G. and Powell, L. 2015. Effects of Seismic Air Guns on Pallid Sturgeon and Paddlefish. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 875:871-878. Popper, A.N., M.E. Smith, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, A.O. MacGillivray, M.E. Austin, and D.A. Mann. 2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(6): 3,958-3,971. Port of Melbourne 2012. Port of Melbourne Corporation Annual Report 2011-12. Port of Melbourne Corporation, Melbourne. production in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research. 105(C12):28, 709-28. Pulham, G. and Wilson, D. 2013. ‘Fairy tern.’ In New Zealand Birds Online. Edited by Miskelly, C.M. Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr, R.L., Butterworth, D.S, Clapham, D.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. and Zerbini, A.N. 2008a. Caperea marginata. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr, R.L., Butterworth, D.S, Clapham, D.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. and Zerbini, A.N. 2008b. Balaenoptera edeni. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. Richardson W.J., Fraker, M.A., Wursig,B. and Wills, R.S. 1985. Behaviour of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), summering in the Beaufort Sea: Reactions to industrial activities. Biological Conservation 32: 195-230. Richardson, W. J., Greene, C. R., Maime, C. I. and Thomson, D. H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, California. Richardson, W.J. and Malme, C.I. 1993. ‘Man-made noise and behavioural responses.’ In: The Bowhead Whales Book, Special publication of The Society for Marine Mammology 2. Edited by D. Wartzok and K.S. Lawrence. The Society for Marine Mammology, pp. 631-700. Robinson S., Gales R., Terauds A. & Greenwood M. 2008. Movements of fur seals following relocation from fish farms. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18(7): 1,189-1,199. Rodriguez, A., Burgan, G., Dann, P., Jessop, R. and Negro, J.J. 2014. Fatal Attraction of Short-Tailed Shearwaters to Artificial Lights. PLoS ONE 9(10). Rosenbaum, H. C., Razafindrakoto, Y., Vahoavy, J. and Pomilla, C. 2001. A note on recent sightings of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) along the east coast of Madagascar. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2: 177-179. Ross, G.J.B. 2006. Review of the Conservation Status of Australia's Smaller Whales and Dolphins. Report to the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. RPS APASA, 2016. Enterprise 3D Seismic Survey Quantitative Spill Modelling Study. Report No: Q0412. Prepared by RPS APASA for Origin Energy Resources Ltd. RPS. 2014. Marine Fauna Observer’s Report during Enterprise 3D Marine Seismic Survey 30th October 2014 to 9th November 2014. Report prepared by RPS for Origin Energy Resources Ltd. Perth. RPS. 2013. Marine Fauna Observer’s Report during Astrolabe 3D Marine Seismic Survey 30th October 2014 to 9th November 2014. Report prepared by RPS for Origin Energy Resources Ltd. Perth. Santos. 2016. Casino, Henry, Netherby. A WWW resource accessed in 2016 at https://www.santos.com/what-we- do/activities/victoria/otway-basin/casino-henry-netherby/. Santos. Adelaide. Santos. 2004. Casino Gas Field Development Environment Report. Prepared by Enesar Consulting Pty Ltd. Hawthorn East, Victoria. Santulli, A., Messina, C., Ceffa, L., Curatolo, A., Rivas, G., Fabi, G. and Damelio, V. 1999. Biochemical responses of European sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) to the stress induced by offshore experimental seismic prospecting. Mar. Poll. Bull. 38(12): 1,105-1,114 SCAR. 2002. Impacts of Marine Acoustic Technology on the Antarctic Environment. Version 1.2. July 2002. A WWW publication accessed at http://www.scarggi.org.au/geophysics/acoustics_1_2.pdf. Ad Hoc Group on marine acoustic technology and the environment. Schuck, J.B. and Smith, M.E. 2009. Cell proliferation follows acoustically-induced hair cell bundle loss in the zebrafish saccule. Hearing Research 253: 67-76. Shaughnessy, P.D.1999. The action plan for Australian seals. CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology. Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J. and Ona, E. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fish. Res. 67(2):143-150 Smith, M.E., Coffin, A.B., Miller, D.L. and Popper, A.N. 2006. Anatomical and functional recovery of the goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure. Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 4,193-4,202.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 97 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Smith, P.F., Sylvester, R., Carpenter, S., Ivey, L. and Steevens C.C. 1996. Temporary auditory threshold shifts induced by intense tones in air and water. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society annual scientific meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 1-5 May 1996. Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A and Tyack, P.L. 2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals. 33 (4): 411-414. Stanley, J.A., Radford, C.A. and Jeffs, A.G. 2011. Behavioural response thresholds in New Zealand crab Megalopae to ambient underwater sound. PLoS ONE g(12). Stephenson, L.H. 1991. Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Plan: Management Phase. Tasmanian Department of Parks, Wildlife & Heritage. Hobart. Stocker, M. 2001. Fish, Mollusks and other Sea Animals‘ use of Sound, and the Impact of Anthropogenic Noise in the Marine Acoustic Environment. A WWW resource accessed at http://www.msa-design.com/FishEars.html#_edn47. Tasker, M.L., Amundin, M., Andree, M., Hawkins, A., Lang, W., Merck, T., Scholik-Schlomer, A., Tellman, J., Thomsen, F., Werner, S. and Zakharia, M. 2010. Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Task Group 11 Report – Underwater Noise and Other Forms of Energy, Joint Report prepared under the Administrative Arrangement between JRC and DG ENV (No 31210-2009/2010) the memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and ICES. Taylor, B.L., Chivers, S.J., Larese, J. and Perrin, W.F. 2007. Generation length and percent mature estimates for IUCN assessments of Cetaceans. Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Thomson, R.B., Sporcic, M., Foster, S.D., Haddon, M., Potter, A., Carroll, A., Przeslawski, R., Knuckey, I., Koopman, M. and Hartog J. 2014. Examining Fisheries Catches and Catch Rates for Potential Effects of Bass Strait Seismic Surveys. CSIRO and Geoscience Australia. Hobart and Canberra. Tormosov, D.D, Mikhaliev, Y.A., Best, P.B, Zemsky, V.A., Sekiguchi, K. and Brownell, R. 1998. Soviet catches of southern right whales Eubalaena australis, 1951-1971. Biological data and conservation implications. Biological Conservation 86: 185-197. Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of American whaleships. Zoological, 19, 1-50. A WWW resource accessed at www.wcscanada.org/WildPlaces/GlobalConservation/TownsendWhalingCharts. Turnpenny, A. and Nedwell, J. 1994. The effects on marine fish, diving mammals and birds of underwater sound generated by seismic surveys. FARL Report Reference: FCR 089/94, October 1994. Turnpenny, A.W.H., Thatcher, K.P. and Nedwell, J.R. 1994. Research report: the effects on fish and other marine animals of high-level underwater sound. FRR 127/94. Rep. from Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratories, Ltd. for the Defence Research Agency. UNEP. 2012. Scientific Synthesis on the Impacts of Underwater Noise on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity and Habitats, Convention of Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice, Montreal 2012. Victorian Heritage Database. 2016. Shipwrecks. A WWW database accessed in 2016 at http://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au. Heritage Council Victoria. Melbourne. Wagner, T.L., Cooper, C.D., Gross, J.A. and Coffin, A.B. 2015. The effect of seismic waterguns on the inner ears of round goby. Journal of Great Lakes Research 41(4). Wale, M. A., Simpson, S. D and Radford, A. N. Noise negatively affects foraging and antipredator behaviour in shore crabs. Animal Behaviour. 86(1): 111–118 Walmsley, D. 2007. The effects of noise on the aquatic environment. Seismic invertebrate Research Conference Report. Wardle, C.S., Carter, T.J., Urquhart, G.C., Johnstone, A.D.F., Ziolkowski, A.M., Hampson, G. and Mackie, D. 2001. Effects of seismic air guns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research. 21: 1,005-1,027. WDCS. 2004. Oceans of Noise. Whales and Dolphin Conservation Society. United Kingdom. WDCS. 2006. Vessel collisions and cetaceans: What happens when they don’t miss the boat. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. United Kingdom. Woodhams, J, Vieira, S and Stobutzki, I (eds). 2013. Fishery status reports 2012. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. Woodside, 2012a. Browse LNG Development, Maxima 3D MSS Monitoring Program Information Sheet 2 – Impacts of Seismic Airgun Noise on Fish Diversity and Abundance: A Coral Reef Case Study. A WWW resource accessed at http://www.woodside.com.au/Our- Business/Browse/Documents/Maxima%20Survey%20Fish%20Diversity %20and%20Abundance%20Fact %20Sheet.pdf. Woodside Energy Ltd. Perth. Woodside. 2012b. Browse LNG Development, Maxima 3D MSS Monitoring Program Information Sheet 1 – Impacts of Seismic Airgun Noise on Fish Behaviour: A Coral Reef Case Study downloaded in 2012 at http://www.woodside.com.au/Our-Business/Browse/Documents/Maxima% 20Survey%20Fish%20Behaviour%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. Woodside Energy Ltd. Perth.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 98 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

Woodside. 2012c. Browse LNG Development, Maxima 3D MSS Monitoring Program Information Sheet 2 – Impacts of Seismic Airgun Noise on Fish Pathology, Physiology and Hearing Sensitivity: A Coral Reef Case Study downloaded in 2012 at http://www.woodside.com.au/Our- Business/Browse/Documents/ Maxima%20Survey%20Fish%20Pathology%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. Woodside Energy Ltd. Perth. Woodside. 2003. Otway Gas Project Environment Effects Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/EES). Main Report, Volume 1. Woodside Energy Ltd. Perth. Young, M.A., Ierodiaconou, D., Edmunds, M., Hulands, L. and Schimel, A.C. G. 2016. Accounting for habitat and seafloor structure characteristics on southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii) assessment in a small marine reserve. Mar Bio 163: 1-13.

8.2 Reliability and date of information

The references listed in Section 8.1 contain the date and source of the reference, with many of these being scientific papers that are subject to peer review. Only material that is considered to be a reliable source of information has been used.

8.3 Attachments

 attached Title of attachment(s) You must attach figures, maps or aerial photographs Included throughout showing the locality of the proposed the document. action (section 1)  GIS file delineating the boundary of the referral area (section 1) figures, maps or aerial photographs Included throughout showing the location of the proposed the document. action in respect to any matters of  national environmental significance or important features of the environments (section 3) If relevant, copies of any state or local government The EMP and EP are attach approvals and consent conditions (section X currently under 2.5) assessment. copies of any completed assessments to Summary of meet state or local government approvals consultation provided  and outcomes of public consultations, if in Section 2.6. available (section 2.6) copies of any flora and fauna  Ecology report investigations and surveys (section 3) attached. technical reports relevant to the assessment of impacts on protected matters that support the arguments and Not applicable. X conclusions in the referral (section 3) conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4) report(s) on any public consultations Summary of undertaken, including with Indigenous  consultation provided stakeholders (section 3) in Section 2.6.

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 99 of 101

Origin Energy – Enterprise 3DTZSS EPBC Act Referral

9.3 Person preparing the referral information (if different from section 9.1) Name: Giulio Pinzone Title: Director and Principal Environmental Consultant Organisation: Aventus Consulting Pty Ltd (ATF the Aventus Family Trust) ABN: 68 100 174 202 Postal address: Suite 2, 1 Station Road, Cheltenham, Victoria, 3192 Telephone: 0409 772 170 Email: [email protected]

Declaration : I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to this form is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

Signature: Date: 18/10/2016

REFERRAL CHECKLIST

HAVE YOU:  Completed all required sections of the referral form?  Included accurate coordinates (to allow the location of the proposed action to be mapped)?  Provided a map showing the location and approximate boundaries of the project area for the proposed action?  Provided a map/plan showing the location of the action in relation to any MNES?  Provided a digital file (preferably ArcGIS shapefile, refer to guidelines at Attachment A) delineating the boundaries of the referral area?  Provided complete contact details and signed the form?  Provided copies of any documents referenced in the referral form?  Ensured that all attachments are less than three megabytes (3mb)?  Sent the referral to the Department (electronic and hard copy preferred)

Referral of proposed action (DoEE August 2016 template) Page 101 of 101