Initial Environmental Evaluation

Home , Adare Peninsula, Astrolabe Glacier, Bay of Whales, Cape Roget, Inexpressible Island, Nansen Ice Sheet

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

Prepared for

2016/2017 – 2019/2020

ANTARCTIC CRUISE PROGRAMMES

On the Polar Research Vessels

PROFESSOR KHROMOV (trading as Spirit of Enderby) and AKADEMIK SHOKALSKIY

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

ANTARCTIC TOURISM CRUISES 2016/2017 – 2019/2020 SEASONS

CONTACT DETAILS

This Initial Environmental Evaluation has been prepared for and on behalf of:

Rodney Russ Owner and Founder Heritage Expeditions Ltd P O Box 7218 Christchurch NEW ZEALAND

Tel: (03) 365 3500 Fax: (03) 365 1300

email: [email protected]

Nathan Russ Operations Manager Heritage Expeditions Ltd PO Box 7218 Christchurch NEW ZEALAND

Tel: (03) 365 3500 Fax: (03) 365 1300

[email protected]

to whom all enquiries and comments should be directed.

External consultant:

Dr. Neil Gilbert Director Constantia Consulting Ltd. Christchurch NEW ZEALAND

Tel: 021 997 994

[email protected]

2 Contents

CONTACT DETAILS ...... 2 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY ...... 6 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 8

1.1. TOURISM IN ANTARCTICA ...... 8 1.1.2. Antarctic Governance and Tourism ...... 8 1.1.3. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) ...... 9 1.2. HERITAGE EXPEDITIONS LTD...... 9 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 11

2.1. INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 11 2.2. NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 12 2.3. ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 14 3. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ...... 15

3.1. GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE OF THE IEE ...... 15 3.2. TEMPORAL SCOPE OF THE IEE ...... 16 3.3. ACTIVITIES NOT ASSESSED BY THIS IEE ...... 16 4. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES ...... 17

4.1. PURPOSE ...... 17 4.2. EXPEDITION LEADERS ...... 17 4.3. THE VESSELS AND SHIP OPERATIONS ...... 18 4.3.1. Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) ...... 18 4.3.2. Akademik Shokalskiy ...... 19 4.4. PASSENGER LANDINGS - OVERVIEW ...... 20 4.5. PASSENGER LANDINGS – SITE SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS ...... 23 4.5.1. Cape Adare – 71° 17'S, 170° 14'E ...... 23 4.5.2. Possession Islands – 71° 56'S, 171° 10'E ...... 23 4.5.3. Franklin Island – 76° 05'S, 168° 19'E ...... 23 4.5.4. Ross Island – 77° 30'S, 168° 00E ...... 23 4.5.5. Cape Hallett – 72° 19'S, 170° 16'E ...... 24 4.5.6. Terra Nova Bay Region – 74° 50'S, 164° 30'E ...... 24 4.5.7. Coulman Island – 73° 28'S, 169° 45'E ...... 25 4.5.8. Scott Island – 67° 24'S, 179° 55'W ...... 25 4.5.9. Balleny Islands – 66° 55'S, 163° 20'E ...... 26 4.5.10. Cape Wheatstone – 72° 37'S, 170° 13'E ...... 26 4.5.11. Inexpressible Island – 74° 54'S, 163° 39'E ...... 26 4.5.12. Duke of York Island – 71° 38'S, 170° 04'E ...... 26 4.5.13. Downshire Cliffs – 71° 37’S, 170° 36'E ...... 26 4.5.14. Kay Island – 74° 04'S,165° 19'E ...... 26 4.5.15. Cape Roget – 71° 59'S, 170° 37'E ...... 27 4.5.16. Bay of Whales – 78° 30'S, 164° 20'W ...... 27 4.5.17. Dellbridge Islands – 77° 40'S, 166° 25'E ...... 27 4.5.18. Hells Gate Moraine / Evans Cove – 74° 52'S, 163° 48'E ...... 27 4.5.19. Northern Foothills – 74° 44'S, 163° 55'E ...... 27 4.5.20. Depot Island – 76° 42'S, 162°58'E ...... 28 4.5.21. Botany Bay, Granite Harbour – 77o 00’ S, 162o 32’ E ...... 28 4.5.22. Mertz Glacier tongue – 67o 30’ S, 144o 45’ E ...... 29 4.5.23. Way Archipelago – 66° 53’S, 143° 40E ...... 29 4.5.24. Cape Denison – 67° 00’ S, 142° 39’E ...... 29 4.5.25. Cape Hunter – 66o 57’ S, 142o 21’ E ...... 29 4.5.26. Port Martin – 66° 40’S, 141° 30’E ...... 30 4.5.27. Dumont d’Urville Station – 66° 45’S, 140° 10E ...... 30

3 4.5.28. Cap Jules – 66o 44’S, 140o 55 E ...... 31 4.5.29. Ile Pasteur – 66o 37’ S, 140o 06’ E ...... 31 4.5.30. Rocher du Dèbarquement – 66o 36’ S, 140o 03’ E ...... 31 4.5.31. Cape Bienvenue – 66o 43’ S, 140o 31’ E ...... 31 4.5.32. Gouverneur Island – 66o 40’ S, 139o 57’ E ...... 31 4.5.33. Cape Geodesie – 66o 40’ S, 139o 50’ E ...... 31 4.5.34. Snorkeling, Diving and Swimming – various locations ...... 32 4.5.35. Entry into Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) ...... 32 5. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL STATE ...... 37

5.1. ROSS SEA REGION ...... 37 5.2. BIOGEOGRAPHIC REGIONS ...... 37 5.3. ANTARCTIC SPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS ...... 38 5.4. IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS ...... 39 6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY ...... 42

6.1. CHANGES TO THE ITINERARY ...... 42 6.2. CHANGES TO SITES VISITED ...... 42 6.3. CHANGES TO THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS ...... 43 6.4. CHANGES TO VESSELS USED ...... 43 6.5. ALTERNATIVE OF NOT PROCEEDING ...... 43 7. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 45

7.1. DIRECT / INDIRECT IMPACTS ...... 45 7.1.1. Vessel operations ...... 45 7.1.2. Operation of Zodiacs...... 46 7.1.3. Passenger activities onshore ...... 46 7.1.4. Snorkeling, Diving or Swimming ...... 47 7.2. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 47 7.2.1. Vessel Operations ...... 47 7.2.2. Use of Zodiacs ...... 47 7.2.3. Passenger activities onshore ...... 48 7.2.4. Passengers activities in the water ...... 48 7.3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 48 7.3.1. Methods and data ...... 48 7.3.2. Identification of outputs from the proposed activities ...... 49 7.3.3. Identification of exposures to the Antarctic environment ...... 51 7.3.4. Significance of predicted impacts ...... 52 8. MITIGATING AND MANAGING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS...... 58

8.1. GENERAL MATTERS ...... 58 8.2. VESSEL OPERATIONS ...... 58 8.3. Operation of Zodiacs ...... 60 8.4. Passenger activities ashore ...... 61 8.5. Snorkeling, Diving and Swimming ...... 62 9. CONCLUSION ...... 63 REFERENCES ...... 64 APPENDIX 1. MAPS ...... 67

A1. CAPE ADARE ...... 67 A2. CAPE BIRD, ROSS ISLAND ...... 68 A3. CAPE ROYDS, ROSS ISLAND ...... 69 A5. HUT POINT, ROSS ISLAND ...... 72 A6. MCMURDO STATION, ROSS ISLAND ...... 73 A7. CAPE HALLETT ...... 74 A8. TERRA NOVA BAY ...... 75

4 A9. BALLENY ISLANDS ...... 76 A10. BOTANY BAY, GRANITE HARBOUR ...... 77 A11. CAPE DENISON ...... 78 APPENDIX 2. VISITOR SITE GUIDELINES ...... 79 APPENDIX 3. INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL REGULATORY CONTROLS FOR ANTARCTIC TOURISM ACTIVITIES ...... 86

ANTARCTIC TREATY 1959 ...... 86 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTOCOL 1991 ...... 86 ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING (ATCM) MEASURES ...... 86 ANTARCTICA (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) ACT 1994 ...... 88 INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LEGISLATION ...... 89 IAATO GUIDANCE MATERIAL ...... 91

5 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, ANTARCTIC TOURISM CRUISES – 2016/2017 to 2019/2020 Seasons

Polar Research Vessels Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy

Heritage Expeditions Ltd is a Christchurch based tour company offering vessel-based ecological and historic cruises to the sub-Antarctic and Antarctica. Heritage Expeditions has operated in the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica for over 20 years and is a member of the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO).

The purpose of our expeditions is educational with the goal of creating ambassadors and recruiting people for the long-term protection of Antarctica and associated ecosystems.

This Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) assesses the potential environmental impacts of proposed Antarctic Tourism Cruises and associated activities for the next four austral summer seasons 2016/17 to 2019/20, using the Russian registered Polar Research Vessels Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) and the Akademik Shokalskiy.

The IEE has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 and Annex I to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and associated guidance material. The IEE is submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in accordance with Part 3 (specifically section 18) of the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994.

The Ross Sea region and areas of East Antarctica contain some of the least disturbed and most intact marine and terrestrial ecosystems on the planet. Recent research has characterized a series of biogeographic regions across the continent, and our operations will transit between three of these during any one season. Because of the global significance of these intact ecosystems a number of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas and Important Bird Breeding Areas have been identified across Antarctica including in the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica. The globally special nature of these environments and these management designations have been taken fully into account in this IEE and in the planning of our activities in Antarctica.

The IEE assesses the potential environmental impacts arising from: the operation of the vessels; the use of zodiac landing craft to move passengers ashore and carry out sightseeing; the movement of passengers once ashore, and occasional activities such as snorkeling, diving and swimming.

Because of the distances involved and ice conditions in this sector of Antarctica, the number of expeditions we can operate in each austral summer is limited. The IEE identifies a series of definable locations within the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica that have been regularly used in the past and which we plan to use in the future. It is noted that the use of these locations cannot be predicted in advance due to the significantly variable sea, weather and ice conditions in Antarctica both within and between seasons. Nonetheless, the locations that have been identified provide a defined series of options and alternatives that can be utilized in order to fulfill our mandate of providing passengers with wilderness and wildlife experiences.

Some of the sites we have listed have been designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). Permits to visit these ASPAs are requested and the sites will be included in our Advanced Notification.

A number of sites listed include scientific bases. Where this is the case and a visit to the base is possible, permission will be sought from the relevant country whose base it is.

Planned itineraries with departure dates and ports of departure / arrival will be provided with our advance notification which is submitted annually.

The Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy are highly capable polar class vessels that are fully compliant with international maritime regulations implemented through a safety management system. Each vessel will each carry a maximum of 80 persons, comprising 50 passengers, 9 expedition staff and 22 ship's crew.

Most of the potential impacts that could arise from our activities are assessed as being less than minor or transitory. Nonetheless a series of mitigating measures will be implemented to further reduce the risk of environmental harm arising. Mitigation measures include:

• Passenger and crew education and awareness • Full compliance with the Protocol and its Annexes • Full compliance with all relevant ATCM guidelines and procedures • Full compliance with all relevant IAATO guidelines and by-laws • Full compliance with the provisions of ASPA management plans where we are permitted to enter these sites

Each of our expeditions will travel via the Sub Antarctic Islands including The Snares, Auckland, Macquarie and Campbell Islands. Details of these visits are not included here as they are not relevant to this Assessment.

Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed expeditions and alternatives to those expeditions are considered. It is concluded that the proposed expeditions are likely to have less than and certainly no more than a minor or transitory impact upon the Antarctic environment.

7 1. Introduction

1.1. Tourism in Antarctica

Commercial ship-borne tourism to Antarctica began in the 1950s. For three decades the number of vessels involved, and subsequently the number of passengers travelling to the region remained relatively low. Since the early 1990s, both vessel and passenger numbers have grown steadily.

The total number of tourists (both ship-borne and land-based) visiting Antarctica peaked in the 2007/08 season at approximately 46,000. Numbers fell sharply after this peak season largely as a result of the global financial crisis, but have risen again each season since the 2010/11 season. The industry body (IAATO, see below) is forecasting that the numbers will rise to approximately 43,885 individuals for the 2016/17 season.

The vast majority (> 95%) of visitors travel on passenger vessels to the Antarctic Peninsula region, which can be reached from South American ports in just a few days. In contrast to the Antarctic Peninsula, visitor numbers to the Ross Sea region are low.

Heritage Expeditions has been offering voyages to the Ross Sea Region and the New Zealand and Sub Antarctic Islands for more than 20 years, departing out of Bluff, New Zealand. The Orion has offered voyages to Antarctica via the Ross Sea from Hobart, Australia. Since the 1970s there have been occasional voyages from the Peninsula to the Ross Sea, usually including New Zealand and Australian Sub-Antarctic islands. Hobart (Australia), Bluff and Lyttelton-Christchurch (New Zealand) are the most common gateway cities to the Ross Sea Region and East Antarctica.

1.1.2. Antarctic Governance and Tourism

The Antarctic Treaty was agreed among 12 countries in 1959 and entered into force in 1961. The Antarctic Treaty Parties have met regularly since 1961 and now do so annually. The number of signatory nations to the Antarctic Treaty has grown to 53; 29 of whom have Consultative Party (or voting) status under the Treaty. The Treaty Parties have, over time, negotiated a suite of agreements to regulate activities in Antarctica. Together this suite of international treaties is referred to as the Antarctic Treaty System. The most recent of these agreements is the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (se below).

Tourism has been on the agenda of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) since 1964. The Parties have over time agreed a number of regulations and guidelines for tourists and expedition organizers.

The ATCM has also developed a suite of specific guidelines for the sites most visited by tourists. They include practical guidance for tour operators and guides on how they should conduct visits at those sites, taking into account their environmental values.

Aside from establishing guidelines for tourist expeditions, the ATCM also provides for tourist expeditions to submit reports on their visits.

8 1.1.3. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO)

Recognizing the potential environmental impacts that such growing numbers of tourism could cause, seven private tour operators conducting excursions in Antarctica joined together in 1991 to establish an industry body to practice and promote safe and environmentally responsible travel to Antarctica.

Today, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) currently has more than 100 members comprising ship operators, land-based operators, ship agents, travel agents, one government office and travel companies that charter ships and airplanes from existing operators.

IAATO has established extensive procedures and guidelines that ensure appropriate, safe and environmentally sound private-sector travel to the Antarctic including: regulations and restrictions on numbers of people ashore; staff-to-passenger ratios; site-specific and activity guidelines; wildlife watching guidelines; pre- and post-visit activity reporting; passenger, crew and staff briefings, and contingency and emergency medical evacuation plans.

IAATO has resolved to set the highest possible tourism operating standards in its effort to protect Antarctica. This effort is unique, and the challenge to maintain environmentally responsible tourism exists to this extent in no other region of the world.

IAATO meets at least once a year, during which policies, procedures, challenges and tasks are agreed to by at least a two-thirds majority vote. The Executive, Finance, Membership, Marine, Bylaws, and Field Operations Committees actively participate throughout the year when decisions are required.

1.2. Heritage Expeditions Ltd.

Heritage Expeditions Ltd. was formed in 1985 and is based in Christchurch, New Zealand - http://www.heritage-expeditions.com.

Heritage Expeditions is family owned and operated. For the past 30 years, Heritage Expeditions has pioneered conservation-driven voyages to some of the most wild, least-explored and biologically rich regions on the planet, including to Antarctica, the Sub-Antarctic, the Pacific and the Russian Far East. Each expedition is meticulously planned and lead, ensuring that passengers maximize every opportunity they have to learn and experience as much as possible about the region, while at the same time minimising the impact of their visit.

Travelling with Heritage Expeditions is to travel responsibly. As biologists and ornithologists, Heritage Expeditions’ leaders and guides are intimately aware of the many issues that confront animals and their habitats, the world's oceans and isolated ethnic groups.

Heritage Expeditions is also actively involved in supporting conservation. We contribute to the conservation of the places we visit in several ways; including by buying locally, employing locally, and making sure that travellers are respectful of local customs and traditions.

Heritage Expeditions also supports Antarctic and sub-Antarctic conservation by making significant annual contributions to the New Zealand Department of Conservation, the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the New Zealand Antarctic Heritage Trust. In addition to these contributions, Heritage Expeditions provides transport of freight and personnel to and from nature reserves. We also provide support the New Zealand Meteorological Service and non-governmental research agencies, including the University of Canterbury.

We partner with the Enderby Trust to provide scholarships for young people, who could not otherwise afford to travel, to join our expeditions. Heritage Expeditions holds active membership in a number of conservation and travel organisations, including the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO), which promotes responsible travel to Antarctica (see section 1.1.3 above).

We travel in small groups and endeavour to maintain a guide-to-client ratio of 1:12. An experienced Expedition Leader who is familiar with the region being visited leads each expedition. When selecting our specialist expedition equipment, vehicles and vessels, we research carefully to ensure that they are the most suitable and the most environmentally responsible. All waste generated on our expeditions is disposed of in a responsible manner: onboard it is treated as prescribed by MARPOL and recycling is encouraged. Non-recyclable waste is brought back for disposal at approved sites.

Although not directly relevant to this application, Heritage Expeditions also supports BirdLife International as a Species Champion for the Critically Endangered Spoon-billed Sandpiper. In addition to our providing transport and logistics for several researchers, we are committed to making financial contributions as a company and welcome our guests to join us in support of this programme.

Heritage Expeditions owns and is covenanted to protect an area of native forest in New Zealand. We employ a part-time Conservation Officer for the purposes of predator control and native species replanting.

The 2016/17 season will be Heritage Expeditions’ 22nd season of organising Antarctic expeditions with the currently used class of expedition vessel.

Over many seasons of operation in Antarctica, Heritage Expeditions has built an impressive and highly regarded body of knowledge and expertise on conducting tourism activity in the Ross Sea region. This knowledge and expertise has been incorporated into our planning, including our choice of vessels, selection and training of crew, the dates and timing of operations, the flexible nature of our itineraries, our choice of equipment and selection of expedition staff.

10 2. The Environmental Impact Assessment Process

2.1. International Requirements

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Protocol) was adopted by the Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty in 1991. It entered into force in January 1998.

Article 3 of the Protocol sets out environmental principles for the conduct of activities in Antarctica. Article 3 provides that the protection of the Antarctic environment and the intrinsic value of Antarctica, including its wilderness and aesthetic values and its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research, in particular research essential to understanding the global environment, shall be fundamental considerations in the planning and conduct of all activities in the Antarctic Treaty area.

Article 3 also requires that activities in the Antarctic Treaty area are planned and conducted so as to limit adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment and that those activities must be planned and conducted on the basis of information sufficient to allow prior assessments of, and informed judgments about, their possible impacts on the Antarctic environment. Such judgements must take account of:

i. the scope of the activity, including its area, duration and intensity; ii. the cumulative impacts of the activity, both by itself and in combination with other activities in the Antarctic Treaty area; iii. whether the activity will detrimentally affect any other activity in the Antarctic Treaty area; iv. whether technology and procedures are available to provide for environmentally safe operations; v. whether there exists the capacity to monitor key environmental parameters and ecosystem components so as to identify and provide early warning of any adverse effects of the activity and to provide for such modification of operating procedures as may be necessary in the light of the results of monitoring or increased knowledge of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems; and vi. whether there exists the capacity to respond promptly and effectively to accidents, particularly those with potential environmental effects.

Article 8 of the Protocol formalises these requirements by requiring an environmental impact assessment to be prepared in advance of any activity taking place in the Antarctic Treaty Area. The extent of the environmental impact assessment is determined by whether the activity in question is identified as having less than a minor or transitory impact; a minor or transitory impact; or more than a minor or transitory impact on the environment.

The detailed procedures for preparing and processing environmental impact assessments are set out in Annex I to the Protocol. If a proposed activity is determined, by means of a preliminary assessment, to have less than a minor or transitory impact, then it may proceed. If an activity is determined as being likely to have no more than a minor or transitory impact then an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) must be prepared. If an IEE indicates the potential for the activity to have more than a minor or transitory impact, or if such an impact is otherwise determined to be likely, then a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) must be prepared.

Preliminary assessments and IEEs are processed within the domestic legal and administrative systems of each Antarctic Treaty Party. Draft CEEs are however, required to be made publicly available, and to be made available for consideration by the Antarctic Treaty System’s Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP). The CEP’s advice on the quality of a draft CEE is provided to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM). Comments and advice provided by other

11 Antarctic Treaty Parties and the ATCM must be addressed in a final CEE, which is used as the basis for making a decision about whether and how the activity in question will be conducted.

The Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) has prepared guidance material to assist those preparing EIAs. The most recent version of these guidelines was adopted by the 39th ATCM (Resolution 1(2016) refers). These guidelines have been fully consulted in the preparation of this EIA.

In addition to the general provisions of the Protocol outlined above, the ATCM has, over time adopted a suite of additional agreements (in the form of Regulations, Resolutions or Measures) that relate specifically to the issue of tourism management in the Antarctic. These include:

• Recommendation XVIII-1 (1994) – Guidance for Those Organising and Conducting Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in the Antarctic, and Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic (somewhat superseded by Resolution 3 (2011) noted below) • Resolution 4 (2004) – Guidelines on Contingency Planning, Insurance and Other Matters for Tourist and Other Non-governmental Activities In the Antarctic Treaty Area • Measure 4 (2004) – Insurance and Contingency Planning for Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area • Resolution 6 (2005) – Antarctic Post Visit Site Report Form for Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica • Resolution 3 (2006) – Ballast Water Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty Area • Resolution 5 (2007) – Tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area • Measure 15 (2009) – Landing Of Persons from Passenger Vessels in the Antarctic Treaty Area • Resolution 7 (2009) – General Principles of Antarctic Tourism • Resolution 6 (2011) – Non-native Species Manual • Resolution 3 (2011) – General Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic • Resolution 6 (2014) – Toward a Risk-based Assessment of Tourism and Non-governmental Activities

The detailed provisions of these measures are available at the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website: http://www.ats.aq Additional relevant ATCM decisions are listed in Appendix 3.

Heritage Expeditions’ activities are undertaken entirely in conformance with these ATCM measures, which are referred to throughout this IEE.

2.2. National requirements

The EIA provisions of the Protocol are enacted in New Zealand law through the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. The Act applies to any New Zealand citizen or resident and to any member of an expedition that is organised in or departs from New Zealand. The Act applies equally to governmental and non-governmental activities in Antarctica.

The Act is administered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade makes the final determination as to whether an activity may proceed taking into account the Ministry’s recommendations. It is an offence under the Act to carry out an activity in Antarctica without completing and submitting an EIA to MFAT.

12 The Minister has discretion under the Act to set conditions and make directions regarding the proposed activity. Such conditions may relate to, for example, managing compliance, undertaking environmental monitoring and post-activity reporting.

Ministerial conditions are also used as a means to enforce the provisions of Measure 4 (2004) on “insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area”, as well as Measure 15 (2009) on “landing of persons from passenger vessels in the Antarctic Treaty area”.

Under the provisions of the Act, non-compliance is an offence carrying a penalty of up to one year’s imprisonment or a fine of up to $100,000 (sections 10(2) and (3)).

The Act also prohibits the following unless a permit is obtained:

• entering or carrying out any activity in an Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) • taking any native bird or mammal in Antarctica • removing or damaging native plants so their local distribution or abundance is significantly affected • harmfully interfering with native plants, mammals, birds or invertebrates • introducing any species of non-native animal, plant or micro-organism • importing any non-sterile soil into Antarctica • removing any part of or the contents of any historic site or monument

A permit application can be considered at the same time as submitting an EIA if any of the above activities are identified in the EIA document. Permits are issued at the time of approval of the EIA and often carry additional conditions.

International and national obligations have been fully taken into account in the preparation of this environmental impact assessment.

This environmental impact assessment covers the proposed activities related to the development, management and execution of Heritage Expedition’s activities in Antarctica over the next four years between 1 September 2016 and 31 March 2020.

Following an assessment at the preliminary environmental evaluation level, it is considered that Heritage Expedition’s planned activities are likely to have no more than ‘a minor or transitory effect’ on the Antarctic environment, provided proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented. An environmental impact assessment at the Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) level is therefore considered appropriate for the activities proposed to be undertaken by Heritage Expeditions over the next four-year period.

This IEE provides relevant information in sufficient detail with respect to the requirements outlined in Section 18(2) of the New Zealand Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act (1994) and Article 2(1) of Annex I of the Protocol.

The routine and well-established nature of the activities undertaken and supported by Heritage Expeditions is the premise behind submitting a longer-term (i.e. multi-season) environmental impact assessment for approval. The nature and scope of Heritage Expeditions’ activities in Antarctica have not significantly changed over many seasons of operation and are unlikely to change over the next four years.

In any one season any one passenger landing activity (if well managed) is likely to have less than a minor or transitory impact on the environment. All activities are observational in nature, and of negligible consequence to the environment. However, this environmental impact assessment

13 attempts to take account of the cumulative nature of such events both within any one season as well as across several seasons.

The uncertain nature of operating in Antarctica means that activities may arise that would have otherwise been unforeseen. Should an unforeseen activity arise that has a risk of environmental impact not included in this IEE, a separate environmental impact assessment will be prepared for that activity and submitted to MFAT for consideration ahead of each season and in accordance with our annual advanced notification.

2.3. Additional legal and regulatory requirements

The Marine Mammals Protection Regulations 1992 apply ‘throughout New Zealand and New Zealand fisheries waters’‘ (Section 3 (1)). Part 3 of the Regulations provides conditions for the behavior around marine mammals. These regulations are used as a guideline for activities around and involving marine mammals during all Heritage Expeditions cruises.

Heritage Expeditions takes seriously its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act (2015). We take a ‘best practice‘ approach to the health and safety of our workers and guests, which we have developed and tested over many years of operation.

Medical information is obtained from all clients prior to them embarking on the expedition and is reviewed by the expedition Medical Advisor. If it is thought necessary additional information is requested to ensure that clients are capable of coping with Southern Ocean and Antarctic conditions.

The vessel has a small medical centre and a Medical Advisor with training and practice in trauma accompanies each expedition. All passengers/participants in these Antarctic Expeditions are required to have full medical evacuation insurance. Heritage Expedition Ltd Staff/employees are covered by a Company policy and the owners of the vessel under their P&I Policy cover the crew.

The vessels chartered by Heritage Expeditions are of the highest standard and are fully compliant with the IMO Polar Shipping code. The vessels are fully compliant with all SOLAS requirement for operating in these latitudes. The vessels and crews have been tried and tested in the most rigorous of Antarctic conditions during the many years that we have been operating. All staff members are experienced in Southern Ocean operations and our procedures for all ‘off ship‘ activities are constantly reviewed and updated.

For further information on our health and safety standards, emergency and search and rescue procedures, medical provisions and insurance, refer to our Measure 4 (2004) information document.

14 3. Scope of the evaluation

The activities assessed by this IEE include all tourism related activities conducted by heritage expeditions in the Ross Sea region. This includes:

• The operation of the two vessels • Small boat activity (running passengers ashore and small boat cruising / sight seeing) • Landing passengers ashore for short walks, wildlife watching, visits to historic huts and sight seeing • Snorkeling, diving and swimming

It is anticipated that the type and nature of the activities covered by this environmental impact assessment will not significantly change over the next four years. Nevertheless, more specific details about proposed activities will be provided to MFAT ahead of each season as required, and in accordance with our annual advanced notification information.

3.1. Geographical scope of the IEE

The IEE assesses the anticipated environmental impacts of activities taking place in the Ross Sea region and locations along the coast of East Antarctica – all south of 60 degrees south latitude. This includes: the Balleny Islands; the Bay of Whales and Ross Ice Shelf; the Victoria Land coastline and near-shore islands; Ross Island, and locations along the George V coastline including Cape Denison and Dumont d’Urville station (see Figure 1).

Bay of Whales and Ross Ice Shelf

Cape Denison and Victoria Land coast and Dumont d’Urville oﬀshore islands Balleny Islands

Figure 1. Map of Antarctic showing the primary areas of Heritage Expedition's activities south of 60 degrees South.

15 3.2. Temporal scope of the IEE

After more than 20 years of organizing and delivering tourist operations in the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica, Heritage Expeditions has established an effective and well-rehearsed pattern of operations. To that end the nature of each seasons activities is largely consistent each year. Day- to-day variations in itinerary inevitably occur for reasons of weather, sea state and ice cover, but in broad terms the planned pattern of activity is similar each year.

For that reason, Heritage Expeditions submits this IEE covering the potential environmental impacts of planned activities for the next four seasons of activity from 2016/17 to 2019/20.

Prior to each season Heritage Expeditions can provide more specific details about the itinerary and planned activities to MFAT and note any changes, if any, to the impacts identified in this IEE.

3.3. Activities not assessed by this IEE

This IEE does not assess the environmental impacts from activities that Heritage Expeditions will undertake in the Sub-Antarctic islands over the same four-year period. Sub-Antarctic island activities are assessed by the consent application submitted to and approved by the Department of Conservation.

This IEE excludes consideration of any impacts that may arise from currently unplanned activities such as requests to provide logistical support to national Antarctic programmes. It is anticipated that any support provide by Heritage Expeditions will be assessed by the national programme in question.

This IEE also excludes any consideration of impacts that may arise as a result of emergency support that may need to be provided to other vessels or persons in distress.

16 4. Description of Activities

4.1. Purpose

Heritage Expeditions operates commercial expeditions to Antarctica, which involves transporting fare-paying passengers to the region and providing a series of landings and experiences for them.

The overarching purpose is to create “Antarctic ambassadors” by raising the awareness of participants and encouraging them to get involved in Antarctic Affairs.

This is achieved by sharing with our guests the unique natural history of Antarctica, allowing expedition members to visit historic sites and discussing with them the conservation issues confronting the Antarctic Continent, whilst at all times limiting the impacts on the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems in accordance with the general provisions of the Protocol and ATCM Resolution 7 (2009).

This approach is entirely consistent with the objectives of IAATO which include:

• To advocate and promote the practice of safe and environmentally responsible travel to the Antarctic;

• To advocate and promote operation by its Members within the parameters of the Antarctic Treaty System, including the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol on the Environmental Protection and Annexes, along with MARPOL, SOLAS and similar international and national laws and agreements;

• Subscribing to the principle that planned activities will have no more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment;

• To enhance public awareness and concern for the conservation of the Antarctic environment and its associated ecosystems and to better inform the media, governments and environmental organizations about private-sector travel to these regions;

• To create a corps of ambassadors for the continued protection of Antarctica by offering the opportunity to experience the continent first hand;

• To facilitate employment by the Membership of the best-qualified staff and field personnel are employed by IAATO members through continued training and education and to encourage and develop international acceptance of evaluation, certification and accreditation programs for Antarctic personnel.

4.2. Expedition leaders

The Senior Expedition Leaders for our Antarctic Expeditions are Mr. Rodney Russ, Mr. Aaron Russ and Mr. Nathan Russ all of HEL. They have been travelling to Antarctica for more than 20 years and between them have led more than 70 expeditions to the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica.

The Senior Expedition Leaders have also each lead numerous expeditions to the Antarctic Peninsula, the Pacific and Atlantic High Arctic Regions.

For regular Antarctic expeditions, the Expedition Leaders are responsible for coordinating the day-

17 to-day schedules and passenger activities, providing passenger briefings, and giving or coordinating on-board lectures.

The Captain of each vessel holds overall responsibility for the safety of passengers, crew and expedition staff, and makes the final decision for all small boat and passenger landing activities.

4.3. The vessels and ship operations

Heritage Expeditions charters two sister vessels that are purpose built for operating in high latitude, ice-covered waters. Both vessels and the crews are very experienced and have an impressive record of voyages to these regions. Combined they have completed more expeditions to the Ross Sea and East Antarctica than any other ship in the history of Antarctic exploration.

Both vessels are registered with the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping: http://info.rs-head.spb.ru/webFS/regbook/regbookVessel?ln=en

4.3.1. Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov)

See figure 2.

IMO Number 8010350 Launched 1983 Built Finland Registered Research Vessel Ice Rating Russian register KM(*) Arc5[1] AUT2 Ice class passenger ship Length 71.06 m Breadth 12.80 m Draft 6.45 m Displacement 2,140 Tonnes Flag Russian

The ships complement is comprised:

Passengers 50 (mixed nationality) Expedition Staff 9 Crew 22 (Russian)

Figure 2. Professor Khromov / Spirit of Enderby.

4.3.2. Akademik Shokalskiy

See figure 3.

IMO Number 8010336 Launched 1982 Built Finland Registered Research Vessel Ice Rating Russian register KM(*) Arc5[1] AUT2 Ice class passenger ship Length 71.06 m Breadth 12.80 m Draft 6.45 m Displacement 2,140 Tones Flag Russian

The ships complement is comprised:

Passengers 50 (mixed nationality) Expedition Staff 9 Crew 22 (Russian)

Figure 3. Akademik Shokalskiy.

The vessels ‘Spirit of Enderby’ (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy will remain ‘at sea‘ throughout all expeditions south of 60 degrees south.

The position, course and speed of both vessels is monitored on a continuous (24/7) basis by Heritage Expeditions’ office in New Zealand and by the owners of the vessels in Russia.

Separate daily reports are sent to the respective offices by the on-board Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and by email. The vessels also remain in routine, regular contact with any other commercial vessels that may be operating in the same vicinity.

The routine operation of the ship constitutes an activity for the purposes of transporting passengers to Antarctica and between sites of interest in the region. Whilst at sea, passengers can view wildlife (e.g. seabirds and marine mammals), scenery (landscape and icescape, including sea-ice

19 and icebergs), and engage in on-board discussions and lectures provided by Antarctic experts.

In addition to the education programme, passengers are briefed on the operation of the ship, fire and abandon ship drills as well as on conservation and environmental impact requirements.

4.4. Passenger landings - overview

The primary activity of all our expeditions involves landing passengers ashore for a range of experiences, including experiencing the Antarctic environment; visiting the historic huts of the Ross Sea region, and seeing and photographing Antarctic wildlife.

A typical day may involve one or two landings, with passengers being ferried ashore by small boat (or “zodiac”; see figure 4) and remaining ashore in controlled groups for between two and six hours, depending upon the site and its constraints, the current and predicted weather and ice conditions, and other plans for the day.

Figure 4. Small boat or "zodiac" used to ferry passengers between the main vessel and shore locations, or to conduct small boat cruising at select locations.

Expedition leaders are responsible for coordinating and leading all passenger landings ashore (Figure 5). All landings are coordinated in accordance with the general provisions of the Environmental Protocol, ATCM Resolution 3 (2011), Recommendation VIII-1 (1994), Measure 15 (2009) and any site-specific guidance or ASPA / ASMA management plans.

Figure 5. Passengers visiting Mawson's hut in East Antarctica.

All passenger landings are observational only. No equipment is installed, no sampling or souveniring is permitted at any site, and any waste that is generated ashore is collected and returned to the ship at the end of the site visit.

Passengers and expedition staff are provided with a pre-landing briefings and Expedition Leaders ensure the guide-to-passenger ratio complies with IAATO requirements or the requirements of any applicable site-specific guidelines or management plans (see below).

Expedition leaders are always the first ashore and passengers are briefed again once they land ashore on the specific aspects of the landing site and where they can and cannot go. The Expedition Leaders and guides monitor all passenger activity throughout each landing.

Expeditions leaders, guides and passengers make use of a boot washing station (involving a disinfectant) before and after each landing so as to minimize the transfer of any biological material and organisms between landing sites.

Visits to stations and bases in the Ross Sea region (McMurdo Station (US) and Scott Base (NZ) on Ross Island, as well as Mario Zucchelli Station (Italy) and Jang Bogo Station (Korea) in Terra Nova Bay) are coordinated with the station leaders in advance. Visits are conducted according to each station’s requirements and / or in accordance with IAATO’s Standard Procedures for Station Visits.

Figure 6. Passengers taking photographs from the zodiac.

It is not feasible to develop and present a firm itinerary for activities to be conducted in the Ross Sea region in any one season, due to the unpredictability of ice conditions and the weather. This is in contrast to the ship scheduling procedure for vessels operating in the Antarctic Peninsula, by means of which operators log their intended itinerary in advance on a common database and on a first-come-first-served basis. However it should be emphasised that Peninsula operational schedules are also subject to day-to-day variation due to changes in weather and ice conditions as well as other operational factors.

For our operations in the Ross Sea region, a number of landing or activity locations have been identified and these are utilized as ice and weather conditions allow.

Over the many seasons of conducting expeditions to the Antarctic, 34 definable locations (including 5 “sub-locations” on Ross Island) have been identified for tourist visitation. Several of these sites have been frequently visited, are well known to us and are planned to be used again over the next four seasons (Table 1). Additional sites listed below have not necessarily been visited in the past, but are known to us as potential options if weather and sea ice allows, or indeed if weather and sea ice prevents landings at the more frequently visited locations.

21 Table 1. A series of definable locations in the Ross Sea region that are frequently used by Heritage Expeditions or known to be suitable landings options.

1. Cape Adare (entry into ASPA 159 requested) 2. Possession Islands 3. Franklin Island 4. Ross Island, including the following locations: a. Cape Bird (in the vicinity of but not within ASPA 116) b. Cape Royds (entry into ASPA 157 requested; adjacent to but not within ASPA 121) c. Cape Evans (entry into ASPA 155 requested) d. Hut Point (entry into ASPA 158 requested) e. McMurdo Station f. Scott Base 5. Cape Hallett (immediately adjacent to, but not within ASPA 106) 6. Terra Nova Bay (including potential visits to Italy’s Mario Zucchelli station and Korea’s Jang Bogo station; adjacent to but not within ASPA 161) 7. Coulman Island 8. Scott Island 9. Balleny Islands (not within ASPA 104) 10. Cape Wheatstone 11. Inexpressible Island 12. Duke of York Island 13. Downshire Cliffs 14. Kay Islands 15. Cape Roget 16. Bay of Whales 17. Dellbridge Islands 18. Hells Gate Moraine / Evans Cove 19. Northern Foothills 20. Depot Island 21. Botany Bay, Granite Harbour (entry into ASPA 154 requested) 22. Mertz Glacier (Zodiac cruising only) 23. Way Archipelago a. Stillwell Island 24. Cape Denison (entry into ASPA 162 requested) 25. Cape Hunter 26. Port Martin (adjacent to, but not within ASPA 166) 27. Dumont d’Urville station 28. Cap Jules 29. Ile Pasteur 30. Rocher du Débarquement 31. Cape Bienvenue 32. Gouverneur Island 33. Cape Geodesie 34. Opportunistic locations for zodiac cruising, snorkeling, diving or swimming

4.5. Passenger landings – site specific descriptions

4.5.1. Cape Adare – 71° 17'S, 170° 14'E The flat spit of land at Cape Adare is the scene of the first landing on the Antarctic Continent in 1895 and the site of the first over wintering on the continent in 1899-1900 by Borchgrevink's Southern Cross expedition. Borchgrevink's Hut remains on site and in good repair. The Cape hosts over 200,000 breeding pairs of Adèlie Penguins.

The primary activity at Cape Adare is a visit to Borchgrevink's living quarters hut and to photograph / observe the Adèlie Penguins. Two other huts, a store hut from Borchgrevink's expedition and a largely destroyed hut dating from Scott's Terra Nova Expedition stand close by. The huts are currently undergoing a programme of restoration by the Antarctic Heritage Trust.

A single grave is situated on Cape Adare itself. The grave is that of Norwegian biologist Nicolai Hanson, a member of the British Antarctic (Southern Cross) Expedition, led by Carsten E. Borchgrevink. A large boulder marks the head of the grave with the grave itself outlined in white quartz stones. A cross and plaque are attached to the boulder. The gravesite is designated as historic site and monument number 23 (ATCM Measure 19 (2015)).

A permit is requested for entry into ASPA 159 (see section 4.5.35) to view Borchgrevink's living quarters hut. The visits will be in accordance with the management plan for ASPA 159 and its code of conduct. An opportunity will be given to those who wish to visit Hanson’s grave. Passengers are normally ashore for approximately 5 to 6 hours (see Map A1 Appendix 1).

4.5.2. Possession Islands – 71° 56'S, 171° 10'E This group of islands some 40 miles south of Cape Adare was named by Sir James Clark Ross in January 1841 “he took possession of these newly-discovered lands, in the name of our Most Gracious Sovereign, Queen Victoria”. Landing is by inflatable boat onto rocky beaches or shoreline fast ice. There are substantial Adèlie Penguin colonies and there is good access around the islands. Of historic interest is the wreck of a landing craft - probably from the 1950s on the most northern island in the group. Passengers are normally ashore for 4 to 5hours.

4.5.3. Franklin Island – 76° 05'S, 168° 19'E There is an excellent landing on the western side of this Island. A large gravel spit has an Adèlie Penguin colony on it. There is good access around the periphery of the colony that avoids any disturbance. There is a walkable route to the summit of the island where there are some great views. Landing is by inflatable craft onto the gravel beach. Passengers are normally ashore for 4 to 5 hours.

4.5.4. Ross Island – 77° 30'S, 168° 00E There are several sites on Ross Island that we have routinely used in the past and which are also routinely accessed by National Antarctic programme personnel and other tour operators.

4.5.4.1. Cape Bird Landings are made on the gravel beach below the New Zealand research hut. Special care will be taken to avoid any disturbance to the penguins and or any research related equipment (see Map A2, Appendix 1). There will be no entry into ASPA 116.

23 4.5.4.2. Cape Royds Passengers will be landed as close to Backdoor Bay as ice conditions permit, but not within ASPA 121. Briefings will ensure that none of the passengers accidentally enter it while ashore (see Figure 7 and Map A3, Appendix 1). The Management Plan for ASPA 157 and the code of conduct for visitation to the hut will be followed. The visitor sites guidelines for this site will also be followed (see visitor guidelines at B1, Appendix 2).

4.5.4.3. Cape Evans Passengers will be landed as close to the hut as ice and weather conditions permit. At the briefings passengers will be provided with information of areas of interest. They will be told to take special care when walking around as many of the artifacts are on the ground. The Management Plan for ASPA 155 and the code of conduct for visitation to the hut will be followed at all times (see Map A4, Appendix 1).

4.5.4.4. Hut Point Passengers may approach ‘Discovery Hut’ from either McMurdo Station or the small bay on the north side of the point. The Management Plan for ASPA 158 and the code of conduct for visitation to the hut will be followed at all times (see Map A5, Appendix 1).

4.5.4.5. McMurdo Station Permission will be requested from the US Antarctic Program (National Science Foundation) to visit their station. Any conditions that they stipulate as part of that visit will be adhered to (see Map A6, Appendix 1).

4.5.4.6. Scott Base Permission will be sought from Antarctic New Zealand for a visit to Scott Base. Any conditions that they stipulate as part of that visit will be adhered to.

4.5.5. Cape Hallett – 72° 19'S, 170° 16'E Landings at Cape Hallett are normally made by inflatable craft onto the cobble beach. Landings are usually made on Seabee Hook as close to the former station site as possible. Passengers remain in the designated visitor area outside of ASPA 106 (see Map A7, Appendix 1). The purpose of the visit will be to view the Adèlie Penguins. Cape Hallett is the site of the former US/NZ station of the same name, and we anticipate interest in the rehabilitation of penguins on the site of the now removed station. Passengers are normally ashore for approximately 4 to 5 hours.

4.5.6. Terra Nova Bay Region – 74° 50'S, 164° 30'E There are three national Antarctic Programme stations in the Terra Nova Bay area: Italy’s Mario Zucchelli station, Korea’s Jang Bogo station and Germany’s Gondwana Base. We will seek permission from the respective Antarctic programmes to be landed in the vicinity of the stations. Care will be taken (and local advice sought) to ensure that there is no interference with scientific equipment or programs. Passengers are normally ashore for no more than 6 hours in total (see Map A8, Appendix 1).

24 4.5.7. Coulman Island – 73° 28'S, 169° 45'E This is a large island, though with very limited landing places. If sea-ice and weather conditions allow, landings are normally made from inflatable boats onto a small rocky / ice beach at Cape Anne on the southern end of the island (Figure 7). Passengers are normally ashore for no more than 2 hours duration.

Figure 7. Coulman Island.

4.5.8. Scott Island – 67° 24'S, 179° 55'W There are three possible landing sites on Scott Island, though weather and sea conditions usually prevent a landing on this island; consequently very few landings have ever taken place (Figure 8). There are only two recorded landings by expeditioners on this island the most recent of which was by Heritage Expeditions. Our observations are that whilst the preferred landing site (Figure 9) is not in the vicinity of any breeding birds, there is only a limited area for visitors to move around the site. If a landing is made it will be done from inflatable craft and will not be for more than 1 hour in duration.

Figure 8. Scott Island from the sea. Figure 9. The beach on Scott Island.

25 4.5.9. Balleny Islands – 66° 55'S, 163° 20'E These islands are often ice bound and landings are rare. If weather and ice conditions are suitable a landing will be attempted. A number of landings have been made on these islands by expeditioners on previous occasions with no recorded disturbance to wildlife or to the physical environment; the most recent landing being in February 2012 (see Map A9, Appendix 1).

4.5.10. Cape Wheatstone – 72° 37'S, 170° 13'E This is a bold rock cape that forms the south end of the Hallett Peninsula and marks the Northern entrance to Tucker Inlet. There is a very small colony of Adèlie Penguins on the Cape. The Cape consists of a narrow strip of relatively ice-free land with very tall cliffs rising to 1000+ feet behind. It is possible to move relatively easily along this ice-free area without disturbing the penguins. Landing is relatively simple onto a rocky foreshore. Passengers are normally ashore for approximately 1 to 2 hours.

4.5.11. Inexpressible Island – 74° 54'S, 163° 39'E This island is in Terra Nova Bay at the outer edge of the Nansen Ice Sheet. As ice and weather conditions allow, we have made landings on this island since January 2000. Landings are made on fast ice well clear of the Adèlie Penguin colony. The Island is granite and the surface consists of large granite boulders and outcrops. There is no detectable impact by visitors walking across the boulders or the outcrops. We are aware of the site of the ice cave that was constructed in March 1912 by Victor Campbell's Northern Party (part of the British Antarctic Expedition, 1910-13). A wooden sign, plaque and seal bones remain at the site, which is designated as historic site and monument number 14 (Measure 19 (2015)). Passengers are normally ashore for no more than 3 to 4 hours.

4.5.12. Duke of York Island – 71° 38'S, 170° 04'E There are no recorded landings on this island by expeditioners in the head of Robertson Bay, which was first chartered in 1899 by Borchgrevink’s British Antarctic Expedition. The only possible landing site would appear to be a small bay on the southeastern side of the island. This site is occupied by approximately 4,500 breeding pairs of Adélie penguins and landings would only be feasible late in the season when the breeding cycle was largely finished. If a landing was envisaged it is unlikely that passengers would be ashore for any more than 2 hours.

4.5.13. Downshire Cliffs – 71° 37’S, 170° 36'E A line of basalt cliffs rising to 2,000 meters above the Ross Sea and forming much of the eastern side of the Adare Peninsula along the northern coast of Victoria Land. Landing sites are limited, however there is one Adèlie Penguin colony, which suggests that beach access, may be possible. If landings are made it will be an expedition stop lasting no more than 2 hours. Care will be taken not to disturb any penguins and impact will be limited due to short stay.

4.5.14. Kay Island – 74° 04'S,165° 19'E A small island in the northern part of Wood Bay. The island is often surrounded by ice, but if ice conditions permit a landing may be attempted. From past observations, the island is mainly covered in ice although there is some exposed rock (possibly Granite). If a landing is made it is not envisaged the passengers will be ashore for more than 2 hours.

26 4.5.15. Cape Roget – 71° 59'S, 170° 37'E A steep rock Cape at the southern tip of the Adare Peninsula, marking the north side of the entrance to Moubray Bay. Emperor Penguins breed here in the winter months. If a landing is made it will be onto fast ice and will be of a very short duration e.g. 1 hour.

4.5.16. Bay of Whales – 78° 30'S, 164° 20'W This area is an ice-port indenting the western front of the Ross Ice Shelf just northward of Roosevelt Island. The area is a natural ice harbour. It served as a base for Amundsen’s 1911 Expedition; Admiral Byrd’s Antarctic Expedition’s of 1928-30 and 1933-35, as well as the US Antarctic Service Expedition of 1939-41. If a landing is made it will be onto the ice shelf (Figure 11) and there would be no impact at all.

Figure 10. Akademik Shokalskiy in the Bay of Whales, February 2016, when she sailed further south than any vessel in history.

4.5.17. Dellbridge Islands – 77° 40'S, 166° 25'E A group of small volcanic islands lying in McMurdo Sound. There are no known birds or mammals breeding on these islands. If a landing is made it would probably be from the fast ice that surrounds these islands for much of the year. Passengers would only be ashore for a short 2 to 3 hour visit.

4.5.18. Hells Gate Moraine / Evans Cove – 74° 52'S, 163° 48'E A glacial moraine at Evans Cove on the east coast of Victoria Land (Figure 12). If a landing is made it is envisaged that it would be onto the glacier. The Moraine lies some distance back from the edge of the glacier. There is a reported historic site on the Moraine. Passengers would be ashore for a 2 to 3 hour visit.

4.5.19. Northern Foothills – 74° 44'S, 163° 55'E A line of coastal hills on the west side of Terra Nova Bay, forming a peninsular continuation of the Deep Freeze range (Figure 12). There are a number of potential landing sites between Cape Russell and the Terra Nova Bay Station. There is one small Adèlie Penguin colony on this coast and a number of South Polar Skua nests. If a landing is made care will be taken not to disturb any nesting wildlife. The rock is granite and there would be no impact by passengers walking over the granite. We are aware of the marine ASPA 161 – Terra Nova Bay, and this ASPA will not be entered in to.

27 Hells Gate

Cape Russell

Figure 11. Inexpressible Island, Hells Gate and Northern Foothills area to the south of Terra Nova Bay. Image: NASA

4.5.20. Depot Island – 76° 42'S, 162°58'E This small granite island is approximately three kilometres NW of Cape Ross, off the coast of Victoria Land. Originally charted as a point by Discovery, and subsequently reclassified an island in 1908 by Nimrod’s South Magnetic Pole expedition of the British Antarctic Expedition (1907-09) and so named by them because of the depot of rock left there by Professor Edgeworth David. If landings are undertaken here, passengers would likely be ashore for no more than 2 to 3 hours.

Figure 12. Depot Island (to the right) and Cape Depot (to the left). Image: coplateau.com

4.5.21. Botany Bay, Granite Harbour – 77o 00’ S, 162o 32’ E Botany Bay is situated in the southwestern corner of Granite Harbour (see Map A10, Appendix 1). The area is botanically rich and displays a high diversity and abundance of lichens, mosses and alga. Part of Botany Bay is designated as an ASPA (ASPA 154), which also includes the remains of a rock shelter and associated artefacts from the British Antarctic Expedition 1910-1913, known as Granite House. This historic site is also listed as Historic Site and Monument (HSM) number. 67 (Measure 19 (2015).

28 A permit for entry into ASPA 154 is requested. The purpose for the visit to this site would be to provide passengers with the opportunity to view the remains of Granite House. We would do so in strict conformity with the provisions of ASPA 154 management plan (see section 4.5.35 below). Passengers would be ashore for 2 to 3 hours.

4.5.22. Mertz Glacier tongue – 67o 30’ S, 144o 45’ E Mertz Glacier is about 72 km long and averages 32 km wide. It reaches the sea at the head of a 60 km fjord where it continues as a large glacier tongue out between Cape de la Motte / Buchanan Bay on the West, and Cape Hurley / Fisher Bay on the east.

The ice tongue calved in February 2010 leaving impassable amounts of ice in the bay. We will only enter the bay if ice conditions allow. Any activity in the region of the remaining ice tongue will involve vessel or Zodiac cruising only.

4.5.23. Way Archipelago – 66° 53’S, 143° 40E The Way Archipelago encompasses a series of small islets and islands off the Commonwealth Bay coastline. They were discovered by the 1911-14 expedition under Douglas Mawson. Many of the small islands and islets in the archipelago (including Stillwell Island, see 4.5.23.1 below) are home to nesting birds including penguins, Antarctic Fulmars, Antarctic Petrels and Snow Petrels. If a landings are made at any of these small islets, it will be for the purpose of wildlife observations and will be no longer than 1-2 hours’ duration.

4.5.23.1. Stillwell Island – 66o 55’ S, 143o 48’ E Stillwell Island is a small, steep rocky island, 0.25 nautical miles (0.5 km) in diameter, which is the largest member of the Way Archipelago. It lies at the west side of the entrance to Watt Bay, 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km) northeast of Garnet Point. Discovered by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (1911–14) under Douglas Mawson. He named it for Frank L. Stillwell, geologist with the expedition whose detailed survey included this coastal area.

4.5.24. Cape Denison – 67° 00’ S, 142° 39’E Site of the 1911-14 Australasian Antarctic Expedition huts. The huts are now protected by Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA 162 (see Map A11, Appendix 1)). A permit for entry into the ASPA is requested. The Management Plan for ASPA 162 and its code of conduct will be followed at all times.

4.5.25. Cape Hunter – 66o 57’ S, 142o 21’ E Cape Hunter is a rocky promontory on the western shore of Commonwealth Bay, approximately 15 km to the west of Cape Denison. It is named after the chief biologist of Mawson’s 1912 Australasian Antarctic Expedition, John G. Hunter. The site includes a large rookery of 3800 pairs of Antarctic Fulmars as well as breeding Antarctic Petrels. It is a steep sided cape with limited landing spots. If landings are made, visits will be for no more than 2 hours. Zodiac cruising to view the birds may also be undertaken.

29 4.5.26. Port Martin – 66° 40’S, 141° 30’E Site of the former French base destroyed by fire in January 1952. Any landings will be made onto the ice-free rocky island, outside of the boundaries of ASPA 166 (Figure 14).

Figure 13. Port Martin. The site of the old base and the boundary of ASPA 166 is marked in red.

4.5.27. Dumont d’Urville Station – 66° 45’S, 140° 10E This is France’s Antarctic research station in East Antarctica, built on Île des Pétrels (Figure 14). An application will be made to the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Francaises for permission to visit their base. If permission is granted then the party will abide by the guidelines and directions of the Station Leader.

Figure 14. Dumont d'Urville Station (France).

Île des Pétrels is also home to colonies of Adelie penguins and skua.

We would also wish to show the passengers the Coix Prud’Homme. This is an iron cross listed as historic site and monument number 48 (Measure 19 (2015)). Located on the North-East headland of the Ile des Pétrels, the cross is dedicated as a memorial to André Prudhomme, head meteorologist in the 3rd International Geophysical Year expedition who disappeared during a blizzard on 7 January 1959.

30 4.5.28. Cap Jules – 66o 44’S, 140o 55 E Cap Jules (Fr) or Cape Jules is a rocky, coastal cape with a small cove at its northern end. It is located 6 km west of the Zelee glacier tongue. It was discovered and named by Dumont d'Urville, (1837–40) after his son. The area was charted by Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition in 192-12 and again by the British, Australian, and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition of 1931. The French Antarctic Expedition under Michel Barre established an astronomical control at this locality in 1951. The landing area is small and if a landing is made, passengers would be ashore for no more than 2 hours.

4.5.29. Ile Pasteur – 66o 37’ S, 140o 06’ E Ile Pasteur / Pasteur Islet is a small rocky island at the southeast end of the Dumoulin Islands, close to the Astrolabe Glacier tongue. It was photographed from the air by the US during their 1946-47 Operation Highjump. The islands in the area were charted by the 1949-51 French Antarctic Expedition and this island was named after the famous French chemist, Louis Pasteur. There are believed to be nesting birds on the islet including Snow Petrels and Antarctic Petrels. Landings, if made, would be no more than 1 to 2 hours.

4.5.30. Rocher du Dèbarquement – 66o 36’ S, 140o 03’ E Rocher du Debarquement or Landing Rock is an ice-free rock 200 metres long and 18.7 m high, marking the northern end of the Dumoulin Islands at the north-eastern end of the Geologie Archipelago. Dumont d’Urville’s French Antarctic Expedition of 1837-40, landed on the islet on 22 January 1840, when he discovered Terre Adelie. The islet is listed on the list of Historic Sites and Monuments (Number 81; Measure 19 (2015)). In addition to its historical significance it is an excellent place from which to view the coastal iceberg fields. Landings, if made, would be no more than 1 to 2 hours.

4.5.31. Cape Bienvenue – 66o 43’ S, 140o 31’ E Cape Bienvenue is a small rocky, coastal cape that is partially ice-covered, and only 44 m long. It forms the eastern side of Piner Bay. It was charted during Barre’s French Antarctic Expedition of 1951-52 and so named because of the expedition’s “welcome” pleasure at finding a cape not shown on previous charts where a landing could be made. There are some nesting birds in the vicinity. Landings, if made, would be no more than 1 hour.

4.5.32. Gouverneur Island – 66o 40’ S, 139o 57’ E Gouverneur Island is a low rocky island 2.2km west-southwest of Petrel Island (see 4.5.27) and just over 4km east of Cape Geodesie (see 4.5.33), the Geologie Archipelago. It was charted and named by the French Antarctic Expedition under Andre F. Liotard (1949-51). Liotard was the first man to camp on the island and, as leader of the Expedition, also held the honorary post of governor. There are Adélie penguins and skua on the island. Landings would be no more than 1 to 2 hours.

4.5.33. Cape Geodesie – 66o 40’ S, 139o 50’ E Cape Géodésie is a low, ice-covered point marked by prominent rock outcrops at its northeast end, lying 6 km northwest of the mouth of the Astrolabe Glacier. It was charted by the French Antarctic Expedition, 1951–52, and so named by them because of the extensive geodetic program undertaken in this region, particularly in the Geologie Archipelago nearby. There are some nesting birds in the vicinity. Landings, if made, would be no more than 1 hour.

4.5.34. Snorkeling, Diving and Swimming – various locations It is possible that on both expeditions at selected sites a small group of suitably qualified passengers may enter the water for the purposes of diving, snorkeling or swimming. Sites will be selected on a number of criteria including clarity or visibility of the water and suitable ice formations. Passengers wishing to participate in these activities must be suitably qualified and have a certain standard of equipment.

4.5.35. Entry into Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs)

As noted above a number of the sites that we have taken visitors to in the past, and plan to take visitors to over the next four years, have been designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). A permit to enter these ASPAs is therefore applied for in conjunction with the submission of this IEE.

In numerical order the ASPAs to which entry is requested are:

ASPA 154: Botany Bay, Granite Harbour

Entry into the Area is prohibited except in accordance with a Permit issued by an appropriate national authority. Conditions for issuing a Permit to enter the Area are that:

• outside of the Restricted and Access Zones, access may be permitted only for scientific study of the ecosystem, or for compelling scientific reasons that cannot be served elsewhere, or for conservation at historic sites, or for essential management purposes consistent with plan objectives such as inspection or review; • access to the Restricted Zone may be permitted only for compelling scientific or management reasons that cannot be served elsewhere in the Area; • access to the Access Zone may be permitted for scientific, management, historical, educational or recreational purposes; • the actions permitted will not jeopardise the ecological, scientific or historic values of the Area; • any management activities are in support of the objectives of the Management Plan; • the actions permitted are in accordance with the Management Plan; • the Permit, or an authorized copy, shall be carried within the Area; • a visit report shall be supplied to the authority named in the Permit; • permits shall be issued for a stated period.

We recognise the strict provisions of the management plan regarding visitors to Granite House. We note that access into the Area should be from the designated camp site following the preferred corridor of the Access Zone, 10–20 m from the coast, which is relatively devoid of vegetation. We will caution passengers against walking on any visible vegetation, particularly in areas of moist ground, where foot traffic can easily damage sensitive soils, plant and algal communities, and degrade water quality.

We will not allow passengers to venture south of Granite House. We will adhere also to the restrictions on access i.e. a maximum of 10 people in the Access Zone at any one time, and a maximum of 5 people in the viewing area overlooking Granite House at any one time.

The management plan for this site is available at: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att525_e.pdf

ASPA 155: Historic Hut, Cape Evans

Entry to the Area is prohibited except in accordance with a Permit. Permits to enter the site may be issued for a stated period for:

• activities related to conservation, research and/or monitoring purposes; • management activities in support of the objectives of this Plan; • activities related to educational or recreational activities including tourism, providing they do not conflict with the objectives of this Plan; and • any other activity specifically provided for in this Plan.

We recognise and will adhere to the controls on movement of people within the Area, which includes: a maximum number of 40 people in the Area at any time (including guides and those within the hut) and a maximum number of 8 people within the hut at any time (including guides).

We recognise and will adhere to the code of conduct contained under section 7(ii) of the management plan, as well as all other restrictions of the management plan.

The full management plan for this site is available at: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt%5Catt572_e.pdf

A copy of the management plan will be carried on-board and when visiting the ASPA.

ASPA 157: Historic Hut, Backdoor Bay, Cape Royds

Entry to the Area is prohibited except in accordance with a Permit. Permits to enter the site may be issued for a stated period for:

• activities related to conservation, research and/or monitoring purposes; • management activities in support of the objectives of this Management Plan; and • activities related to educational or recreational activities including tourism, providing they do not conflict with the objectives of this Management Plan.

We recognise and will adhere to the code of conduct contained under section 7(ii) of the management plan, as well as all other restrictions of the management plan.

The full management plan for this site is available at: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt%5Catt573_e.pdf

A copy of the management plan will be carried on-board and when visiting the ASPA. See also figure 15 below.

ASPA 158: Historic Hut, Hut Point, Ross Island

Entry to the Area is prohibited except in accordance with a Permit. Permits to enter the site may be issued for a stated period for:

33 • activities related to conservation, research and/or monitoring purposes; • management activities in support of the objectives of this Management Plan; and • activities related to educational or recreational activities including tourism, providing they do not conflict with the objectives of this Management Plan.

We recognise and will adhere to the controls on movement of people, which is limited to a maximum number of 8 people within the hut at any time (including guides).

We recognise and will adhere to the code of conduct contained under section 7(ii) of the management plan, as well as all other restrictions of the management plan.

The full management plan for this site is available at: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt%5Catt574_e.pdf

A copy of the management plan will be carried on-board and when visiting the ASPA.

ASPA 159: Historic Hut, Cape Adare

Entry to the Area is prohibited except in accordance with a Permit. Permits to enter the site may be issued for a stated period for:

We recognise and will adhere to the controls on movement of people within the Area, which includes: a maximum number of 40 people in the Area at any time (including guides and those within the hut) and a maximum number of 4 people within the hut at any time (including guides).

We recognise and will adhere to the code of conduct contained under section 7(ii) of the management plan, as well as all other restrictions of the management plan.

The full management plan for this site is available at: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt%5Catt575_e.pdf

A copy of the management plan will be carried on-board and when visiting the ASPA.

ASPA 162: Cape Denison

Conditions for issuing a Permit to enter the Area are that:

• it is issued for compelling scientific, educational (such as tourism) or outreach reasons which cannot be served elsewhere, or for reasons essential to the management of the Area; • activities related to conservation, inspection, maintenance, research and/or monitoring purposes, • consistent with the aims and objectives of this Management Plan; • the actions permitted are in accordance with this Management Plan; • the activities permitted will give due consideration via the environmental impact assessment process to the continued protection of the historic values of the Area; • the Permit shall be issued for a finite period; and • the Permit shall be carried when in the Area.

We recognise and will adhere to the controls on access to and movement within the Area, which include:

• No access to Sørensen Hut given that access is limited to those who are part of authorised work parties.

• Visitors may enter the Main Hut and Magnetograph House provided that: o a person who has approved cultural heritage skills (to the satisfaction of the permitting Party) accompanies all visitors inside the huts; o visitation of the interior of the huts is limited to up to four (4) persons (including the guide) at any one time inside the Main Hut, and up to three (3) persons (including the guide) in the Magnetograph House; o artefacts, scientific and related conservation management equipment and the interior building fabric are not touched; o briefings on this Management Plan and the values of the ASPA are conducted prior to visits and adequate site interpretation materials are made available to each visitor; o visitors accessing the Area avoid sensitive historic artefacts, such as the artefacts scatter to the immediate north of the Main Hut, and other sensitive areas, such as lichen communities; o visitors do not touch the exterior fabric of the buildings or any artefacts; and o smoking in or near the huts is not permitted.

All other restrictions set out in the management plan will be adhered to.

Our Expedition Leaders are designated as suitably qualified person to supervise entry into the hut.

The full management plan for this site is available at: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/att549_e.pdf

A copy of the management plan will be carried on-board and when visiting the ASPA.

We also note the potential to operate adjacent to the following ASPAs. Entry permits are not being requested for these ASPAs, but over the next four years it is likely that we will be providing visitors with the opportunity to land or undertake activities adjacent to these locations.

ASPA 104: Sabrina Island, Balleny Islands ASPA 106: Cape Hallett ASPA 120: Point Geologie ASPA 121: Adelie penguin colony, Cape Royds (see Figure 15) ASPA 161: Terra Nova Bay ASPA 166: Port Martin

Copies of the management plans and maps for these sites will be carried on-board the vessels to ensure entry to these sites does not occur.

It is noted that the boundary for ASPA 157 at Cape Royds, is also the boundary for ASPA 121, the Adelie penguin colony. Care will be taken to ensure visitors do not cross the boundary into ASPA 121, though the opportunity to view the penguins from the designated viewing points will be provided (see figure 7 below. The penguin viewing areas are shown by the arrows on the map).

Figure 15. Map showing the shared boundary between ASPA 157 and ASPA 121. Penguins will be viewed from the areas shown by the arrows without entering ASPA 121.

As a courtesy we will inform the Australian Antarctic Division of our planned entry into ASPA 162 (if approved by MFAT) and will also send a separate notification to the New Zealand Antarctic Heritage Trust advising the dates of our visits to the historic huts in the Ross Sea region.

36 5. Description of Existing Environmental State

5.1. Ross Sea Region

An understanding of the environmental baseline is an important aspect of the environmental impact assessment process, and provides the basis for an assessment of the likely consequences of the planned activities on species, habitats and ecosystems.

For the Ross Sea region a comprehensive state of the environment report was prepared in 2001 by Waterhouse et al. This state of environment report concluded that “most of the Ross Sea region environment is in a pristine state, exceptionally so by global standards. The region contains some of the most undisturbed ecosystems in the world, and its value as a vast natural area, and for the conduct of scientific research is immeasurable.”

Although 15 years old, this reference state is likely to remain valid today due to only modest change in human activity and impacts in the area over this time.

5.2. Biogeographic Regions

Significant improvement in our understanding of Antarctic environments has been developed in recent years. The majority of Antarctica’s biodiversity is concentrated in ice-free areas, which amounts to little more than 46,000 km2, and is where most of Antarctica’s native biota is located.

A number of recent studies have shown that the biogeography of the continent in these ice-free regions is more complicated than originally thought (Stevens et al., 2006; Chown & Convey, 2007; Convey et al., 2008; De Wever et al., 2009; Mortimer et al., 2011), with substantial complexity even over relatively limited spatial range (Stevens & Hogg, 2006; Van de Wouw et al., 2007; McGaughran et al., 2010).

A series of bioregions across the continent have recently been defined, based on a range of physical and biological variables (Terauds et al., 2012; Terauds and Lee, 2016). Figure 16 shows the series of 16 Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs) that have been identified across the continent.

Figure 16. Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions. Reproduced from Terauds and Lee, 2016.

37 These ACBRs have been formally recognised by the ATCM (Resolution 6 (2012)) and are currently used across a range of studies; including in the assessment of current levels of area protection (Shaw et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2016), spatial analyses of biodiversity (e.g. Convey et al., 2014; Fraser et al., 2014; Chown et al., 2015), and non-native species assessments (McGeoch et al., 2015). All new management plans for proposed Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), and updates to existing management plans for ASPAs, now include the ACBR in which they are situated (ATCM Resolution 6, 2012).

There are also a number of recognised threats to these ice-free environments including the impacts of climate change, invasive species establishments, and their interaction (Walther et al., 2002; Frenot et al., 2005; Kennedy, 1995; Bergstrom & Chown, 1999; Chown et al., 2007), and the relocation of native biota between ACBRs.

It is important to recognise that the majority of our activities will take place on ice-free areas of the continent, and off-shore islands, and that we will be operating across three distinct ACBRs: ACBR 8 – North Victoria Land; ACBR 9 – South Victoria Land and ACBR 13 – Adelie Land (Figure 16). As such, all due care attention will be paid to implementing the necessary controls to ensure that the risk of introducing non-native species to and moving native biota between these regions is minimized as far as possible (see section 8 below).

5.3. Antarctic Specially Protected Areas

Area protection and management has been a focus of the Antarctic Treaty Parties since their adoption of the Agreed Measures on the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora in 1964; which provided for the designation of Specially Protected Areas. More recently Annex V to the Protocol on Environmental Protection rationalizes the protected areas system and provides for the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas.

Within our area of operation (the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica) several ASPAs and one ASMA (the Dry Valleys) have been designated by the Parties so as to afford specially protection to a range of features and values (Figures 17 and 181).

Figure 17. ASPAs designated in northern Victoria Land, Balleny Islands and Adelie Land.

1 These figures taken from www.ats.aq, but we note that they are not up-to-date for all ASPAs, and contain some inaccuracies e.g. location of ASPA 161 in figure 17.

Figure 18. ASPAs designated in southern Victoria Land and on Ross Island.

We recognise the designation of these important sites and that all activities within the boundaries of these sites are regulated by a management plan and that permit entry is required to all ASPAs.

Many of these ASPAs will be beyond or area of operation e.g. in-land and high altitude sites. Others we will be operating within the vicinity of, and a number we will request permission to enter to provide passengers the opportunity to experience the values for which they have been designated e.g. the historic huts on Ross Island and at Cape Adare (see section 4.5.35 above).

5.4. Important Bird Areas

Several ASPAs within the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica have been designated to protect breeding sites for seabirds and penguins.

Birds in Antarctica are subjected to a range of local and global threats to their health and survival, including direct disturbance to breeding by visitors, disturbance by aircraft or vehicles, accumulation of pollutants, exposure to hydrocarbon pollution as a result of both minor and major spills (Penhale et al. 1997), ingestion of or fouling by marine debris discarded in the Southern Ocean or further afield, competition for prey from fisheries, accidental by-catch on fishing lines or in nets, introduction of disease from other parts of the world (e.g. fowl cholera), and from large-scale changes to ecosystems as a result of global environmental change. Climate change may constitute the greatest threat to avifauna in the region, and has potential to pervade the entire region (Harris et al., 2015).

As a result of work undertaken by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and more recently by BirdLife International and Environmental Research and Assessment, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have identified and formally recognised 204 breeding sites that meet the global Important Bird Area (IBA) criteria in Antarctica (ATCM Resolution 5 (2015)). Several of these IBAs occur in the area of our operations (Figures 19 and 20).

Figure 19. Important Bird Areas identified in East Antarctica and northern Victoria Land. Figure reproduced from Harris et al., 2015.

Figure 20. Important Bird Areas identified in the Ross Sea region. Figure reproduced from Harris et al., 2015.

ATCM Resolution 5 (2015) requires operators in Antarctica to take account of these IBAs in the planning and conduct of their activities in Antarctica including in the preparation of environmental impact assessments.

We will be operating close to and visiting several of the IBAs in our area of operation so as to provide passengers with the opportunity to experience the birds present at these locations. All appropriate precautions will be taken to avoid any disturbance, including operating in the less sensative period of the breeding season and conformity to relevant IAATO and ATCM guidance material (see Section 8).

41 6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY

The consideration and presentation of alternatives has a number of important functions in any environmental impact assessment, in that such a consideration:

ü ensures the proponent has considered other approaches to the activity in question as a means of mitigating environmental impacts; ü provides the authorising agency with confidence that alternatives have genuinely been considered and rationally discounted; ü provides for a re-examination of options should unacceptable impacts occur through application of the preferred option.

It is noted here that the nature and scope of our planned activities are based on the premise of causing least disturbance to the last great wilderness. The very product that we are marketing is based on providing an opportunity for passengers to experience the pristine Antarctic environment.

We carry a small number of passengers compared to many other Antarctic tour operators, which means our shore landings are quick and light. We also operate in a small window of opportunity each season when ice conditions allow vessel access into the Ross Sea region. And the number of locations visited is relatively small. As a consequence the environmental risks that our operations carry are low from the outset.

As such there are few meaningful alternatives to our planned course of action if we are to achieve our mandate of providing passengers with a meaningful Antarctic experience.

Nonetheless, as part of this environmental impact assessment alternative activities have been considered in order to identify opportunities to further reduce the potential impacts to the environment. The reason why each alternative was not pursued is discussed below.

6.1. Changes to the Itinerary Changes to the itinerary (i.e. changes to the order in which localities are visited, and the date and the duration of the visit) are made due to a number of factors so as to reduce environmental impact. These factors include:

• known coincident visits to sites by other tourist expeditions; • known schedules for scientific activities at particular sites; • local weather conditions - e.g. an area vulnerable to pedestrian damage at a time when it is ice-free might be effectively protected earlier or later in the season by snow or ice cover.

Should it prove possible to establish in advance that other operators (national and non- governmental) intend to visit the same localities at the same time we will look to alter arrival times to reduce the coincident environmental loading.

6.2. Changes to sites visited A range of optional landing sites or activity locations have been identified in section 4.5 above, and the use of alternative locations is frequently used each season for a number of reasons.

All potential visitor sites have been selected against a series of characteristics, including accessibility, low environmental risk and issues of interest (e.g. wildlife or scenery). Some characteristics (e.g. Adèlie penguin colonies) are available at multiple sites and the visitor experience can be offered at alternative locations where operational or environmental conditions limit opportunities at a particular site. Other characteristics, e.g. the historic huts of particular heroic

42 era expeditions are only available at one location, and no alternatives exist.

Not all of the sites listed in section 4.5 will be visited in any one season. As noted above, it is not possible to firmly plan an itinerary in the Ross Sea region due to variability in weather and sea ice conditions on a daily, seasonal and inter-seasonal basis. As such, the listed potential sites provide a series of alternatives in any one season.

By default, the variable nature of landings between seasons assists in spreading the impact of our activities across a number of sites, and allows some sites to remain unvisited for one or more seasons.

6.3. Changes to the number of passengers A reduction in the total number of passengers could theoretically reduce the absolute level of any impact. Against this however, are the factors of acceptable cost for passengers; the financial return for the operator, and the carrying capacity of the vessel.

The present passenger complement of 50 passengers is at the low end of current Antarctic voyage numbers and is proven to be manageable in the field. The passenger to staff ratio of almost 12:1 that we provide is high among tour operators and allows for careful and attentive management of all passenger activities when ashore.

In order to reduce further the risk of impacts, the proposed activities ashore are all based upon dividing passengers into smaller operational groups. Under these circumstances a change in overall passenger numbers is not considered necessary or commercially viable.

6.4. Changes to vessels used Different vessels could in principle be explored. However, as noted above the current vessels are among the most capable polar vessels available, and crewed by individuals with significant Antarctic / polar experience. Further, this IEE has not found any appreciable environmental risk with the present vessels.

Contractual obligations and availability of the vessels are also important factors, and even if the current vessels were deemed to be unsuitable, HEL could not immediately make a decision to change.

Given the commercial / economic case, the relatively small passenger numbers and the lack of alternate vessels that are any better for the proposed operations than the Professor Khromov and Akademik Shokalskiy, this alternative has been dismissed.

6.5. Alternative of not proceeding The option of not proceeding at all would remove any risk of environmental impact.

However, there is both national and international acceptance of the legitimacy of Antarctic tourism, provided that environmental impacts have been adequately assessed and that activities are conducted to expected environmental standards.

The proposed activities set out in this IEE will be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protocol and its Annexes; all tourism-related ATCM Measures, Resolutions and earlier Recommendations; applicable marine regulations (i.e. MARPOL, SOLAS and ISM); national laws and regulations; and IAATO guidelines and standard operating procedures. This suite of controls has, and will continue to provide the basis for ensuring that impacts from our activities, if any, will be no more than minor or transitory.

As a commercial tour operator, any decision to cancel a planned series of cruises for anything less than the most compelling environmental reason would be contrary to our primary purpose, which is to operate tourist cruises to Antarctica.

44 7. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

7.1. Direct / indirect impacts The potential impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) that might arise from our planned activities are considered by assessing the potential consequences for flora and fauna, freshwater, marine, terrestrial and atmospheric environments. Because the locations of the proposed activities are diverse, the potential impacts are likely to be different at different sites. This impact assessment covers the worst-case scenario of the potential impacts that have been identified. The potential impacts are summarised in table 5 by their nature, spatial extent, duration, intensity, probability and reversibility. The significance of the identified potential impacts is then evaluated.

7.1.1. Vessel operations Through normal operations the vessels generate a number of outputs that interact with the environment including noise, discharges to air, discharges to sea and physical disturbance to ice and water when under way.

In extreme situations, the vessels could founder or be damaged allowing oil to be discharged into the marine environment. Direct environmental impacts under these scenarios would include pollution of the marine environment and possible fouling of individuals or groups of marine mammals and/or birds. The severity of such incidents is difficult to judge. In part it would depend on sea and weather conditions (i.e. dispersal characteristics). In open water, particularly far from land, the likely pollutants could be rapidly diluted, resulting in low direct impact. Were the vessels to be closer to shore, or in confined areas of pack ice, localised containment might follow, with potentially more concentrated impacts. It is possible that pollutants could be washed ashore with resulting impact there.

7.1.1.1. Garbage Garbage of any description released from the vessels presents a risk to wildlife through entanglement or ingestion by birds, seals and whales. Garbage may also wash ashore where it would cause visual pollution as well as be potentially harmful to wildlife.

7.1.1.2. Sewage If untreated sewage was discharged localized water quality could be affected through an increase in nutrient loading, although natural dispersal and dilution would quickly reduce any localized effects. Sewage discharge also risks the introduction of non-native microflora. Sewage discharged close to the shore could be washed ashore causing localized pollution, which could be harmful to wildlife in the short to medium term until it dispersed on wind and tide.

7.1.1.3. Ballast Water The uptake and discharge of Ballast water has the potential to introduce non-native marine organisms into the Southern Ocean or to relocate native marine species beyond their natural range (Jing et al, 2012).

7.1.1.4. Hull Fouling (Marine Organisms) Hull fouling on the vessels has the potential to contribute to the spread of non-native marine organisms (Hughes and Ashton, 2016).

7.1.1.5. Disturbance to marine biota The transit of the vessels through open water and through ice-covered waters has potential to interact with and cause disturbance to marine wildlife (e.g. through noise and visual disturbance), in particular whales and seals (Higham and Luck, 2007).

7.1.1.6. Anchoring The vessels will drop anchor at points of disembarking passengers for shore visits. This has safety benefits by providing a stable platform for the disembarkation of passengers into the Zodiacs and provides surety of the position of the vessels throughout the landing activity.

The dropping of anchors has potential to cause physical disturbance to the marine benthos, though this is likely to be negligible compared to the impacts resulting from nearshore iceberg scour (Dunlop et al., 2014).

7.1.2. Operation of Zodiacs. Passengers are moved to and from landing sites by zodiac inflatable boats with outboard engines. Outputs from these boats through normal operation include exhaust emissions, propeller wash and noise. Propeller wash in shallow nearshore environments has potential to disturb benthic environments; though in Antarctica the nearshore benthos is frequently impacted from annual ice formation and small icebergs.

The zodiacs could result in disturbance to wildlife; either those individuals in the water or animals and birds that are on ice floes or on land, through noise, wake wash or physical contact.

Zodiacs could discharge fuel or lubricating oils into the Marine environment.

Zodiacs could be the source of accidental introduction of non-native marine organisms as well as the transfer of native species between sites through the retention of soil and water from previous landings.

7.1.3. Passenger activities onshore The movement of people to and around landing sites ashore is the aspect of our activities that potentially carries the highest risk of environmental impact.

The outputs from this activity include, noise, visual and physical presence, disturbance of terrestrial environments and potential for waste to be disposed.

The potential environmental impacts that may arise include:

• the potential for the unintentional introduction or spread of propagules, disease and pathogens as well as the unintentional relocation of native species between biogeographic zones, through soil on footwear and/or seeds in/on equipment; • the above also includes the potential to introduce avian diseases to penguins and other bird species from poultry products taken ashore; • “tracking” or trampling of soils and vegetation from passengers and staff walking around; • visual, physical and noise disturbance to breeding birds, particularly penguins. Disturbance of incubating, brooding or guarding parents could predispose young to environmental stress (e.g. chilling/overheating) or increased risk of predation, or injury by neighbours (Coetzee and Chown, 2015); • visual, physical and noise disturbance to hauled-out seals; • damage to, or souveniring of historic artifacts through trampling or unsupervised activity; • littering and waste disposal through deliberate or accidental disposal of plastic bags, food wrappers and other items from participant’s packs; • release of human waste onto ice-free ground has the potential to spread disease to seals and birds through scavenging;

46 Additional consequences of our passenger landing activities could include:

• a breach of ASPA management plan rules or the inadvertent entry into ASPAs for which we do not have entry permits; • disturbance or disruption to research projects or equipment through tampering or interference with equipment or sites during visits to science facilities, including bases.

7.1.4. Snorkeling, Diving or Swimming

These activities present only minor potential for environmental impact. Outputs could include noise, water disturbance and physical impacts on shallow benthic environments from standing or holding. Impacts could include disturbance to any nearby wildlife or damage to sessile benthic species.

7.2. Cumulative impacts

A cumulative impact is the combined impact of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities. Cumulative impacts may occur over time and are assessed by looking at other human activities that are occurring or have occurred in the proposed locations.

The events described in this IEE will contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts in the Ross Sea region that occur as a result of all human activities, including from fishing operation, other tourist activities and the activities and impacts arising from National Antarctic programmes (notably those of Italy, Korea, New Zealand and the United States, who each have permanent facilities in the Ross Sea region and undertake a range of aircraft and vessel supported research and recreational activities). Several of the locations that we propose to visit are also visited by other tourist operators and by personnel from National Antarctic programmes (e.g. the historic huts on Ross Island). This means that the potential cumulative impacts will be greater than if our activity was being conducted in isolation.

7.2.1. Vessel Operations The Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy are likely to be part of a very small group of vessels operating in the Ross Sea region. Possibly one or two others will be tourist vessels, though this varies from season to season.

The majority of other vessels operating in the area will be fishing vessels, and the remaining vessels will be operating in support of National Antarctic programs. The fishing vessels and those vessels in support of National Programs will spend longer in the Antarctic Treaty Area than the tourist vessels.

Our vessels will contribute to the overall loading of atmospheric pollutants from the funnels and exhausts; to any releases of oil products during normal operation; to possible visual and acoustic and/or hydro-acoustic disturbance to marine biota.

7.2.2. Use of Zodiacs Exhaust emissions from the Zodiac’s will make a minor contribution to the overall loading of atmospheric pollutants in the Ross Sea region. Any oily discharges during normal operation will add to similar marine discharges from other vessels, though all such emissions are likely to disperse quickly and be transitory.

Noise will only be cumulative if other operators are in the area at the same time, and this is generally avoided other than around stations and bases.

Because of the small amounts of emissions and the short periods of operation of the Zodiacs cumulative impacts of the operation of these boats is likely to be negligible.

7.2.3. Passenger activities onshore This is the activity where cumulative impact appears most likely as a result of repeat visitation to certain sites and to sites that are also visited by other tour operators and National Antarctic programmes.

Potential areas of cumulative impact to which our operations might contribute include: • degradation of the inside of historic structures and/or artifacts from abrasion, humidity, etc.; • long-term, chronic effects on breeding populations of birds through regular disturbance resulting in changes in behaviour (e.g. learning to be afraid, or tolerant, of human presence) (see Coetzee and Chown, 2015); • effects on vegetation or periglacial ground through additive effects of pedestrian traffic; • introduction and establishment of new microbial or plant assemblages through incidental introductions over time, or the relocation of native Antarctic species through regular movement of people and equipment between sites in the Ross Sea region; • changes in attitudes over time towards acceptable uses of localities through greater familiarity and established precedent; • changes in numbers of visitors to ‘present’ sites, and interest in opening up ‘new‘ sites as the market for Antarctic tourism is expanded.

HEL supplies IAATO and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade with full details of the sites used each year and the number of passengers ashore and for how long.

7.2.4. Passengers activities in the water The cumulative impacts of a small group of people undertaking a very limited amount of diving or snorkeling on an occasional basis is likely to be negligible.

7.3. Environmental Impact Assessment

7.3.1. Methods and data

The Protocol does not define the term “environmental impact assessment”. However the Antarctic Treaty System’s Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) has developed “Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica”. These were recently revised and updated (Resolution 1 (2016)). The updated guidelines record that “EIA is a process having the ultimate objective of providing decision makers with an indication of the likely environmental consequences of a proposed activity. The process of predicting the environmental impacts of an activity and assessing their significance is the same regardless of the apparent magnitude of the activity.”

For this IEE, the methodology for assessing the environmental impacts set out in the CEP’s Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctic was followed.

This involved: i. Identifying the outputs (physical change imposed on or released to the environment as the result of an action or activity such as emissions, mechanical action on the substrate, fuel spills, noise, wastes, heat, introduced species, etc.) of the activities described in section 4;

48 ii. Identifying the exposure (interaction between an identified potential output and environmental element including the flora and fauna, freshwater, marine, terrestrial and atmospheric environments) of those outputs on the Antarctic environment; and iii. Identifying the impacts (change in the values or resources attributable to a human activity) on the environmental elements that are exposed.

The significance of the identified impacts were then evaluated (summarising the spatial extent, duration, intensity and probability of the potential impacts to each environmental element) regarding the importance of a change in a given environmental element by taking into account the three levels of significance identified by Article 8(1) of the Protocol.

7.3.2. Identification of outputs from the proposed activities

An output is a physical change in (e.g. movement of sediments by vehicle passage, or noise), or an entity imposed on or released to (e.g. emissions) the environment as the result of an activity (ATCM Resolution 1 (2016)).

The main activities considered in this assessment were: 1. The operation of the vessels for getting to Antarctica and moving between locations in Antarctica; 2. The operation of the zodiacs for moving people to and from shore landings or undertaking zodiac cruising; 3. The movement and activities of people ashore during shore landings; 4. In-water activities such as diving, snorkelling and swimming. The potential outputs from each of these broad activities are identified in the Table 2.

49 Table 2. Outputs associated with the conduct of ship-borne tourism activities in the Ross Sea region OUTPUTS Mechanical action Atmospheric (physical disturbance to Wastes emissions Presence/ Noise Light Heat Electromagnetic Air the substrate such as Fuel (disposal Water Introduced ACTIVITY (including burning fossil visual emissions emissions emissions and radio waves turbulence tracking, erosion and spills and turbulence species fuels, the creation of disturbance other ground discharge) dust) disturbances) Vessel operations Under way; moving through ice; radio communication, P P P P P P P P P radar and sonar use; production of waste from general activities Zodiac / small boat operations Ferrying passengers to and from ship and P P P P P P shore; cruising around wildlife and scenic spots Passenger activities onshore Walking around; talking; generation of waste, including P P P P P P human waste; ship to shore communication Swimming / diving / snorkeling P P P P

50 7.3.3. Identification of exposures to the Antarctic environment

Exposure is the process of interaction between an identified potential output and an environmental element or value (ATCM Resolution 1 (2016)).

The environmental elements susceptible to the activities and their outputs (identified in table 2 above) are outlined in Table 3.

Note: The exposure of an activity’s output may vary in intensity in differing environments and is not accounted for in this table. This is a general environmental assessment. Further information of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts is provided below.

Table 3: The environmental elements susceptible to the outputs from activities associated with the planned tourism activities.

ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS FRESHWATER TERRESTRIAL AESTHETIC FLORA (including ponds, OUTPUT OF (including ice free AND AND streams, rivers, MARINE ATMOSPHERE ACTIVITIES ground, soil and WILDERNESS FAUNA lakes, glaciers and rocks) VALUES ice) Atmospheric emissions P Noise emissions P Light emissions Heat emissions P Electromagnetic and radio waves P Air turbulence Mechanical action P Fuel spills P P P Wastes P P P P Water turbulence P Introduced species P P P P Presence/Visual disturbance P P

7.3.4. Significance of predicted impacts

Sections 7.1 and 7.2 consider the potential (direct, indirect and cumulative) impacts of the planned activities. This section evaluates the identified potential impacts by taking into account the three levels of significance that are provided for in the Protocol (Article 8(1)) i.e. less than, no more than or more than minor or transitory.

In order to evaluate the significance of a given potential impact, the spatial extent, duration, intensity (which also includes a level of reversibility) and probability of the identified potential impacts are considered in the evaluation of the significance of the potential impact of each activity. Table 4 (modified from Oerter, 2000) outlines the assessment criteria used when evaluating the spatial extent, duration, intensity and probability of the identified potential impacts for the environmental elements.

The following terms are defined and used in the following tables:

Spatial extent: area or volume where changes are likely to occur Duration: period of time during which changes in the environment are likely to occur Intensity: a measure of the amount of change imposed on the environment due to the activity Probability: chance of the occurrence of the impact

Table 5 summarises the impact assessment of each environmental element identified in Section 7.3.3 and evaluates their significance by taking into account the spatial extent, duration, intensity and probability of the potential impacts.

In addition, mitigation measures have been included in Table 5 to emphasize the precautionary approach that we take to all our activities in Antarctica.

Table 4: Assessment criteria for evaluating the spatial extent, duration, intensity and probability of the potential environmental impacts (modified from Oerter, 2000). Criteria of assessment Environment Low Medium High Very High Impact Element (1) (2) (3) (4) Local extent Partial extent Major extent Entire extent Freshwater Marine Some parts of an Large-scale impact; Confined to the site of A major sized area Terrestrial area are partially causing further Atmosphere the activity. is affected. EXTENT OF affected. impact. IMPACT

Area or volume Confined disturbance where changes Major disturbance of fauna and flora Some parts of the are likely to occur in community, e.g. Impairment at Flora and Fauna within site of activity, community are breeding success is population level. e.g. individuals disturbed. reduced. affected.

Short term Medium term Long term Permanent DURATION OF Freshwater IMPACT Marine Several weeks to one Several seasons to Environment will Terrestrial season; short several years; Decades; impacts suffer permanent Period of time Atmosphere compared to natural impacts are are reversible. impact. during which processes. reversible. changes in the environment are Short compared to Medium compared Long compared to likely to occur Flora and Fauna growth period/ to growth/ breeding growth/ breeding Permanent. breeding season. season. season. Minimal Affect Affected High Irreversible

Natural functions or Natural functions or Natural functions or Freshwater Natural functions and processes of the processes of the processes of the Marine INTENSITY OF processes of the environment are environment are environment are Terrestrial IMPACT environment are affected, but are affected or changed permanently Atmosphere minimally affected. not subject to long- over the long term. disrupted. A measure of the Reversible. lasting changes. Reversibility Irreversible or amount of change Reversible. uncertain. chronic changes. imposed on the environment due to the activity High levels of Medium disturbance. Very high levels of Minor disturbance. Flora and Fauna disturbance. Recovery slow and disturbance. Recovery definite. Recovery likely. uncertain. Recovery unlikely.

PROBABILITY Should not occur Likely to occur under normal Possible but Certain to occur - during span of Chance of the operation and unlikely. unavoidable. project. Probable. occurrence of the conditions. impact

53 Table 5: Evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the planned activities on the Antarctic environment. Environmental Impact Evaluation Environmental Mitigation of Impact Element Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance Impacted • Follow IAATO guidelines for wildlife watching (seals, birds, Low Low Medium Medium Disturbance to wildlife cetaceans) and the provisions of Resolution 3 (2011). Confined Short compared Minor Disturbance may • If birds or seals are close to walking routes, deviations will be (noise emissions, mechanical action Less than disturbance of to growth disturbance but occur at some made where it is safe to do so. on the substrate, anchoring, physical minor or fauna within local period / recovery likely sites through • Minimise noise and disturbance at all times, where practical. presence of people, presence and area of activity, breeding normal operations transitory • Keep to existing tracks. operation of the vessels and small e.g. individuals season boats) affected • Understand and follow all protected area management plans while visiting ASPAs. Low Low Medium Medium • Careful activity management to avoid flora to the maximum Only small parts Impacts of Moderate levels Possible but if extent possible. Disturbance to flora of any community short duration of disturbance mitigation Less than • Passengers advised to keep to existing tracks and avoid walking may be disturbed (5/6 hours may occur at measures are minor or (fuel spills or mechanical action of on flora. max.) but some sites; followed should transitory the substrate from walking, etc.) repeat visits in recovery slow be unlikely • Understand and follow all protected and managed area and between and uncertain management plans while visiting ASPAs. seasons

Disposal of wastes Low Low Low Medium • Discharges from the vessels only in accordance with MARPOL (activities ashore may generate Discharges from Discharges will Minor Some sewage and Annex IV provisions. Less than waste; sewage and domestic liquids the vessel will be of short disturbance; waste will be • No release of human waste ashore. minor or waste disposal from the main vessel disperse, but will duration from recovery likely disposed of from • No garbage discharged / left ashore. FLORA AND FAUNA quickly become the vessel the vessels transitory may have effects on marine biota) • No garbage discharge from the vessel. diluted • Passengers briefed to secure items at all times.

High High High Medium Potential introduction of non-native • Follow IAATO Biosecurity / decontamination guidelines. species Many sites visited Potential for High levels of Possible but low • Follow guidance contained in the CEP Non-native species in Ross Sea region impacts to be disturbance likelihood if No more than manual. (human activities may introduce non- - potential to of long may occur if mitigation minor or • Briefing and education provided to all passengers and crew. transfer native duration – non-natives are measures are native species, or relocate native transitory • Boot and equipment cleaning prior to and after any shore visit. species well though species introduced followed species between sites - especially • Zodiacs cleaned between sites microorganisms) beyond their specific natural range • Controls on all food taken ashore.

54 Environmental Impact Evaluation Environmental Mitigation of Impact Element Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance Impacted

Low Low Low Low

Pollution of freshwater bodies Confined to the Impacts will be Minor Unlikely. site of the activity of short disturbance; Interaction with Less than • Avoidance of freshwater systems. (fuel spills, waste disposal and other duration recovery likely any freshwater minor or contaminants may enter freshwater to be slow bodies will be very • Controls on items and materials taken ashore. transitory bodies) limited if at all FRESHWATER

Low Low Low Medium Confined to the Shirt periods Minor Discharges from Pollution of marine environment site of the of discharge disturbance; the vessels will Less than • Discharges to the marine environment only in compliance with (disposal of sewage and domestic activity at least 12nm recovery likely occur; though in minor or MARPOL and Annex IV provisions (i.e. vessels travelling at 4 liquids through the on-board from shore full compliance transitory knots or more and at least 12nm from the shore). treatment plant) with MARPOL

and Annex IV to the Protocol

High High High Medium

MARINE • Vessels dry-docked and hulls cleaned annually. Vessels cover Potential for High levels of Possible but low • Compliance with MEPC Resolution ‘Guidelines for the control large distances impacts to be disturbance likelihood if Introduction of non-native marine No more than and management of ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of in any one year of long may occur if mitigation species duration if non-natives are measures are minor or invasive aquatic species’ adopted at MEPC.207(62) 2011. and visit several (hull fouling, ballast water transfers) species become introduced followed transitory • Conformance with IMO’s Resolution MEPC.163(56) on locations in established – Antarctica Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty though species Area and ATCM Resolution 3 (2006). specific

55 Environmental Impact Evaluation Environmental Mitigation of Impact Element Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance Impacted

Low Medium Low High Confined to the Any one visit Minor Some tracking site of the ashore is of disturbance; likely to occur / Physical disturbance to natural activity very short recovery has occurred at No more than features • Use existing tracks wherever possible. duration possible some sites minor or • Walk on snow patches or hard rock where possible. (activities from observation / (hours); transitory familiarisation walks ashore) though impacts could be long lasting

Low High High Low If it were to Long term if it Significant if it Very unlikely to TERRESTRIAL occur, were to were to occur; occur due to Contamination to substrate contamination occur: though for limited Less than • All waste will be handled and disposed of in a manner consistent (fuel spills or other unnatural would be contaminants only a small substances minor or with the Protocol. substances including human waste) confined to a from spills area due to taken ashore transitory • Return waste to the vessel for disposal. small area can persist for small volumes and careful decades management of human waste

Low Low Low High

Pollution to the atmosphere Confined to Duration of Air Emissions will local area impacts from environment occur (release of emissions from the emissions will will be Less than burning of fossil fuels for power be short term minimally minor or • Use suitable fuel (light diesel). generation; plus other noise, light, due to high affected transitory heat and electromagnetic and radio winds and waves emissions)

ATMOSPHERE rapid dispersal

56 Environmental Impact Evaluation Environmental Mitigation of Impact Element Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance Impacted

Low Medium Low High Small areas are Some visible Environment Impacts are visited only impacts e.g. may be likely to occur / Interference with aesthetic and • Follow all guidance material. tracks may affected but have occurred wilderness values • Use natural topography of sites to minimise the visual impact of persist for will not be as a result of Less than walking / tracking. (Evidence of human presence in a more than subject to tourism minor or • Tightly secure rubbish and other items to avoid them being pristine environment, e.g. noise, one season long lasting presence in transitory blown away. waste and modifications to the changes. Antarctica • Leave nothing behind. natural landscape) • Take no souvenirs (i.e. do not collect anything). AESTHETIC AND WILDERNESS VALUES

Medium High High High No more than Cumulative Cumulative Natural Cumulative minor or • Combined impact on each Concentrate activities in already impacted sites. impacts occur impacts could ecosystem impacts are transitory environmental element from past, • Mitigate and monitor all activities. at sites of high last for functions and almost certain present and reasonably foreseeable (Contribution • Follow all guidance material. activity. Ross decades; processes may to occur future activities to cumulative • Sewage and domestic liquid waste discharged to MARPOL and Island sites (e.g. reversibility be affected or impacts from Annex IV provisions. (impacts will combine with the Cape Royds and uncertain changed over tourism is • Use existing tracks wherever possible. effects of other tour operators, Cape Evans) are long term; very small • Walk on rocks when in areas where no snow is available. fishing vessels and the impacts identified as reversibility compared to • Restrict pedestrian movement to specific areas. arising from national programme sites of high uncertain contribution • Leave nothing behind. activities in the region) potential from national • Take no souvenirs. cumulative

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS programme impacts activities)

57 8. MITIGATING AND MANAGING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS.

8.1. General Matters

As an IAATO Member and with over 20 years of experience operating in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica, Heritage Expeditions has established a strong reputation for conducting environmentally responsible tourism. We implement a range of measures to mitigate or reduce the potential environmental impacts of our activities.

A number of key mitigation measures are summarised in table 5 above and are discussed below in more detail against the identified aspects of our activities.

An important component of our mitigation strategy is full compliance with the broad range of regulatory requirements and operational guidance that exists to manage tourism activities in Antarctica. This includes international legislation, such as the 1959 Antarctic Treaty and its 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection as well as a suite of measures adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Parties at their regular meetings, and international maritime agreements adopted by the International Maritime Organisation; national legislation, such as the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994, and guidance material developed by IAATO as well as IAATO by laws.

A full summary of this material is provided at Appendix 3 and elements of it are referred to below.

In advance of each season, the IAATO Secretariat compiles and disseminates a Field Operations Manual. The manual provides a suite of material relating to tourist operations in the Antarctic Treaty Area. The Manual provides guidance for office personnel, Expedition Leaders, and ship’s commands. The manual contains relevant ATCM documents (including applicable Measures and Resolutions applicable to tourism operations), marine regulations, national laws and regulations, IAATO guidelines and standard operating procedures, as well as a host of other information.

8.2. Vessel Operations

The likelihood of any impacts from ship operation are significantly reduced through: a) The use of high-grade polar-capable ships. Both vessels are compliant with the proposed Polar Shipping Code and all relevant maritime legislation (see Appendix 3), and have in place an International Safety Management System. b) The use of qualified crew. Both vessels are crewed by some of the most qualified crew, who meet all relevant qualifications specified by the Russian Maritime Registry. The combined experience of the Captain and officers of the vessels is unequalled in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica. Each crew member is aware of his or her obligations under the Protocol. As operators and charterers of the vessels we provide a translated talk to the crew to remind them of their obligations at the commencement of each season. Written materials pertaining to obligations under the Protocol (including complete copies of the Protocol and its Annexes) are carried on board; c) participation by both vessels in IAATO’s Vessel Tracking System, which is compulsory for member vessel operators. This system tracks all IAATO vessels on a single website using state of the art technology; d) full cooperation and communication with New Zealand’s Rescue Coordination Centre; 58 e) the use of the most up-to-date hydrographic and sea-ice charts; f) implementation of a best practice approach to all we do, which have been learnt, refined and implemented over 20 years of annual expeditions.

8.2.1. Oil and Oily Mixtures

Both the ‘Spirit of Enderby’ (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy comply with the standards required under Article 3 of Annex IV.

No heavy fuel is carried on board as required by IMO’s Regulation under Annex I of MARPOL.

Waste oil will be retained on board for disposal on return to New Zealand and or Australia. Officers and crew are trained in emergency response procedures.

8.2.2. Garbage

On board incineration of waste is an approved garbage treatment process under MARPOL and MEPC.59(33) incorporates specifications for ship-board incinerators. Waste disposal by incineration is also provided for in Article 3 of Annex II to the Protocol.

The incinerators on the Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy are designed, constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with MARPOL standards. Dry garbage is incinerated daily at a rate of 30 kilograms per hour. Medical wastes including sharps and all plastics are incinerated with dry garbage. Any plastics not able to be incinerated will be brought back along with unburnable items to Port and disposed of through a Port approved facility.

All our expeditions will comply with the waste management provisions of Annex III to the Protocol. We will avoid taking to Antarctica the products listed in Article 2 of Annex III to the extent practicable and remove from the Antarctic Treaty area any of the waste products listed in Article 3 of Annex III.

We will not take to Antarctica any of the prohibited products listed in Article 7 of Annex III to the Protocol. Such materials will be prohibited from being loaded onto the vessel prior to its departure. Publicity and provision for this will be given on board ship to ensure full compliance from all participants.

Food wastes will be separated into 'poultry products' (Annex II, Appendix C) and 'all other products' (and passengers will have the necessity for this explained to them in order to facilitate recovery). All poultry wastes will be either frozen for disposal upon return to New Zealand or incinerated. ‘All other products‘ predominately kitchen waste from food preparation, will be stored on board until it can be released into the sea north of 60 degrees south or passed through a grinder then disposed of at sea as provided for in Article 5(s) of Annex IV to the Protocol.

8.2.3. Sewage

The Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy comply with MARPOL requirements for sewage treatment. All sewage, grey water and kitchen sink water is stored until it can be processed. The treatment plant chlorinates and flocculates sewage, separating solids and liquids. Treated liquid waste is held in tanks and disposed of when the ship is north of 60 degrees south, if this is not possible (depending on quantity) then it will be discharged at a speed of no less than 4 knots and only when the ship is more than 12 nautical miles from the coast or ice shelves; consistent with Article 6 of Annex IV to the Protocol. Sewage sludge is drawn from the treatment plant and incinerated. 59

8.2.4. Ballast Water

Both vessels comply with international guidelines for preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens from ship's ballast water and sediment discharges, including IMO’s Resolution MEPC.163(56) on Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty Area (see also ATCM Resolution 3 (2006)).

If the Master requires the uptake and release of ballast water for any reason, this will be done in the Southern Ocean north of 60 degrees south. A full ballast record is keep as required under IMO regulations.

8.2.5. Hull Fouling

As operator and charterer of these vessels HEL partners with International Paints Ltd (the leading authority on marine applications) and the vessel owners to insure that we are using the best antifouling system possible to prevent the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms to the region. Both vessels are dry-docked and anti-fouled annually and operate under IMO guidelines. (Appendix II of MEPC Resolution ‘Guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species’ adopted at MEPC.207(62) 2011).

8.2.6. Avoidance of harmful interference with biota

In open water, or in pack ice, the vessel can often encounter seals and whales. Whale watching is part of the Antarctic experience and we will make every effort to show the passengers marine mammals at sea, where this is possible. In such circumstances the vessel will adhere to IAATO’s Cetacean Watching Guidelines (see Appendix 3) so as to minimise any disturbance to the animals. This involves reducing speed, holding a steady course and maintaining a distance of no closer than 100 metres behind the animal. All efforts will be taken to avoid disturbance to animals on ice floes. When landing passengers ashore the vessels will maintain a separation distance from the shore of at least 500 metres so as to avoid disturbance to wildlife on shore.

8.3. Operation of Zodiacs

Refueling of the Zodiacs is done in a controlled situation on board the Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy so as to reduce the risk of spills.

Where practical HEL uses only 4-stroke outboard motors to reduce emissions and noise. The use of 4-stroke outboard motors on the Zodiac’s where possible significantly reduces the amount of pollutants released by these landing craft.

Zodiac cruising for wildlife viewing purposes will be done in accordance with IAATO guidelines for this activity. The Expedition Leader or a delegated staff person supervises all zodiac cruising operations and zodiacs will be operated in such a manner as to avoid harmful interference to wildlife.

The Zodiacs are frequently hosed down and washed including with a fungicide, to help prevent the spread or introduction of organisms to or between landing sites. 60

8.4. Passenger activities ashore

All passenger activities ashore are carefully managed and controlled in conformity with ATCM Recommendation XVIII-1 (1994), and ATCM Resolutions 7 (2009) and 3 (2011), as well as with IAATO guidelines.

In keeping with IAATO Guidelines at least 75% of Heritage Expeditions Ltd staff (excluding hotel staff) have had prior Antarctic experience. Staff are appointed seasonally and details can be provided in each seasonal update to MFAT. A suitably qualified Medical Advisor will accompany each expedition. The Medical Advisors are on call 24 hours a day for any medical emergencies. They will be pro-active in the area of safety ensuring that passengers are well dressed and prepared for each excursion.

Prior to moving ashore passengers are fully briefed on the site characteristics and safety and environmental requirements. Passengers are informed of any known vulnerable areas, sites or species so they can be avoided or appropriate avoidance responses practiced.

Occasionally the Expedition Leader or guides will make a preliminary “scouting” landing to identify any areas of concern to assist in providing a full and complete briefing to the passengers.

The risk of transfer of non-native and native species to and between sites is mitigated in several ways in conformity with IAATO decontamination guidelines and the CEP’s non-native species manual. Passengers are obliged to wash boots and equipment before and between all landings and to check all clothing, with particular attention to Velcro, seams and pockets. The zodiacs and associated equipment are also washed with a fungicide between all major landings where practical.

Passengers are disembarked in small groups and a passenger to Guide ratio of approximately 12:1 is maintained at all times.

Activities ashore are carefully managed in accordance with ATCM Resolution 3 (2011), Measure 15 (2009) and any relevant site-specific guidelines (see Appendix 2) or ASPA Management Plan requirements.

Minimum approach distances to wildlife are maintained in accordance with IAATO wildlife watching guidelines, to ensure the group does not have any harmful interference or disturbance. Staff are experienced to watch for any undue disturbance and if this is noted these distances may have to be increased on occasions. Passengers are also briefed on wildlife behavior to watch for which may indicate stress and they will be instructed to move back if this behavior is noted.

Visits to the Ross Sea region are conducted only in the months of January and February when the breeding season is well advanced. This further reduces the risk of disturbance, compared to the more sensitive, early part of the breeding season.

Special briefings are given to passengers prior to entering any ASPAs that we have approval for and the conditions of the relevant management plan are explained. A copy of the relevant management plan is carried ashore by the Expedition Leader or guide.

Special briefings are given prior to going to any of the historic huts. The number of people in the ASPA and in the historic huts at any one time is carefully controlled in accordance with the requirements of the relevant management plan.

61 Visits to stations and bases are undertaken in communication with and under the direction of the station leader or their designate.

The “IAATO Guidelines for passengers behavior ashore” will be our guide to reduce the likelihood of any impacts specifically mentioned above.

No poultry products are permitted to be taken ashore.

Special attention is paid to ensure that all passengers secure personal items while ashore, travelling in zodiacs and on the deck of the vessels to avoid loss of equipment or waste.

No defecating is permitted on shore. Where lengthier landings are made and this may become an issue, participants will be either issued with a personal “poo bag” or a chemical toilet will be taken ashore.

A careful watch is maintained on all landings to ensure no souveniring (of rocks, bones or historic artefacts) occurs.

8.5. Snorkeling, Diving and Swimming

Diving and snorkeling activities are infrequent and undertaken only when ice and weather conditions are suitable.

All diving and snorkeling operations are carried out on an “observation only” basis. The collection or touching of any species or items is not permitted unless the person(s) concerned have an approval / permit to do so from a relevant authority (e.g. scientists travelling with us). No life forms will be intentionally disturbed or interfered with.

Any swimming activity is also infrequent and only undertaken in calm conditions and with a support boat in attendance.

62 9. Conclusion

Heritage Expeditions Ltd. has a long history of experience of conducting successful vessel-based tourist visits to the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica.

The very purpose of our business is to provide an opportunity for visitors to experience one of the least disturbed environments remaining on the planet and to offer safe and environmentally responsible travel to the region.

Antarctic tourism is a legitimate activity that is managed under the Antarctic Treaty System and through a professional and responsible industry body (IAATO).

The activities that we support, like all human activities in the region, have the potential to cause environmental impacts, including through discharges and emissions to the environment, disturbance to wildlife and the introduction of non-native species.

However, Heritage Expeditions is committed to protecting the integrity of the Antarctic and supporting the Antarctic Treaty System through careful pre-planning and full adherence national laws and regulations, as well as the general obligations of the Environmental Protocol and its Annexes as well as wider obligations under the Antarctic Treaty System, IAATO membership requirements, guidelines and standard operating procedures and shipping requirements in general.

With these controls in place, it is the conclusion of this IEE that the Antarctic tourism cruises to be undertaken by the Spirit of Enderby (Professor Khromov) and Akademik Shokalskiy over the next four seasons will have less than and certainly no more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment. Consequently, no higher-level evaluation (i.e. CEE) appears necessary, and this IEE is therefore submitted to the Minister in accordance with section 18 of the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994.

63 References

Bergstrom, D. & Chown, S.L. (1999) Life at the front: history, ecology and change on Southern Ocean islands. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 472–477.

Chown, S.L. & Convey, P. (2007) Spatial and temporal variability across life’s hierarchies in the terrestrial Antarctic. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 2307– 2331.

Chown, S.L., Slabber, S., McGeoch, M.A., Janion, C. & Leinaas, H.P. (2007) Phenotypic plasticity mediates climate change responses among invasive and indigenous arthropods. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2661–2667.

Chown, S.L., Clarke, A., Fraser, C.I., Cary, S.C., Moon, K.L.& McGeoch, M.A. (2015) The changing form of Antarctic biodiversity. Nature, 522, 431–438.

Coetzee, B. W. T. and Chown, S. L. (2015), A meta-analysis of human disturbance impacts on Antarctic wildlife. Biological Reviews. doi: 10.1111/brv.12184

Convey, P., Gibson, J.A.E., Hillenbrand, C.D., Hodgson, D. A., Pugh, P.J.A., Smellie, J.L. & Stevens, M.I. (2008) Antarctic terrestrial life – challenging the history of the frozen continent? Biological Reviews, 83, 103–117.

Convey, P., Chown, S.L., Clarke, A., Barnes, D.K., Bokhorst, S., Cummings, V., Ducklow, H.W., Frati, F., Green, T.G., Gordon, S. & Griffiths, H.J. (2014) The spatial structure of Antarctic biodiversity. Ecological Monographs, 84, 203–244.

De Wever, A., Leliaert, F., Verleyen, E., Vanormelingen, P., Van der Gucht, K., Hodgson, D.A., Sabbe, K. & Vyverman, W. (2009) Hidden levels of phylodiversity in Antarctic green algae: further evidence for the existence of glacial refugia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 3591–3599.

Dunlop, K.M., Barnes, D.K.A., Bailey, D.M. (2014) Variation of scavenger richness and abundance between sites of high and low iceberg scour frequency in Ryder Bay, west Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology, 37 (12), 1741-1754

Fraser, C.I., Terauds, A., Smellie, J., Convey, P. & Chown, S.L. (2014) Geothermal activity helps life survive glacial cycles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 5634–5639.

Frenot, Y., Chown, S.L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey, P., Skotnicki, M. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2005) Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implications. Biological Reviews, 80, 45–72.

Harris, C.M., Lorenz, K., Fishpool, L.D.C., Lascelles, B., Cooper, J., Croxall, J.P., Emmerson, L.M., Fijn, R., Fraser, W.L., Jouventin, P., LaRue, M.A., Le Maho, Y., Lynch, H.J., Naveen, R., Patterson- Fraser, D.L., Peter, H.-U., Poncet, S., Phillips, R.A., Southwell, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Weimerskirch, H., Wienecke, B., & Woehler, E.J. (2015) Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015 Summary. BirdLife International and Environmental Research & Assessment Ltd., Cambridge.

Higham, J.E.S., and Luck, M. (2007) Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management: Insights from the Natural and Social sciences. CABI, ISBN 978 1 84593 345 6, 395pp

Hughes, K.A. and Ashton, G.V. (2016) Breaking the ice: the introduction of biofouling organisms to 64 Antarctica on vessel hulls. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2625

Hughes, K.A., Ireland, L., Convey, P. & Fleming, A.H. (2016) Assessing the effectiveness of specially protected areas for conservation of Antarctica’s botanical diversity. Conservation Biology, 30, 113–120.

Jing, L., Chen, B., Zhang, B. and Peng, H. (2012) A review of ballast water management practices and challenges in harsh and arctic environments. Environmental Reviews, 20:83-108, 10.1139/a2012-002

Kennedy, A.D. (1995) Antarctic terrestrial ecosystem response to global environmental change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 683–704.

McGaughran, A., Torricelli, G., Carapelli, A., Frati, F., Stevens, M.I., Convey, P. & Hogg, I.D. (2010) Contrasting phylogeographical patterns for springtails reflect different evolutionary histories between the Antarctic Peninsula and continental Antarctica. Journal of Biogeography, 37, 103–119.

McGeoch, M.A., Shaw, J.D., Terauds, A., Lee, J.E. & Chown, S.L. (2015) Monitoring biological invasion across the broader Antarctic: a baseline and indicator framework. Global Environmental Change, 32, 108–125.

Mortimer, E., Van Vuuren, B.J., Lee, J.E., Marshall, D.J., Convey, P. & Chown, S.L. (2011) Mite dispersal among the Southern Ocean Islands and Antarctica before the last glacial maximum. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1247–1255.

Oerter I.H. (2000) Comprehensive Environmental Impact Evaluation for Recovering a Deep Ice Core in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, October 2000. Alfred-Wegener-Institute, Germany.

Penhale, P.A., Coosen, J. & Marschoff, E.R. (1997) The Bahia Paraiso: a case study in environmental impact, remediation and monitoring. In Battaglia, B., Valencia, J. & Walton, D.W.H. (eds) Antarctic Communities: species, structure and survival. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 437-44.

Shaw, J., Terauds, A., Riddle, M.J., Possingham, H.P. & Chown, S.L. (2014) Antarctica’s protected areas are inadequate, unrepresentative and at risk. Plos Biology, 12, e1001888.

Stevens, M.I. & Hogg, I.D. (2006) Contrasting levels of mitochondrial DNA variability between mites (Penthalodidae) and springtails (Hypogastruridae) from the Trans-Antarctic Mountains suggest long-term effects of glaciation and life history on substitution rates, and speciation processes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38, 3171–3180.

Stevens, M.I., Greenslade, P., Hogg, I.D. & Sunnucks, P. (2006) Southern Hemisphere springtails: could any have survived glaciation of Antarctica? Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23, 874–882.

Terauds, A. & Lee, J.R. (2016) Antarctic biogeography revisted: updating the Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions. Diversity and Distributions, 22. 836 – 840.

Terauds, A., Chown, S.L., Morgan, F., Peat, H.J., Watts, D.J., Keys, H., Convey, P. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2012) Conservation biogeography of the Antarctic. Diversity and Distributions, 18, 726–741.

Van de Wouw, M., van Dijk, P. & Huiskes, A. (2007) Regional genetic diversity patterns in Antarctic hairgrass (Deschampsia antarctica Desv.). Journal of Biogeography, 35, 365 –376. 65

Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T.J.C., Fromentin, J.-M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bairlein, F. (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416, 389–395.

Appendix 1. Maps

A1. Cape Adare

67 A2. Cape Bird, Ross Island

68 A3. Cape Royds, Ross Island

69 A4.1. Cape Evans, Ross Island

70 A4.2. Cape Evans, ASPA Site Map

71 A5. Hut Point, Ross Island

72 A6. McMurdo Station, Ross Island

73 A7. Cape Hallett

74 A8. Terra Nova Bay

75 A9. Balleny Islands

76 A10. Botany Bay, Granite Harbour

77 A11. Cape Denison

78 Appendix 2. VISITOR SITE GUIDELINES

The aim of these guidelines is to provide specific instructions on the conduct of activities at visited Antarctic sites. This includes practical guidance for tour operators and guides on how they should conduct visits in those sites, taking into account their environmental values and sensitivities.

Three of the sites that we routinely use in the Ross Sea region and East Antarctica have Site Specific Visitor Guidelines in place. They are:

• Seebee Hook & Cape Hallett • Cape Royds • Mawson’s Huts and Cape Denison

The current versions of these visitor guidelines are included below.

79 80

Appendix 3. International and National Regulatory controls for Antarctic Tourism activities

Antarctic Treaty 1959

Advance Notification (of intent to travel to Antarctica) is required under Article VII(5) of the Antarctic Treaty (http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf).

Environmental Protocol 1991

In 1991 the Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty adopted the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att006_e.pdf).

The Environmental Protocol sets out environmental principles, procedures and obligations for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment, and its dependent and associated ecosystems, that apply to all who visit Antarctica. The Protocol seeks to ensure that human activities, including tourism, do not have adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment or on its scientific and aesthetic values. The Protocol includes six annexes that set out more specific rules dealing with:

Annex I - Environmental Impact Assessment Annex I - Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora Annex III - Waste Disposal and Waste Management Annex IV - Prevention of Marine Pollution Annex V - Area Protection and Management Annex VI - Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies2

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) Measures

At their regular (currently annual) meetings, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties take formal decisions in the form of Measures, Decisions and Resolutions (prior to 1996 all decisions taken were in the form of Recommendations).

Since tourism was placed on the agenda of the ATCM in 1966, the Parties have taken a range of decisions to improve the regulation of Antarctic tourism. From the most recent, those ATCM decisions that are relevant to tourism in the Ross Sea region are listed below. The full text of these measures can be found on the website of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat www.ats.aq. Those marked in blue are particularly relevant to our operations and taken fully into account so as to minimize our impacts.

Resolution 6 (2016) - Non-native Species Manual Resolution 3 (2016) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 1 (2016) - Revised Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica Decision 6 (2016) - Exchange of Information Decision 6 (2015) - Exchange of Information Resolution 6 (2014) - Toward a Risk-based Assessment of Tourism and Non-governmental Activities Resolution 4 (2014) - Site Guidelines for Visitors

2 Not yet in force 86 Resolution 3 (2013) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 4 (2014) - Improved Collaboration on Search and Rescue (SAR) in Antarctica Resolution 2 (2012) - Cooperation on Questions Related to the Exercise of Jurisdiction in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 4 (2012) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 6 (2012) - Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions Resolution 7 (2012) - Vessel Safety in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 3 (2011) - General Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic Resolution 4 (2011) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 6 (2011) - Non-native Species Manual Resolution 1 (2010) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 6 (2010) - Improving the Co-ordination of Maritime Search and Rescue in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 7 (2010) - Enhancement of Port State Control for Passenger Vessels Bound for The Antarctic Treaty Area Measure 15 (2009) - Landing Of Persons from Passenger Vessels in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 4 (2009) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 7 (2009) - General Principles of Antarctic Tourism Resolution 2 (2008) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 5 (2008) - Improving Hydrographic Surveying and Charting to Support Safety of Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Antarctic Region Resolution 6 (2008) - Enhancing the Role of Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres with Search and Rescue Regions in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 1 (2007) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 4 (2007) - Ship-based Tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 5 (2007) - Tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 2 (2006) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 3 (2006) - Ballast Water Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 5 (2005) - Site Guidelines for Visitors Resolution 6 (2005) - Antarctic Post Visit Site Report Form for Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica Measure 4 (2004) - Insurance and Contingency Planning for Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 3 (2004) - Tourism and Non-governmental Activities: Enhanced Co-operation Amongst Parties Resolution 4 (2004) - Guidelines on Contingency Planning, Insurance and Other Matters for Tourist and Other Non-governmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area Resolution 1 (2003) - Advice to Mariners and Vessel Operators on the Environmental Protocol’s Obligations Resolution 3 (2003) - Co-operations in Hydrographic Survey and Charting of Antarctic Waters Resolution 3 (2001) - Collection of Meteorites in Antarctica Resolution 3 (1998) - International Code of Safety for Ships in Polar Waters Resolution 1 (1997) - Emergency Response Action and Contingency Planning Resolution 3 (1997) - Standard Form for Advance Notification and Post-visit Reporting on Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica Resolution 3 (1995) - Reporting of Tourism and Non-governmental Activities Recommendation XVIII-1 (1994) - Guidance for Those Organising and Conducting Tourism and Non- governmental Activities in the Antarctic and Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic Recommendation XVI-13 (1991) - Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area Recommendation XV-3 (1989) - Human Impact on the Antarctic Environment: Waste Disposal Recommendation XV-4 (1989) - Human Impact on the Antarctic Environment: Prevention, Control and Response to Marine Pollution Recommendation XV-13 (1989) - Comprehensive Measures for the Protection of the Antarctic Environment and Dependent and Associated Ecosystems Recommendation X-8 (1979) - Effects of Tourists and Non-governmental Expeditions in the Antarctic Treaty Area Recommendation VIII-9 (1975) - Effects of Tourists and Non-governmental Expeditions in the Antarctic Treaty Area Recommendation VII-4 (1972) - Effects of Tourists and Non-governmental Expeditions in the Antarctic 87 Treaty Area Recommendation VI-7 (1970) - Effects of Tourists and Non-governmental Expeditions in the Antarctic Treaty Area Recommendation VI-11 (1970) - New Islands Recommendation IV-27 (1966) - Effects of Antarctic Tourism Recommendation I-X (1961) - Principles of Emergency Assistance

Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994

The provisions of the Protocol are enacted in New Zealand law through the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. The Act applies to any New Zealand citizen or resident and to any member of an expedition that is organised in or departs from New Zealand. The Act applies equally to governmental and non-governmental activities in Antarctica.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) administers the Act. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade makes the final determination as to whether an activity may proceed taking into account the Ministry’s recommendations. It is an offence under the Act to carry out an activity in Antarctica without completing and submitting an EIA to MFAT.

The Minister has discretion under the Act to set conditions and make directions regarding the proposed activity. Such conditions may relate to, for example, managing compliance, undertaking environmental monitoring and post-activity reporting.

Under the provisions of the Act, non-compliance is an offence carrying a penalty of up to one year’s imprisonment or a fine of up to $100,000 (sections 10(2) and (3)).

The Act also prohibits the following unless a permit is obtained:

88 International Maritime Legislation

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) deal with regulations related to shipping globally as well as within the Antarctic Treaty Area / Southern Ocean. IMO provisions and agreements can be set out in four categories: 1) Safety of Vessels, 2) Safe Vessel Operations 3) Emergency Response Action and 4) Environmental Safeguards.

1. Safety of Vessels

International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) 2015 (expected to enter into force in January 2017) http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/polar/Documents/POLAR%20CODE%20TEXT%20AS%20ADOPTED.pdf

Safety of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Convention 1974 (with frequent updates) http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx

International Convention on Loadlines 1966, and its Protocol of 1988 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Load-Lines.aspx

2. Safe Vessel Operations

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) 1978 as amended in 1995 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Standards-of-Training%2c-Certification-and-Watchkeeping-for-Seafarers-%28STCW%29.aspx

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREG) http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx

International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships (ISM Code) http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/SafetyManagement/Pages/ISMCode.aspx

International Convention on Tonnage Measurements of Ships 1969 (Tonnage) http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Tonnage-Measurement-of-Ships.aspx

Since 1998 SOLAS has required companies and vessels to implement an International Safety Management (ISM) system (see ISM code above). The system must encompass the following: • Adoption of a safety and environmental policy; • Instructions and procedures to ensure safe operation of ships and protection of the environment in compliance with relevant international and flag state legislation; • Defined levels of authority between ship personnel and shore management; • Procedures for reporting incidents; • Procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency situations; and • Procedures for internal audits and management reviews.

The system requires a formal, institutionalized system of continuing management to ensure that a high level of safety is achieved and takes accident prevention beyond mere compliance with standards and rules.

3. Emergency Response Action

IMO provisions dealing with emergency response procedures include:

International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) 1979 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Maritime-Search-and-Rescue-%28SAR%29.aspx

89 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) 1988 (enacted under SOLAS (see link above) and mandatory for passenger vessels as of 1999.

We also note ATCM Recommendation I-X (1961) on the “Principle of Emergency Assistance” which reaffirms the principle that Antarctic operators should render all assistance feasible in the event of an emergency request for help. ATCM Resolution 6 (2008) on “Enhancing the Role of Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres with Search and Rescue Regions in the Antarctic Treaty Area” also encourages operators of tourist vessels, via their national authorities, to consider the IMO’s “Enhanced Contingency Planning Guidance for Passenger Ships Operating in Areas Remote from SAR Facilities.”

4. Environmental Safeguards

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 (MARPOL 73/78) as amended in 1978 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-%28MARPOL%29.aspx

International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972, and its 1996 Protocol http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Convention-on-the-Prevention-of-Marine-Pollution-by-Dumping-of-Wastes-and-Other-Matter.aspx

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation 1990 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Oil-Pollution-Preparedness%2c-Response-and-Co-operation-%28OPRC%29.aspx

International Convention of the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships 2001 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-the-Control-of-Harmful-Anti-fouling-Systems-on-Ships-%28AFS%29.aspx

IMO Resolution MEPC.42(30) on the Designation of the Antarctic Area as a “Special Area” under Annex I (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil) and Annex V (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) of MARPOL (see above) http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=15616&filename=42(30).pdf

IMO Resolution MEPC.57(33) on the Designation of the Antarctic Area as a “Special Area” under Annex II (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances) of MARPOL http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=15631&filename=57(33).pdf

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments (2004, not yet in force). http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Control-and-Management-of-Ships%27-Ballast-Water-and-Sediments-%28BWM%29.aspx

In the interim, Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty Area have been adopted by the IMO (Resolution MEPC.163(56), 2007. http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=19690&filename=163(56).pdf

By means of ATCM Resolution 3 (2006) the ATCPs adopted the Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty Area as voluntary interim rules.

90 IAATO Guidance Material

Over time IAATO has developed a suite of guidance material and documentation, either to implement decisions and guidelines adopted by the ATCM, or to implement its own initiatives. The following list of IAATO material is taken into account and used by Heritage Expeditions. All of the material is available from the IAATO website http://iaato.org

• IAATO Guidance for those Organising and Conducting Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in the Antarctic • IAATO Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic • IAATO Wildlife Watching Guidelines o General Information o Cetacean Watching Guidelines o Seal Watching Guidelines o Bird Watching Guidelines • IAATO “Don't Pack a Pest” Leaflet • IAATO Criteria For Assessing New Sites • IAATO Guidelines for the Operation of Boats in the Vicinity of Ice • IAATO Standard Procedures for Station Visits • IAATO Boot, Clothing and Equipment Decontamination Guidelines for Small Boat Operations • IAATO Guidelines for the Discovery of Non-native Species • IAATO Antarctic Pre-arrival Biosecurity Declaration • IAATO Assessment of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures • IAATO Incident Report Form • IAATO Whale Collision Reporting Form • IAATO Wildlife Incident Reporting Form • IAATO Emergency Contingency Plan • IAATO Emergency and Medical Evacuation Response Plan