Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea): the need for a revision of offshore oil and

gas exploration assessments

January 2015

Wild Migration | Page 1

Wild Migration: building participation capacity of wildlife scientists, wildlife policy experts, and NGOs around the world to secure international wildlife conservation.

Wild Migration | Page 2

Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea): the need for a revision of offshore oil and gas exploration assessments Cover photo: Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea), Kangaroo Island, Australia. Photographer: James Manna Suggested citation: Prideaux, M. & Prideaux, G., (2015) Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea): the need for a revision of offshore oil and gas exploration assessment, Wild Migration Technical Report Series, Australia

Wild Migration | Page 3

Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea): the need for a revision of offshore oil and gas exploration assessments

Australian sea lions are the rarest pinniped in the world. 20 percent of the

population is in South Australia in regions overlapping with offshore oil and gas exploration.

The South-west Marine Bioregional Plan (SWMBP) directs that “actions with a real chance or possibility of increasing the ambient noise levels within female [Australian sea lion] foraging areas to a level that might result in site avoidance or other physiological or behavioural responses” have a high risk of a significant impact on this species. All attempts should be made to avoid biologically important areas, particularly waters surrounding breeding colonies and foraging areas.

Since the Federal Minister for the Environment endorsement of National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority’s (NOPSEMA) program to assess matters of Matters of National Environmental Significance, NOSPEMA has accepted - without question - Environmental Plans that fail to consider the impact of noise generated by s offshore oil and gas exploration on Australian sea lion populations.

The horizontal transmission of noise from approved offshore seismic survey activities in the region is very likely to be above 160 db (re water) in at least some of the Australian sea lion foraging grounds, especially in the Eyre region.

NOPSEMA and the Federal Government are failing to apply the provisions of the EPBC Act.

In considering protected species that are Matters of National Environmental Significance, and based on the information we have provide, it is Wild Migration’s assessment that any offshore seismic surveys carried out within 100km of the feeding habitat of Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) have a high risk of:

a) “reducing the area of occupancy” and “adversely affect habitat critical to the survival” of the Australian sea lion;

b) “disrupting the breeding cycle” of the Australian sea lion; c) “modifying an area of important habitat” and “disrupt the lifecycle (feeding)” of

the Australian sea lion; and d) “disturbing an important or substantial area of habitat such that an adverse

impact results” within the Bunda, Nuyts, Eyre and Kangaroo Island Regions.

Wild Migration urges the Federal Minister for the Environment to direct NOPSEMA to newly assess the impact of offshore petroleum exploration on Australian sea lion populations in all present and future Environment Plans. Sound intensity levels transmitted into sea lion foraging habitat should not be approved in excess of 160db (re water).

Wild Migration | Page 4

South-west Marine Bioregional Plan and the Australian sea lion

The Australian sea lion is Australia's only endemic and least numerous seal species. The breeding range extends from Houtman Abrolhos, Western Australia (WA), to The Pages Island, east of Kangaroo Island, South Australia (SA). The species has also been recorded at Shark Bay, WA; the New South Wales coast; southern Tasmania; and Victoria.

The Australian sea lion is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act, rare under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, as specially protected under the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2003 and has an IUCN Red List Criteria of Endangered (A2bd+3d).

The total population of Australian sea lions is estimated to be 13,790 individuals based on an estimated total pup production of 3,380.Breeding colonies occur on islands or remote sections of coastline. Lone or small numbers of animals will regularly visit known haul-out sites and occasionally visit other locations. Overall, 66 breeding colonies have been recorded to date: 28 in Western Australia and 38 in South Australia. Forty-two percent of the total known population occurs at the three largest colonies east of Port Lincoln, at the eastern limit of the species known range.

The Australian sea lion exhibits high site fidelity and little movement of females between colonies has been observed. There is little or no interchange of females between breeding colonies, even between those separated by short distances. Site fidelity has implications to the risk of local extinction, especially at sites with low population numbers.

The South-west Marine Bioregional Plan (SWMBP)1 and Species Group Report Card –Pinnipeds2 identifies pressures that are of ‘concern’ for the Australian sea lion as changes in sea temperature, marine debris and bycatch. Pressures assessed as of ‘potential concern’ are sea level rise, changes in oceanography, ocean acidification, noise pollution, human presence at sensitive sites, extraction of living resources, oil pollution and collision/entanglement with infrastructure. The conservation status of the Australian sea lion, and the significance of the South-west Marine Region to their recovery and the pressures facing them in the region make the species a priority for conservation.

Under the SWMBP, for the purpose of determining the significance of impacts of proposed actions on the Australian sea lion, any individual breeding colony should be regarded as an important population.

The SWMBP directs that all attempts should be made to avoid biologically important areas for the Australian sea lion, particularly waters surrounding breeding colonies and foraging areas used by female the Australian sea lion, for any EPBC Referrals for development. The Plan specifically states that “actions with a real chance or possibility of increasing the ambient noise levels within female [Australian sea lion] foraging areas to a level that might result in site avoidance or other physiological or behavioural responses” have a high risk of a significant impact on this species. 3

The endangered status the Australian sea lion demands a precautionary approach to ensure that human activities, including seismic exploration in the Bunda, Nuyts and Kangaroo Island Regions, do not further jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

Australian sea lion in the Bunda, Nuyts and Kangaroo Island Regions

Australian sea lion’s appear to have a strong association with the upwelling system in the in the Bunda, Nuyts and Kangaroo Island Regions close to their breeding and pupping sites.4 They are thought to concentrate foraging efforts on shallow-water bottom-dwelling prey, but also take a wide variety of fishes including rays, small sharks, Australian salmon, whiting, squid, cuttlefish, small crabs, penguins, flying seabirds and small sea turtles. Adult female Australian sea lion are diurnal foragers. They routinely transit to foraging locations by swimming along the bottom. Mean depth of dives from a

Wild Migration | Page 5

Wild Migration | Page 6

series of lactating females tagged with time depth recorders ranged from 41.5-83.1 metres. The maximum depth of these recorded dives ranged from 60-105 metres. Mean duration of dives ranged from 2.2-4.1 minutes, and the longest dive recorded was for 8.3 minutes.

At sea, these mammals spend nearly all of their time in waters over the continental shelf.5 The foraging range of female Australian sea lion from specific colonies is demonstrated in Figures 1 -4.

Hamer et al (2013) have recently completed the most comprehensive investigation of at-sea behaviour of the species to date. Specifically, this study involved 1.8% of adult females from 16 of the 48 breeding locations in SA waters, across approximately 1,100 km of coastline. The extensive utilisation of South Australian shelf waters is attributable in part to the broad distribution of the 16 sea lion breeding colonies and to the generally diverse although individually specialised foraging strategies exhibited at a colony scale.6

Individuals from some colonies foraged inshore to a distance offshore for only 28 km from their natal colony, while others foraged offshore out to 189 km, or six to seven times the distance.

Australian sea lion are considered non-migratory and probably spend most of their lives near their natal colony. The greatest distance known to be travelled is approximately 250 kilometres. Genetic distinctiveness has been reported between nearby colonies, indicating a high degree of site fidelity and more specifically female site fidelity. Recent research suggests that even minor increases in the rate of mortality of female Australian sea lion raise the probability of extinction for a number of subcolonies.7

Hamer’s research indicates greater distances confirm that Australian sea lions can travel much further than previous research had surmised.8 The fact that foraging tracks did not extend further than the relatively shallow South Australian shelf waters suggests that Australian sea lion foraging effort is probably limited by sea floor depth and by the suite of prey species found there. The variation between colonies likely demonstrates cultural differences that are developed and sustained over long periods, with individuals learning where and how to forage from other individuals in older cohorts.

Australian sea lion and underwater noise As most marine animals rely on sound for their vital life functions, such as

communication, prey and predator detection, orientation, and sensing their surroundings, it is not surprising that impacts from offshore petroleum exploration on marine species is now well-documented and of growing concern.9

Pinnipeds, specifically, are sensitive to sound in air and under water; therefore, they are likely to be susceptible to the harmful effects of loud noise in both media.10 Recent research has revealed that many pinnipeds have a greater hearing sensitivity in water that was previously believed.11 Their estimated auditory bandwidth in water is thought to be 75 Hz to 75 kHz.12

Wildlife responses to noise fall into two main categories: behavioural and physiological.

1) Behavioural responses that include changes in surfacing, diving and heading patterns. Responses also include changes in type or timing of vocalizations relative to the noise source. A key behavioural response is an animal ceasing important activity, such as hunting, foraging or socialising

2) Physiological responses or impacts that include physical damage, hearing threshold shifts and ‘stress’ in some mammals, or simply the masking of natural sounds that the animal would normal rely on. Animals exposed to elevated or prolonged noise levels can suffer permanent hearing threshold shifts, temporary hearing threshold shifts changing their ability to hear, usually at a particular frequency. Anthropogenic noise is unexpected and can also mask important natural sounds, such as the call of a mate, the sound

Behavioural responses to anthropogenic sound have been recorded in a number of different pinnipeds populations and the long distance at which behaviour changes have

Wild Migration | Page 7

been observed indicate the need for precautionary mitigation.13 Physiological responses have included temporary threshold shift and in some studies seals hauled out (possibly to avoid the noise). Animals that remained in the water seemed to have returned to pre-trial behaviour within two hours of the guns falling silent, 14 however during this time to stopped feeding.

In most respects, noise-induced threshold shifts in pinnipeds follow trends similar to those observed in other mammals. Unique to pinnipeds, however are their vibrissae, which are well supplied with nerves, blood vessels and muscles. They have been shown (for example, in harbour seals, Phoca vitulina) to be sufficiently sensitive to low frequency waterborne vibrations that they may function to detect even the subtle movements of fish and other aquatic organisms.15 Researchers have commented that the sensory processing capabilities of pinnipeds underscores the importance of their effective hearing and reiterates concerns regarding anthropogenic noise.16

While the energy from airgun impulses is mostly concentrated in the lower frequencies, there is still substantial energy in the tens of kiloHertz (kHz), and even considerable energy up to 150 kHz, which explains why marine mammals with higher frequency sensitivities adversely react to these noises.17 The horizontal transmission of noise from approved offshore seismic survey activities in the region is very likely to be above 160 db (re water) in at least some of the Australian sea lion foraging grounds, especially in the Eyre region, and well within the margin for significant behavioural responses. Impact from anthropogenic sound may also extend to prey, and there is scientific evidence that different fish species are impacted by seismic surveys.18

Emergent science indicates that the effects of water pressure can cause a range of challenges related to the management of nitrogen gas (N2) for deep diving mammals. Under pressure, lung gases in diving vertebrates move to the blood and other tissues of the body. As water pressure increases with depth, the amount of N2 that is absorbed by the blood and tissues increases. Researchers have recently determined that under most natural conditions, some deep diving mammals appear to dive without bubble-induced decompression injury. However, the evidence suggests that they may deal with the precursors to this (ie. supersaturation and bubble presence) on a more regular basis than previously thought. It may be that physiological adaptations that mitigate N2 loading during dives are not predetermined responses that prevent or minimize N2 loading, but rather can be modified by the animal on a dive-by-dive basis according to other trade-offs. It is possible that a response to an unanticipated acute threat (such as anthropogenic noise) perceived by the animal as more immediately critical than their management of N2 might result in decompression injury and could prove ultimately harmful.19

Given the offshore petroleum exploration activities will span 6-8 weeks, it is likely that foraging behaviour will be significantly impacted or abandoned altogether. There may be reduced food availability, animals may show signs of reduced condition and may have difficulty feeding their pups. It is also known that disturbances in marine and terrestrial environments can cause pinnipeds to abandon colonies entirely, which could have serious implications.

NOPSEMA is failing to adequately assess impact In February 2014 the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental

Management Authority (NOPSEMA) environmental management authorisation process was endorsed by the Federal Minister for the Environment as meeting the requirements of Part 10, section 146, of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Activities undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Program no longer require referral and assessment under the EPBC Act. While the EPBC Unit included impacts to Australian sea lion from oil and gas exploration in accordance with the South-west Marine Bioregional Plan, NOSPEMA appears to have accepted without question four Environmental Plans that have each failed to consider the impact of noise generated by seismic surveys on Australian sea lion populations.

These Environmental Plans20 include: 1) Nerites Season 2 Multi Client 3D Marine Seismic Survey, TGS-NOPEC

Geophysical Company Pty Ltd Region: Ceduna sub-basin South Australia;

Wild Migration | Page 8

190km west of Eyre Peninsula; 270km sw from Ceduna; 180km from mainland coastline; water depths ~750-3500m; total survey size approx 22,000skm.

Accepted: 23/10/2014 2) Ceduna Multi-Client 3D Marine Seismic Survey, PGS Australia Pty Ltd

Region: Survey area covers approx 13,800skm and is located 180km from mainland SA, 475km west of Port Lincoln and 295km south-west of Ceduna in the Bight Basin, Ceduna Sub-basin

Accepted: 23/09/2014 3) Lightning 3D Marine Seismic Survey Environment Plan, Bight Petroleum Pty

Ltd Region: The Lightning MSS area is located approximately 104km west of Kangaroo Island and 68km south of Cape Carnot (Eyre Peninsula)

Accepted: 06/06/2014 4) Nerites Multi Client 3D Marine Seismic Survey, TGS-NOPEC Geophysical

Company Pty Ltd Region: Great Australian Bight Accepted: 07/01/2014

Each of these will produce sound intensity levels around 230 db (re water) that will transmit many hundreds of kilometres, including into areas of Australian sea lion foraging habitat.

No assessment has been conducted of what impact offshore petroleum exploration may have on Australian sea lion feeding, breeding and pup survival.

Assessment of impact The four activities approved by NOPSEMA will each operate within 100-150km

of key Australian sea lion foraging habitats. In a best case scenario, at 100km, it could be expected that a 230db (re water)

source may have reduced by 50db (re water), bringing the sound intensity levels to around the potential threshold of pain.21 The levels will still be significant enough to cause strong behavioural responses.

In considering protected species that are Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, and based on the information we have provide, it is Wild Migration’s assessment that any offshore seismic surveys carried out within 150km of the feeding habitat of Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) have a high risk of:

a) “reducing the area of occupancy” and “adversely affect habitat critical to the survival” of The Australian sea lion;

b) “disrupting the breeding cycle” of The Australian sea lion; c) “modifying an area of important habitat” and “disrupt the lifecycle (feeding)” of

The Australian sea lion; and d) “disturbing an important or substantial area of habitat such that an adverse

impact results” within the Bunda, Nuyts, Eyre and Kangaroo Island Regions.

NOPSEMA and the Federal Government are failing to apply the provisions of the EPBC Act.

Wild Migration urges the Federal Minister for the Environment to direct NOPSEMA to newly assess the impact of offshore petroleum exploration on Australian sea lion populations in all present and future Environment Plans. Sound intensity levels transmitted into sea lion foraging habitat should not be approved in excess of 160db (re water).

Wild Migration | Page 9

1 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012a) South-west

Marine Bioregional Plan, DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES, Australian Government, Canberra.

2 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012b) Species Group Report Card –Pinnipeds: Supporting the marine bioregional plan for the South-west Marine Region, DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES, Australian Government, Canberra.

3 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012a) op cit at 22 4 Gales NJ., Shaughnessy PD., & Dennis TE., (1994) Distribution, abundance and breeding cycle of the

Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea (Mammalia: Pinnipedia), JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY, London, 234, pp: 353-370.

Gales N. (1990) Abundance of Australian sea lions Neophoca cinerea along the southern Australian coast, and related research. Report to the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management, SOUTH AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FUND.

Campbell RA., Gales NJ, Lento GM., & Baker CS., (2008) Islands in the sea: extreme female natal site fidelity in the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea, BIOLOGY LETTERS, 23, pp139-142.

Goldsworthy S., and Gales N., (2008) Neophoca cinerea, IUCN Red LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES, Version 2011.2.

Shaughnessy PD., Goldsworthy SD., Hamer DJ., Page B., and McIntosh RR. (2011). Australian sea lions Neophoca cinerea at colonies in South Australia: distribution and abundance, 2004 to 2008, ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH, 13(2), 87-98.

Hamer DJ., Goldsworthy SD., Costa D P., Fowler SL., Page B., and Sumner MD., (2013) The endangered Australian sea lion extensively overlaps with and regularly becomes by-catch in demersal shark gill-nets in South Australian shelf waters, BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 157, 386-400.

5 Baker JL., (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, Adelaide.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2008) The South-West Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile: A Description of the Ecosystems, Conservation Values and Uses of the South-West Marine Region, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, WATER, HERITAGE AND THE ARTS, Canberra.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Neophoca cinerea in Species Profile and Threats Database, DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES, Canberra.

6 Baylis, A.M.M., Hamer, D.J., Nichols, P.D., (2009) Assessing the use of milk fatty acids to infer diet of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea), WILDL. RES. 36, 169–

Lowther AD., Harcourt RG., Hamer DJ., Goldsworthy SD., (2011) Creatures of habit: foraging habitat fidelity of adult female Australian sea lions, MAR. ECOL.PROG. SER. 443, 249–263.

7 Goldsworthy SD., Page B., Shaughnessy PD., and Linnane A., (2010) Mitigating seal interactions in the SRLF and the Gillnet Sector SESSF in South Australia: final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (AQUATIC SCIENCES), Adelaide.

8 Fowler SL., Costa DP., Arnould JPY., (2007) Ontogeny of movements and foraging ranges of the Australian sea lion, MAR. MAMMAL SCI. 23, 598–614.

9 Gordon J., Gillespie D., Potter J., Frantzis A., Simmonds MP., Swift R., and Thompson D., (2004) A review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals, MARINE TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE JOURNAL (Winter 2003/2004), 37(4), pp 16-34.

Weilgart LS., (2007) The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY, 85, pp 1091-1116.

10 Mathews EA., (1994) The effects of seismic reflection surveys and vessel traffic on harbor seals in Johns Hopkins Inlet, Glacier Bay National Park: A preliminary assessment, US NATL. PARK. SERV., GLACIER BAY NATL. PARK. Gustavus, AK.

Calambokidis J., Chandler T., and Douglas A. (2002). Marine mammal observations and mitigation associated with USGS seismic-reflection surveys in the Santa Barbara Channel 2002. Final report prepared for US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, and National Marine Fisheries Service, OFFICE OF PROTECTED RESOURCES, SILVER SPRING, MD. Prepared by Cascadia Research, Olympia, WA.

Kastak D., Southall BL., Schusterman RJ., and Kastak CR., (2005) Underwater temporary threshold shift in pinnipeds: Effects of noise level and duration, THE JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 118, 3154.

11 Reichmuth C, Holt M, Mulsow J, Sills J, Southall B. (2013) Comparative assessment of amphibious hearing in pinnipeds. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY A.199:491-507.

12 Southall B, Bowles A, Ellison W, Finneran J, Gentry R, Greene Jr C, et al. (2008) Marine mammal noise-exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. BIOACOUSTICS. 17:273-5.

13 Kelly BP., Burns JJ., and Quakenbush LT., (1988) Responses of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) to noise disturbance, PORT AND OCEAN ENGINEERING UNDER ARCTIC CONDITIONS, 2, pp 27-38.

Bain DE., and Williams R., (2006) Long-range effects of airgun noise on marine mammals: responses as a function of received sound level and distance, INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION WORKING PAPER. SC/58 E, 35

14 Bohne BA., Thomas JA., Yohe E., and Stone S., (1985) Examination of potential hearing damage in Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, ANTARCTICA JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 19(5), pp 174-176.

Wild Migration | Page 10

Bohne BA., Bozzay DG., and Thomas JA., (1986) Evaluation of inner ear pathology in Weddell seals,

ANTARCTIC JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 21(5), pp 208. Kastak D., Schusterman RJ., Southall BL., and Reichmuth CJ., (1999) Underwater temporary threshold

shift in three species of pinniped, JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 106, pp 1142–1148.

Harris RE., Miller G W., and Richardson WJ., (2001) Seal Responses to Airgun Sounds During Summer Seismic Surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, 17, pp 795–812.

15 Lavigne D., (2012) Comments on the Bight Petroleum referral – the case of Pinnipeds, submitted as a comment on Referral 2012/6583 to DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES, Australian Government, Canberra

Renouf D., (1979) Preliminary measurements of the sensitivity of the vibrissae of Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) to low frequency vibrations, JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY, 188, pp 443-450.

Lavigne DM., and Kovacs KM., (1988) Harps & Hoods: Ice-breeding Seals of the Northwest Atlantic, UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO PRESS, Waterloo, Canada.

Wartzok D., and Ketten DR., (1999) Marine mammal sensory systems. In Reynolds JE, III., and Rommel SA., (eds.) Biology of Marine Mammals. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS, Washington, DC. pp 117-175

16 Southall B, Schusterman R, Kastak D. (2000) Masking in three pinnipeds: Underwater, low-frequency critical ratios. THE JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA. 108:1322-6.

17 Goold JC., and Fish PJ., (1998) Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to dolphin auditory thresholds, JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 103, pp 2177–2184.

Goold JC., and Coates RFW., (2006) Near source, high frequency air-gun signatures, INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE DOCUMENT SC/58/E30.

18 Skalski JR., Pearson WH., and Malme CI., (1992) Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and -line fishery for Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) CAN J. FISH. AQUAT. SCI., 49, pp 1357-1365.

Løkkeborg S., & Soldal AV., (1993) The influence of seismic exploration with airguns on cod (Gadus morhua) behaviour and catch rates, ICES MAR. SCI SYMP., 196, pp 62-67.

Engås A., Løkkeborg S., Ona E., and Vold Soldal A., (1996) Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SCIENCES, 53, pp 2238-2249.

Santulli A., Modica A., Messina C., Ceffa L., Curatolo A., Rivas G., Fabi G., and D’amelio V., (1999) Biochemical Responses of European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) to the Stress Induced by Off Shore Experimental Seismic Prospecting, MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN, 38(12), pp 1105-1114

Hirst AG., and Rodhouse PG., (2000) Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success, REVIEWS IN FISH BIOLOGY AND FISHERIES, 10, pp 113-118.

Christian JR., Mathieu A., Thomson DH., White D., and Buchanan RA., (2003) Effects of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio), REPORT FROM LGL LTD. OG OCEANS LTD. FOR THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD, File No.: CAL-1-00364.

Harwood J., & Stokes, K. (2003) 'Coping with uncertainty in ecological advice: Lessons from fisheries', Trends in Ecological Evolution, 18, pp: 617–622

McCauley, RD., Fewtrell J., and Popper AN., (2003) High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears, JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 113(1), pp 638-642

Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J., and Ona, E., (2004) Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast, FISHERIES RESEARCH, 67, pp 143–150

Parry, GD., and Gason, A., (2006) The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western Victoria, FISHERIES RESEARCH, Australia, 79, pp 272–284.

Payne JF., Andrews CA., Fancey LL., Cook AL., and Christian JR., (2007) Pilot study on the effect of seismic air gun noise on lobster (Homarus americanus), CAN. TECH. REP. FISH. AQUAT. SCI. 2712.

19 Hooker SK., Fahlman A., Moore MJ., Aguilar de Soto N., de Quirós BY., Brubakk AO, Costa DP., et al. (2012) Deadly diving? Physiological and behavioural management of decompression stress in diving mammals, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B: BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 279 (1731), pp 1041-1050.

20 National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (2015) EP Submissions & Summaries, NATIONAL OFFSHORE PETROLEUM SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY: downloaded 22nd January 2015 at www.nopsema.gov.au (Search criteria: Adjacent to South Australia)

21 Prideaux G, Prideaux M. (2013) Seismic Seas: Understanding the impact of offshore seismic petroleum exploration surveys on marine species. WILD MIGRATION TECHNICAL AND POLICY REVIEW: #3, . Australia: Wild Migration

Southall B, Bowles A, Ellison W, Finneran J, Gentry R, Greene Jr C, (2008) Marine mammal noise-exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. BIOACOUSTICS. 17:273-5,

Southall B, Schusterman R, Kastak D. (2000)Masking in three pinnipeds: Underwater, low-frequency critical ratios. THE JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA. 108:1322-6.

Wild Migration Limited

ABN 15 161 185 351

Berrymans Road Gosse, South Australia

Australia

Postal: PO Box 73, Parndana South Australia, 5220

Australia

Phone +618 8121 5841

Fax +618 8125 5857

Email bureau@wildmigration.org

Web www.wildmigration.org