In January 2005 a multi-parametric international experiment was conducted that encompassed both Deception Island and its surrounding waters. This experiment used as main platforms the Spanish Oceanographic vessel 'Hesperides', the Spanish Scientific Antarctic base 'Gabriel de Castilla' at Deception Island and four temporary camps deployed on the volcanic island. This experiment allowed us to record active seismic signals on a large network of seismic stations that were deployed both on land and on the seafloor. In addition other geophysical data were acquired, such as: bathymetric high precision multi-beam data, and gravimetric and magnetic profiles. During the whole period of the experiment a multi-beam sounding EM120 was used to perform bathymetric surveys. The characteristic of this sensor permitted to reach up to 11.000 m b.s.l. In table 2 we provide some of its main characteristics. During the experiment different bathymetric profiles were performed with this equipment outside of Port Foster. Some of these images already have provide an accurate vision of the region, and were used to estimate the real size of the water column locate below each shoot. Additional information of these data could be found in the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at IEDA Marine Geoscience Data System (http://www.marine-geo.org/). It is possible to access the summary of downloads that were made of these data and documents at http://www.marine-geo.org/about/downloadreport/person/Ibanez_Jesus/2016A.

This dataset contains bathymetry (water depth), ship's heading, ship's speed and position data collected during the Nella Dan Voyage 4 1987-88. This was the Nella Dan's final voyage. Some marine science was carried out en route to Macquarie Island from Hobart. Data are available online from the Australian Antarctic Division Data Centre web page (see Related URL below). For further information, see the Marine Science Support Voyage Report at the Related URL below.

From December 2014 to February 2015, Geoscience Australia conducted a multibeam sonar survey (GA-0348) of the coastal waters around Casey station and the adjacent Windmill Islands. The survey utilised GA's Kongsberg EM3002D multibeam echosounder, motion reference unit and C-Nav differential GPS system mounted on the Australian Antarctic Division's (AAD) science workboat the Howard Burton. The survey was a collaborative project between GA, the AAD and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). During the survey a total of approximately 27.3 square kilometres of multibeam bathymetry, backscatter and water-column data were collected, extending coverage of a RAN multibeam survey (survey number HI545) conducted the previous season (approximately 7 square kilometres). The regions covered extended seaward of Newcomb Bay and Clark Peninsula northwest of Casey Station, and seaward of Shirley and Beall Islands to the southwest. Complimentary datasets were also collected, including 18 drop video deployments to assess the benthic ecosystem composition and 39 sediment samples to ground-truth the seafloor substrate. Macroalgae spectral analyses were also collected to develop a spectral library for possible future satellite bathymetry investigations. The new high-resolution bathymetric grid (1 metre resolution) reveals seafloor features in the Casey area in unprecedented detail.

A database containing sounding data around Macquarie Island. Track line data for each data source is included.

Scanned copy of an acoustics log from Casey Station. Data were collected during 1997. There is no accompanying information to go with the log.

This dataset contains bathymetry (water depth), ship's heading, ship's speed and position data collected during the Nella Dan Voyage 7 1986-87. This was a marine science voyage which also visited Davis. Data are available online via the Australian Antarctic Division Data Centre web page (see Related URL below). For further information, see the Marine Science Support Voyage Report at the Related URL below.

This dataset contains acoustic recordings from Directional Frequency Analysis and Recording (DIFAR) sonobuoys that were deployed from 30 January – 23 March 2021 during the TEMPO voyage. 251 sonobuoys were deployed yielding 460 hours of acoustic recordings. Three models of sonobuoys were used during the voyage: AN/SSQ-53F sonobuoy from SonobuoyTechSystems, USA (made in 2011; identifiable by tall black housing); Q53F sonobuoys from Ultra Electronics Australia (made in 2011 for Australian Defence; identifiable by tall silver housing); SDSQ955 (HIDAR) sonobuoys from Ultra Electronics UK (re-lifed in 2018; identifiable from small silver housing); During TEMPO, recordings were made by deploying above sonobuoys in DIFAR (standard) mode while the ship was underway (Gedamke and Robinson 2010, Miller et al. 2015). During transit, listening stations were conducted every 30 nmi in water depths greater than 200 m when Beaufort sea state was less than 7. Sonobuoys were occasionally deployed with spacing less than 30 nmi in an attempt to more precisely determine spatial extent and vocal characteristics of calls that were believed to be coming from animals relatively close to the ship’s track. During marine science stations, sonobuoys were deployed approximately 2-4 nmi prior to stopping in order to attempt to monitor them for the full six-eight hour duration of their operational life or the duration of the station. The sampling regime was chosen for compatibility with previous surveys, and to balance spatial resolution with the finite number of sonobuoys available for this study. Instrumentation, software, and data collection At each listening station, a sonobuoy was deployed with the hydrophone set to a depth near 140 m. Sonobuoys transmitted underwater acoustic signals from the hydrophone and directional sensors back to the ship via a VHF radio transmitter. Radio signals from the sonobuoy were received using an omnidirectional VHF antenna (PCTel Inc. MFB1443; 3 dB gain tuned to 144 MHz centre frequency) and a Yagi antenna (Broadband Propagation Pty Ltd, Sydney Australia) mounted on the aft handrail of the flying bridge. The antennas were each connected to a WiNRADiO G39WSBe sonobuoy receiver via low-loss LMR400 coaxial cable via a cavity filter with 1 MHz passband centered on 144 MHz. The radio reception range on the Yagi antenna was similar to previous Antarctic voyages, and was adequate for monitoring and localisation typically out to a range of 10-12 nmi, provided that the direction to the sonobuoy was close (i.e. within around 30o) to the main axis of the antenna. The radio reception on the omnidirectional antenna typically provided 5-10 nmi of omnidirectional reception from sonobuoys. At transit speed (8-11 knots), the Yagi antenna provided about 75 minutes of acoustic recording time per sonobuoy. Using both antennas together were able obtain radio reception for up to six hours (i.e. the maximum life of a 955 sonobuoy) when sonobuoys were deployed within 5 nmi of a marine science station. Received signals were digitised via the instrument inputs of a Fireface UFX sound board (RME Fireface; RME Inc.). Digitised signals were recorded on a personal computer as 48 kHz 24-bit WAV audio files using the software program PAMGuard (Gillespie et al. 2008). Data from both the Yagi and Omnidirectional antenna were recorded simultaneously as WAV audio channels 0 (left) and 1 (right). Each recorded WAV file therefore contains a substantial amount of duplication since both antennas and receivers were usually receiving the same signals from the same sonobuoy. Directional calibration The magnetic compass in each sonobuoy was not calibrated/validated upon deployment because the ship did not generate enough noise. Intensity calibration Intensity calibration and values followed those described in Rankin et al (2019). Sonobuoy deployment metadata The PAMGuard DIFAR Module (Miller et al. 2016) was used to record the sonobuoy deployment metadata such as location, sonobuoy deployment number, and audio channel in the HydrophoneStreamers table of the PAMGuard database (IN2021_V01_Difar-2021-01-22.sqlite3). A written sonobuoy deployment log (SonobuoyLog.pdf) was also kept during the voyage, and this includes additional notes and additional information not included in the PAMGuard Database such as sonobuoy type, and sonobuoy end-time. Real-time monitoring and analysis: Aural and visual monitoring of audio and spectrograms from each sonobuoy was conducted using PAMGuard for at least 5 minutes after deployment only to validate that the sonobuoy was working correctly. Additional information about sonobuoys is contained in the file: Sonobuoy data collection during the TEMPO voyage - 2021-01-15.pdf References Greene, C.R.J. et al., 2004. Directional frequency and recording ( DIFAR ) sensors in seafloor recorders to locate calling bowhead whales during their fall migration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(2), pp.799–813. Miller, B.S. et al., 2016. Software for real-time localization of baleen whale calls using directional sonobuoys: A case study on Antarctic blue whales. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(3), p.EL83-EL89. Available at: http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/139/3/10.1121/1.4943627. Miller, B.S. et al., 2015. Validating the reliability of passive acoustic localisation: a novel method for encountering rare and remote Antarctic blue whales. Endangered Species Research, 26(3), pp.257–269. Available at: http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v26/n3/p257-269/. Rankin, S., Miller, B., Crance, J., Sakai, T., and Keating, J. L. (2019). “Sonobuoy Acoustic Data Collection during Cetacean Surveys,” NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, SWFSC614, 1–36.

Four camera tow transects were completed on the upper slope during survey IN2017_V01 using the Marine National Facility’s Deep Tow Camera. This system collected oblique facing still images with a Canon – 1DX camera and high definition video with a Canon – C300 system. Four SeaLite Sphere lights provided illumination and two parallel laser beams 10 cm apart provided a reference scale for the images. This dataset presents results from the analysis of the still imagery. All camera tows were run at a ship speed over the ground of approximately 2 knots. Several sensors were attached to the towed body, including a SBE 37 CTD for collection of salinity, temperature and pressure data, a Kongsberg Mesotech altimeter and a Sonardynne beacon to record the location of the towed body. Transects were run downslope from the continental shelf break, with images analysed over a depth range of ~495 m to 670-725 m. Biota and substrates were characterised for every fifth image according to the CATAMI image classification scheme (Collaborative and Automated Tools for Analysis of Marine Imagery, Althaus et al., 2015). Images were loaded into the online platform SQUIDLE+ for analysis. Biota were counted as presence/absence of all visible biota for each image. Percent biological cover and substrate type for the whole image was calculated based on analysis of 30 random points across each image. Percent cover calculations were standardised according to the proportion of scored points on each image, excluding those that were too dark to classify. A total of 203 images were analysed. Images are available from: http://dap.nci.org.au/thredds/remoteCatalogService?catalog=http://dapds00.nci.org.au/thredds/catalog/fk1/IN2017_V01_Sabrina_Seafloor/catalog.xml

A collation of known shipwrecks and vessels lost at sea from the year 1578 until 2013 containing information on year, vessel name, country, last known location, and purpose for the journey. And a collation of recent shipping incidents from 1991 until 2016 containing information on the year of the incident, vessel name, country where known, purpose of the journey and the cause of the incident. Location - listed as nearest land mass used where known. Country - Argentina = AR; Australia = AU; Bahamas = BS; Barbados = BB; Brazil = BR; China = CN; Falkland Islands = FK; France = FR; Germany = DE; Japan = JP; Korea = KR; Liberia = LR; Malta = MT; New Zealand = NZ; Norway = NO; Panama = PA; Peru = PE; Poland = PL; Russia = RU; Spain = ES; South Africa = ZA; Sweden = SE; UK = United Kingdom; US = United States of America Nationality of tourist companies are not all included as the company (principal and sub-chartered), and the ships used, are registered across different countries, some even changing within any given year. Flag state for that year is included where known. NB: vessels ran aground mainly due to severe weather conditions or inadequate hydrographic information Information was compiled for numerous references (Argentina and Chile, 2016; ASOC, 2012; Belgium, 2009; Brazil, 2012a; Brazil, 2012b; Headland, 2009; IAATO, 2000; IAATO, 2002; IAATO, 2003; IAATO, 2011a; IAATO, 2011b; Jones, 1973; Korea, 2011; New Zealand, 2007; New Zealand, 2012a; New Zealand, 2012b; New Zealand, 2015; New Zealand et al., 2011; Norway, 2007; Norway, 2008; People's Republic of China, 2013; Poland, 2016; Reich, 1980; Sweet et al., 2015; United Kingdom, 2008; United Kingdom, 2009).

This consolidated dataset consists of Australian Hydrographic Service (AHS) surveys HI621A and HI545 converted to International Terrestrial Reference Frame 2000 (ITRF2000) horizontal datum with Z conversion values for multiple height datums. The data was provided to the Australian Antarctic Division by Paul Digney of Jacobs consulting in February 2021. Included survey datasets: - HI621A.shp (Validated folder) - 1812_5093-HI621A_CASEY_Terrestrial.shp - QC_HI545_12pt5_appraised All data are in horizontal datum ITRF2000 and have been combined into a single ESRI geodatabase feature class titled AHS_Surveys_Casey_ITRF2000. Attribute data shows quality information, conversion factors (shift in metres) for multiple datums and the MSL orthometric height for Casey: Column Name, Alias, Meaning Easting, Easting, Easting ITRF2000 Northing, Northing, Northing ITRF2000 CD_To_GRS8, CD_To_GRS80, LAT (Chart Datum) to the Ellipsoid CD_TO_MSL_Casey, CD_To_MSL_Casey, Ellipsoid to Casey MSL Z_To_GRS80, Z_To_GRS80, Height to the Ellipsoid Z_To_MSL_Casey, Z_To_MSL_Casey, Local MSL orthometric height Vert_Uncer, Vertical_Uncertainty, How good is the Vertical Position Horiz_Unce, Horizontal Uncertainty, How good is the Horizontal Position Uncertaint, Uncertainty Comments, Depth_Comm, Depth_Comments, Vertical uncertainty ranges from 0.05 to 0.64 m and horizontal uncertainty ranges from 0.05 to 1.0 m See the attached document ‘Metadata Record Casey Final.xlsx’ for further details.