ISUA IRON ORE PROJECT

ANNEX 3 OF THE EIA

MARINE MAMMALS AND SEA BIRDS IN GODTHÅBSFJORD

MARCH 2013

Orbicon A/S Ringstedvej 20 DK 4000 Roskilde Denmark Phone + 45 46 30 03 10

Version 5.0 Date 15 March 2013 Prepared MMAC & FPJE

Preface

This document is Annex 3 to the EIA of the Isua Iron Ore Project. Annex 3 deals with marine mammals and sea birds in Godthåbsfjord and the potential impact related to disturbances from the project activities.

The findings and conclusions from this Annex are summarized in the EIA main report.

Issues related to potential spills of oil or chemicals in Godthåbsfjord are dealt with in Annex 6.

Annexes of the EIA: Annex Report title no. 1 The natural environment of the study area

2 Caribou population in the study area

3 Marine mammals and sea birds in Godthåbsfjord

4 Air quality assessment

5 Noise assessment

6 Oil and chemicals and assessment of potential impacts of spills

7 Water management assessment

8 Geochemical characterisation and assessment of mine waste management

9 Hydropower Development-Preliminary Study. Technical Report

10 Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 2/50

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 2 METHOD OF STUDY ...... 8 3 GODTHÅBSFJORD ...... 9 3.1 Human land-use ...... 13 3.1.1 Fishing ...... 13 3.1.2 Hunting ...... 14 3.2 Shipping ...... 14 4 THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT OF GODTHÅBSFJORD ...... 15 4.1 Marine mammals ...... 16 4.1.1 Ringed seal Pusa hispida ...... 16 4.1.2 Harp seal Pagophilus groenlandica ...... 16 4.1.3 Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata ...... 17 4.1.4 Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae ...... 17 4.1.5 Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata...... 18 4.1.6 Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus ...... 18 4.1.7 Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena ...... 19 4.1.8 Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus ...... 19 4.2 Sea birds ...... 19 4.2.1 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ...... 19 4.2.2 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos ...... 19 4.2.3 Eider Duck Somateria mollissima ...... 19 4.2.4 Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus ...... 20 4.2.5 Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis...... 21 4.2.6 White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla ...... 21 4.2.7 Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides ...... 21 4.2.8 Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus ...... 21 4.2.9 Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus ...... 21 4.2.10 Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus ...... 22 4.2.11 Herring Gull Larus argentatus ...... 23 4.2.12 Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla ...... 23 4.2.13 Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea ...... 23 4.2.14 Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle ...... 24 4.2.15 Razorbill Alca torda ...... 24 4.3 Fish ...... 24 4.3.1 Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua ...... 24 4.3.2 Greenland Cod/Uvak Gadus ogac ...... 24 4.3.3 Greenland Halibut Reinhardtius hippelglossoides ...... 25 4.3.4 Capelin Mallotus villosus ...... 25 4.3.5 Lumpsucker Cyclopterus lumpus ...... 25 4.4 Threatened species ...... 26 5 SITES OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE FOR BIODIVERSITY ...... 27 5.1 Areas protected according to international agreements ...... 27 5.2 Areas protected according to national legislation ...... 27

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 3/50 5.3 Areas of conservation concern identified by NGOs ...... 27 5.4 Sea bird colonies ...... 27 5.4.1 Wintering areas of seabirds ...... 29 5.4.2 Spawning areas for Lumpsucker and Capelin ...... 29 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 30 6.1 Expected shipping activities for Isua Project ...... 30 6.2 Impact assessment methodology ...... 31 6.3 Impacts to marine environment due to shipping (planned events) ...... 34 6.3.1 Present and future ship traffic ...... 34 6.3.2 Ambient noise ...... 36 6.3.3 Noise sources that can affect a noise budget ...... 38 6.3.4 Behavioural disturbances ...... 40 6.3.5 Navigational speed expectations ...... 41 6.3.6 Risk of collisions ...... 42 6.3.7 Overall risk assessment ...... 42 6.3.8 Air emissions ...... 43 6.3.9 Introduction of invasive non-indigenous species with ballast water ...... 44 6.3.10 Impact to marine mammals and sea birds of ice management ...... 45 6.4 Impacts to marine environment due to shipping (unplanned events) ...... 45 6.4.1 Ship strikes ...... 45 7 REFERENCES ...... 47

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 4/50 List of figures

Figure 1-1 The study area in Godthåbsfjord ...... 7 Figure 2-1 Baseline sampling of fish in Godthåbsfjord ...... 8 Figure 3-1 The expected shipping route through the main branch of Godthåbsfjord ...... 9 Figure 3-2 Bathymetry of the length section from the continental slope (left) following the main branch to the inner part near the Kangiata Nunata Sermia (KNS) glacier. Sill 1 is located near Nuuk (from Mortensen et al. 2011) ...... 10 Figure 3-3 Godthåbsfjord in spring ...... 11 Figure 3-4 Conceptual models of circulation modes in Godthåbsfjord: (a) estuarine circulation, (b) subglacial circulation, (c) dense coastal inflow) and (d) intermediate baroclinic circulation. In Figure c and d, dotted horizontal lines represent surfaces of constant density of water (isopycnals), and associated vertical arrows their eventual vertical movements. Directions of freshwater (Fw) and energy (Heat) fluxes are indicated by black and red arrows, representing summer and winter conditions, respectively (from Mortensen et al. 2011) ...... 12 Figure 3-5 In the inner part of Godthåbsfjord the surface waters contain large amounts of silt and clay (Innajuattoq Mountain in the centre) ...... 13 Figure 4-1 Summer bloom of phytoplankton in the inner fjord ...... 15 Figure 4-2 Humpback whale is a common summer visitor to Godthåbsfjord ...... 18 Figure 4-3 Number of wintering eiders in Nipisat Sound during three winters from spring 2008 to spring 2010 (from Malta et al. 2010) ...... 20 Figure 4-4 Several colonies of Black-legged Kittiwakes are found in the main branch of Godthåbsfjord ...... 23 Figure 4-5 Lumpsucker spawns many places along the rocky coasts of Godthåbsfjord ...... 25 Figure 5-1 The position of sea bird colonies in the main branch of Godthåbsfjord (Qeqertannguit, Innaarsunnguaq & Innajuattoq) and Nipisat Sound which is a very important wintering area for Common Eider ...... 28 Figure 5-2 Innajuattoq Mountain where large numbers of sea birds breed ...... 29 Figure 6-1 Average monthly ships in Nuuk Harbour Log for May-September 2011, divided into size classes after gross tonnage. Ten expected monthly ships of Isua operational phase included for comparison...... 35 Figure 6-3 Plot showing total acoustic power between 5 Hz–16 kHz (label number is dB) for ten merchant ships entering and exiting ports at different speeds (from Hallett, 2004)...... 36 Figure 6-2 Wenz Curves showing plots of the average ambient noise spectra for different levels of shipping traffic, and sea state conditions/wind speeds. Sea state is a descriptive index of the general condition of the free surface on a large body of water, the range here shown (from 0.5 to 6) covers from ’calm’ to ’very rough’. (Source: National Research Council. 2003, adapted from Wenz, 1962)...... 37 Figure 6-4 Average Merchant Ship source level during port entry/exit showing one standard deviation (from Hallett, 2004)...... 38

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 5/50

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Summary of status of key sea birds occurring in the Godthåbsfjord ...... 22 Table 4.2 Species on the Regional Greenland Red List of threatened species occurring in Godthåbsfjord ...... 26 Table 5.1 Number of breeding pairs of sea birds at colonies in the main branch of Godthåbsfjord. The numbers refer to 2010. “Ind” is individual birds (not pairs). Data from Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011 ...... 28 Table 6.1 Amount of the most important chemicals (by weight) to be imported by ships to the port at Taserârssuk ...... 30 Table 6.2 Parameters of typical vessels expected to call the Taserârssuk port...... 31 Table 6.3 In this example, the dark shaded bar would indicate that the impact is mainly applicable to the construction phase of the mine project with minor applicability during operation (light shading) and no applicability at closure and post-closure (no shading). Without mitigation, the activity will have a regional impact, a short term duration and have medium impact on the environment. It is further definitive that the impact will take place and the confidence of this assessment is high i.e. it is based on robust data. With mitigation in place, the activity will have only Local impact, short term duration and have Low impact...... 32 Table 6.4 Summary of the impact assessment of disturbance from shipping ...... 39 Table 6.5 Summary of the impact assessment of noise from shipping ...... 42 Table 6.6 Impact of the impact assessment of air emissions from shipping ...... 43 Table 6.7 Summary of the impact assessment for risk of introducing invasive non- indigenous species with ballast water ...... 44 Table 6.8 Summary of the impact assessment of ship strikes ...... 46

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 6/50 1 INTRODUCTION

London Mining is currently exploring the potential of mining the iron ore body at Isua, 150 km northeast of Nuuk. This includes building a port facility at Taserârssuk about 85 km from the mouth of Godthåbsfjord. This port will be the hub for import and export of products and cargo to the Isua mine. Iron concentrate will be shipped from the port in bulk carriers to a processing plant outside Greenland. In addition, cargo ships and small tankers will bring cargo in containers and fuel to the port.

This report assesses the potential impact of shipping in the Godthåbsfjord in connection with the shipping to and from the Isua Iron Ore project. The assessment covers the construction as well as the operation phase of the project. The study area is shown in Figure 1.1. The report does not cover potential impact of oil spills in connection with shipping to the Taserârssuk port because this is covered in a separate report; “Handling Oil in the Isua project and potential impact of oil spills on land and nearshore marine areas of Godthåbsfjord”.

Figure 1-1 The study area in Godthåbsfjord

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 7/50

2 METHOD OF STUDY

Data on marine life in the Godthåbsfjord system has mainly been sourced from published studies carried out by the Greenland Institute of Natural Recourses (GINR) and DCE – National Centre of Environment and Energy (previously the National Environmental Research Institute, NERI). Also observations by Orbicon staff during baseline field work between 2008 and 2011 have been included.

Although the focal point of this report is marine mammals and seabirds, a more general description of marine ecology in the fjord is also included. This is to give a broader understanding of the marine life in Godthåbsfjord including in which parts of the fjord the main feeding opportunities are for mammals and birds. The report also includes a brief account of fish in fjord, in particular species that are utilized commercially.

Figure 2-1 Baseline sampling of fish in Godthåbsfjord

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 8/50 3 GODTHÅBSFJORD

Godthåbsfjord (Nuup Kangerlua) near Nuuk is one of West Greenland’s largest fjords. It is very complex and made up of a number of fjord branches. It penetrates more than 150 km inland and connects the open sea to the Greenland Ice Cap. The fjord system covers an area over 2,000 sq. km and consists of several U-shaped valleys incised into mountain plateaus, which continue underneath the Ice Cap.

Godthåbsfjord is a sill fjord, with the main sill (depth 170 m) found at the entrance and several sill inside the fjord (Figure 3.2). Nuuk is located near Sill 1 (depth c. 250 m) and the main fjord basin is located landward of sill 2, with a maximum depth of 625 m (Mortensen et al. 2011).

The length of the main fjord branch is almost 190 km with the width varying from 4 to 8 km.

Figure 3-1 The expected shipping route through the main branch of Godthåbsfjord

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 9/50

Figure 3-2 Bathymetry of the length section from the continental slope (left) following the main branch to the inner part near the Kangiata Nunata Sermia (KNS) glacier. Sill 1 is located near Nuuk (from Mortensen et al. 2011)

Sea Ice and Glacial Ice Typically ice begins to form in November. In some years fast ice covers large parts of the inner fjord branch, causing accumulation of calved glacial ice in front of the glaciers. In cold years glacial ice is packed in the fast ice while in more mild winters glacial ice leave the fjord during winter (Mortensen et al 2011). The fast ice start to break up in May-June, releasing large amounts of rafted and ridged fast ice together with glacial ice accumulated during winter in the fjord (Mortensen et al. 2011). Only small amounts of solid ice and glacial ice leave the fjord.

The surface water temperature varies seasonally from 0 to 5 degrees centigrade, while the temperature at the bottom is relatively constant at 0-1 degrees centigrade (Jensen & Rasch 2008).

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 10/50

Figure 3-3 Godthåbsfjord in spring

Water flow and circulation The movements of water masses in the fjord are complex and dynamic and are driven by a suite of parameters including the freshwater discharge from rivers and glaciers, the local wind regime, the sea ice conditions, tides and the relief of the fjord (Mortensen et al. 2011).

Four distinct circulation modes in the fjord have been detected (from Mortensen et al. 2011): (1) estuarine circulation driven by freshwater run-off to the surface, (2) sub- glacial circulation linked to subsurface freshwater run-off from outlet glaciers and subsequent mixing with ambient waters, (3) dense coastal inflow advection of water from outside the fjord into the fjord basin, and (4) an intermediate inward inflow driven by deep tide-induced mixing in a 48 km long outer sill region (see Figure 3.4).

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 11/50

Figure 3-4 Conceptual models of circulation modes in Godthåbsfjord: (a) estuarine circulation, (b) subglacial circulation, (c) dense coastal inflow) and (d) intermediate baroclinic circulation. In Figure c and d, dotted horizontal lines represent surfaces of constant density of water (isopycnals), and associated vertical arrows their eventual vertical movements. Directions of freshwater (Fw) and energy (Heat) fluxes are indicated by black and red arrows, representing summer and winter conditions, respectively (from Mortensen et al. 2011)

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 12/50

Figure 3-5 In the inner part of Godthåbsfjord the surface waters contain large amounts of silt and clay (Innajuattoq Mountain in the centre)

3.1 Human land-use

Nuuk is the capital of Greenland as well as the largest town, with a population of around 16,000 inhabitants. Nuuk is situated on an island at the mouth of the Godthåbsfjord.

Kapisillit is a small settlement near the head of one of the tributary fjords and about 75 km from the mouth of Godthåbsfjord. Today Kapisillit is the only permanent settlement in Godthåbsfjord system. It was established in the 1960s when the cod stock in this part of the fjord flourished. Today there are still around 30 houses are, and the permanent population has dropped to around 70 people.

No other permanent settlements are found in the fjord area. A few hunting cabins are scattered along the coast and are mainly used in autumn and winter during the caribou hunting season.

3.1.1 Fishing

Subsistence and inshore commercial fishing takes place in the Godthåbsfjord system. The most important species of fish are cod, red fish, Greenland halibut and spotted wolfish. A more detailed description of fishing activities in the fjord is found in the Social Impact Assessment study.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 13/50 3.1.2 Hunting

Professional hunters from Nuuk and Kapisillit hunt seals on the fjord. The most important species are ring seal (all year) and harp seal (summer). A more detailed description of hunting activities is found in the Social Impact Assessment study.

3.2 Shipping

Present shipping in the Godthåbsfjord is limited, and the vessels are mostly small. This includes small supply ships, bringing goods to Kapisillit and the field camps of mine projects. Research vessels sometimes enter the fjord to carry out field work. During the summer months, whale watching operators working out of Nuuk also regularly enter the outer part of the fjord, but these ships rarely move far into the fjord system. Tour operators in Nuuk also arrange sightseeing and fishing tours into the fjord from Nuuk.

A number of professional fishers and hunters from Nuuk regularly operate in the fjord system. By far the majority of traffic in the fjord system consists of small boats, privately owned by persons in Nuuk, going on daily or weekend trips into the fjord to fish, hunt, or for leisure. Many of these boats are equipped with large engines and cruise at speeds of 50 km/hour. On days with clear weather, the number of fast speed boats in the main fjord systems is high.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 14/50 4 THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT OF GODTHÅBSFJORD

During spring and summer parts of the Godthåbsfjord is biologically very productive. The most productive parts are at the entrance and in the inner section where nutrient rich waters is found due to glacial melt water and upwelling (Calbert et al. 2011).

Increased light conditions in spring bring a phytoplankton bloom in the entire fjord that starts in April-May (Figure 4-1). This bloom reaches its highest production values in July during the time of high surface temperature and low salinity and subsequently drops to low values in September-October (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011).

Zooplankton abundance is high from May to August with peak values in July or August (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011) in particular near the entrance and in the inner fjord. However, high krill biomass has also been recorded from the middle fjord (Agersted et al. 2011).

The species composition and diversity of macro benthos in the fjords varies considerably with low biomass in the inner fjord close to the glaciers where high deposition rates of inorganic particles takes place (Sejr et al. 2010). High biomass was found near the entrance of the fjord (Sejr et al. 2010).

Figure 4-1 Summer bloom of phytoplankton in the inner fjord

During summer whales and migratory seals enter the fjord in considerable numbers to feed. Several small sea bird colonies are also found in the fjord system.

Capelin is one of the fish that feed on krill. In spring these small migratory fish arrive in large numbers to spawn in Greenlandic fjords. This includes Godthåbsfjord, where inner

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 15/50 fjord spawning starts in May and continues till June (Friis-Rødet and Kanneworff 2002). Capelin itself is preyed upon by cod and Atlantic salmon as well as seals and whales.

The resident population of marine mammals in the fjord consists of the ringed seal, which occur in moderate numbers. During the summer months, when the biological production is high, migratory whales and other species of seals enter the fjord to feed on the abundant prey. This includes humpback whales, several of which usually spend the summer in the fjord, feeding on the high density of fish and krill. In recent decades large numbers of harp seals also migrate into the fjord in late spring to feed on the high numbers of capelin.

A sea bird colony is located on Qeqertannguit, an island situated in the main branch of the fjord between Nuuk and Taserârssuk. Seabirds are also nesting on the almost vertical west facing rock face of the Innajuattoq Mountain in the inner-central part of the main branch of fjord. During winter, the fjord is mainly important to sea ducks with hundreds of common eider wintering in the fjords, in particular in the Nipisat Sound near Nuuk, where they feed on mussels by diving in shallow areas.

Below are brief descriptions of the key marine mammals, sea birds and commercially exploited fish that occur in Godthåbsfjord and which potentially can be affected by activities in connection with shipping in the fjord.

4.1 Marine mammals

4.1.1 Ringed seal Pusa hispida

This is the only species of seal known to occur in Godthåbsfjord throughout the year. The ringed seal is a small seal that is common in all Greenlandic waters but it is most plentiful along the north and east coasts. Although the ringed seal seems to be quite common in the Godthåbsfjord system the size of the population is unknown. The preferred breeding habitats are associated with land-fast ice or drifting pack ice covered by a deep snow. Here the females construct lairs and give birth to a single pup in March-April. Some ringed seals probably leave Godthåbsfjord in spring and follow the retreating sea ice northwards. Little is known about the diet of ringed seals in Godthåbsfjord. However, ringed seals appear to be generalist feeders, with a diet dominated by fish and medium-sized crustaceans (Rosing-Asvid 2010).

4.1.2 Harp seal Pagophilus groenlandica

This is a common non-breeding visitor to Godthåbsfjord during the summer months. The harp seals breed and moult off Newfoundland and large numbers of animals from this population subsequently move north to Greenland waters where they arrive in May. In late autumn – early winter the harp seals leave the Greenland waters again and return to the breeding grounds (Rosing-Asvid 2010).

The harp seal is probably the most numerous seal in Godthåbsfjord during summer when harp seals migrating north along the west coast penetrate deep into the fjord. The number of seals that enters the fjord varies from year to year and exact information on

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 16/50 numbers is not available. During summer the harp seal typically form feeding groups of 5 – 20 animals that mostly feed on capelin in the upper layer (down to 100 m)(Rosing- Asvid 2010).

4.1.3 Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata

This large seal is a regular but rather uncommon visitor to Godthåbsfjord from July to February. In June-July hooded seals gather in large number to moult off the southeast cost of Greenland (Rosing-Asvid 2010). Following the moulting, many of the adult seals migrate to feeding areas off the west coast of Greenland and a few of these seals also enter the fjords (Rosing-Asvid 2010), including Godthåbsfjord. In late winter the hooded seals belonging to this population leave the Greenland waters and swim to breeding grounds off Newfoundland.

When the hooded seals are in Godthåbsfjord they are believed to feed mainly on large fish such as cod, Greenland halibut and in particular redfish caught at large depths (down to 800 m or even deeper) (Rosing-Asvid 2010).

4.1.4 Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae

The humpback whale is probably the whale species that most regularly enters Godthåbsfjord. It is a common summer visitor along the West Greenland coast; where it feeds on krill and small fish e.g. capelin and sand eels (Larsen & Hammond 2000). The humpbacks feed only in summer and migrate to tropical or sub-tropical waters in the winter to breed and give birth.

In Godthåbsfjord humpback whales are typically present from May to late autumn, but some animals stay the whole year (Heide-Jørgensen and Laidre 2007, Boye et al. 2010). The humpback whales in Godthåbsfjord appear to be an “open population” meaning that the whales move in and out of the fjord during the season (Boye et al. 2008), but some whales are thought to display a high degree of residency to the fjord (Boye et al., 2010).

The number of humpback whales in Godthåbsfjord system varies significantly from year to year but is typically in the order of a few tens. Most seem to occur near the mouth of the fjord, but in July 2008 an Orbicon field team observed a humpback whale at Qugssuk for several days. Whales tagged with satellite transmitters have also been shown to use the whole fjord system (Heide-Jørgensen and Laidre 2007).

It is listed as “Least concern” on the Greenland Red list of threatened species (Boertmann 2007). Greenland is given aboriginal subsistence quotas to hunt Humpback whales. For the period 2010-2012 the annual quota is 9 animals.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 17/50

Figure 4-2 Humpback whale is a common summer visitor to Godthåbsfjord

4.1.5 Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Minke whale is common along Greenland’s South and West-coast and sometimes penetrates into the outer parts of the fjords. It arrives to West Greenland in spring and summer from wintering grounds in the Atlantic Ocean and leaves Greenland waters again in November. It is a regular visitor to the fjords including Godthåbsfjord.

It is listed as “Least concern” on the Greenland Red list of threatened species (Boertmann 2007). Greenland is given aboriginal subsistence quotas to hunt Minke whales. For the period 2010-2012 the annual quota is 190 animals.

4.1.6 Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus

Fin whale is a summer and autumn visitor to South and West Greenland occurring between June and October. It usually remains offshore along edges of banks where it feed on krill and smaller schooling fish. However, it is also a regular visitor to the fjords including Godthåbsfjord.

It is listed as “Least concern” on the Greenland Red list of threatened species (Boertmann 2007). Greenland is given aboriginal subsistence quotas to hunt Fin whales. For the period 2010-2012 the annual quota is 10 animals.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 18/50 4.1.7 Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena

Harbour porpoise is a small toothed whale that occurs throughout the year in the waters off West Greenland. It is generally quite common in Greenland waters but most porpoises remain off shore with only a few penetrating into fjords. Harbour porpoises feed on fish in the upper water layers.

It status on the Greenland Red list of threatened species is not assessed due to data deficient (Boertmann 2007). Hunting in Greenland of the species is unregulated. It is estimated that between 1,500 and 2,000 Harbour porpoise are shot annually (Boertmann 2007).

4.1.8 Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus

Little is known about the occurrence of Sperm whales in Greenland waters. It is mostly observed off shore and seems mainly to occur during the summer months. It sometimes penetrates into deep fjords such as Godthåbsfjord.

It status in Greenland has not been assessed (Boertmann 2007). The Sperm whale is protected.

4.2 Sea birds

4.2.1 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

The Great Cormorant is a widespread, but not particularly numerous, breeding bird in Greenland, and is limited to the central west coast. In Godthåbsfjord a small colony breeds on the Innajuattoq mountain. In 2009 30 adult cormorants were observed at the colony and at least 7 active nests (Orbicon 2011). The cormorants arrive at the breeding sites in early April, and leave in August to winter along the south-west coast (Salomonsen 1967). Their diet consists almost entirely of fish.

4.2.2 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

The mallard is a common breeding bird at wetlands throughout South and West Greenland. Outside the breeding season Mallards are common along the shore of Godthåbsfjord, where they typically occur in small flocks.

4.2.3 Eider Duck Somateria mollissima

The breeding population of eider in and around Godthåbsfjord is small, but the fjord and the coastal zone at the mouth of the fjord (at Nuuk) are very important wintering areas for this sea duck. The wintering eiders are believed to belong mainly to the Eastern Canadian Breeding Population (Merkel et al. 2002). The number of wintering eiders in the Godthåbsfjord area is estimated to 32,000 birds in the fjord system and 25,000 at the coastal area at Nuuk, principally in Nipisat Sound (Merkel et al. 2002) where around

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 19/50 15,000 eiders regularly winter (Figure 4.3). This makes Godthåbsfjord a key wintering area for this sea duck in southwest Greenland (Merkel et al. 2002).

Figure 4-3 Number of wintering eiders in Nipisat Sound during three winters from spring 2008 to spring 2010 (from Malta et al. 2010)

The eiders in the Nuuk/Godthåbsfjord area feed mainly on soft-bottom bivalves and polychaetes (Merkel et al. 2007), and telemetry studies have documented that most remain within a single small wintering area (Merkel et al. 2006). Further studies have shown that the eider which winter at the mouth of Godthåbsfjord, where hunting and fishing is common, typically forage 0.5 to 1 kilometre from the shore and are primarily diurnal feeders (Merkel et al. 2008). This is in contrast to the eiders that winter in the inner fjord, where human disturbance is low. Here the eider feed very close to the shore (< 50 m) and only during twilight and at night (Merkel et al. 2008). During daytime the eiders wintering in the inner fjord gather in large communal roosts in open water away from feeding areas (Merkel et al. 2008). The nocturnal foraging in the fjord is perhaps an adaption to avoid predation from White-tailed eagles. The eagles feed on diving birds and typically attack them by surprise, when they feed close to the shore.

4.2.4 Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus

This small duck is an uncommon breeding bird at rivers in west and south Greenland including the Isua area (Orbicon 2009). Harlequin Ducks spend the non-breeding season in salt water and small numbers are observed resting in the fjord in spring, typically where large rivers meet the fjord. In late summer and autumn Harlequin Ducks probably also occur in the fjord. These are mainly females with young, but observations are few. Outside the breeding season Harlequin Ducks are mostly seen in turbid near shore waters of the open sea.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 20/50 4.2.5 Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis

The Long-tailed Duck commonly breeds on lakes throughout the Isua area. Flocks of ducks on the fjord are common in spring. This is typically birds on their way from offshore wintering areas to the breeding areas, which have to spend a week or two until the lakes are free of ice. Few Long-tailed Duck are normally observed in autumn, as most breeding birds fly directly to the open sea after breeding.

4.2.6 White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla

The White-tailed Eagle has a range from the southern part of Greenland’s west coast, to the Disko Bay in the north, and belongs to an endemic subspecies. Its main stronghold is in the south-west of this range. The population is estimated to 150-200 pairs (Boertmann 2007).

The Greenland White-tailed Eagles are mainly found in coastal areas where they mainly feed on fish. However, during winter sea birds are also important prey. The nest site is typically placed on ledges on steep cliffs. Adults normally remain within the breeding areas throughout the year, while young birds move to outer coastal areas during winter. Between 3 and 5 eagle territories are situated along the coast of the study area (Johansen et al. 2008).

During the field survey in 2008 - 2011 White-tailed Eagles (adults and sub-adults) were regularly observed near the coast of Godthåbsfjord and a few times also 10-20 km inland (Orbicon 2011).

4.2.7 Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides

The Iceland Gull is a common and widespread marine species breeding on rocky shores, mainly in fjords, where it typically nests on steep high cliffs, but sometimes also on low skerries. A quite large colony is situated at Innaarsunnguaq in the main branch of the fjord (Figure 5-1). Another much smaller colony is situated on Qeqertannguit, an island in the main branch of the fjord, along the shipping route to Taserârssuk (Juul- Pedersen et al. 2011). A large colony is also found on Innajuattoq mountain further into the fjord Orbicon 2011).

4.2.8 Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus

This is the other common and widespread marine gull in Greenland. It occurs throughout the country. Like the Iceland Gull, the Glaucous Gull breeds on steep high cliffs, but sometimes also on low skerries. It often breeds in association with other seabirds.

Small numbers breed on the Qeqertannguit island in the main branch of the fjord along the shipping route to Taserârssuk (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011).

4.2.9 Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus

This large marine gull is widespread along the Greenland west-coast north to Upernavik. It typically breeds in pairs, or in loose colonies, on small islands along the

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 21/50 outer coasts. A small colony is found on the Qeqertannguit island in the main branch of the fjord along the shipping route to Taserârssuk (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011).

4.2.10 Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus

The Lesser Black-backed Gull is a rather uncommon breeding bird in Greenland, but the population is increasing, and it has recently established a breeding population at Qeqertannguit in the Godthåbsfjord. It is a migratory species that spends the winter outside Greenland.

Table 4.1 Summary of status of key sea birds occurring in the Godthåbsfjord

Importance of Period of occurrence in Species Status Godthåbsfjord to Godthåbsfjord Greenland population

Great Cormorant Breeding April - August Low

Mallard Breeding & wintering Year round Low

Common Eider Visitor Mainly winter High

Harlequin Duck Visitor Spring and autumn Low

Long-tailed Duck Visitor Mainly winter High

White-tailed Eagle Breeding Year round Medium

Iceland Gull Breeding Year round Low

Glaucous Gull Breeding Year round Low

Great Black-backed Gull Breeding Year round Low

Lesser Black-backed Gull Breeding Spring-summer-autumn Medium

Black-legged Kittiwake Breeding April - October Low

Arctic Tern Breeding May-October Low

Black Guillemot Breeding Year round Low

Razorbill Breeding April - August Low

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 22/50 4.2.11 Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Herring Gulls are rare breeders in Greenland and are confined to the southern and western parts. It is currently expanding its distribution and a few pairs are now breeding in the Godthåbsfjord at Qeqertannguit some years (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011).

4.2.12 Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla

Large numbers of Black-legged Kittiwake breed in Greenland, This gull has declined much in numbers in Greenland during the last decades. This is also true for the southwest of Greenland, where the breeding population has more than halved since the 1970s-1980s (Boertmann 2007).

Several colonies of kittiwakes are found in the Godthåbsfjord. By far the largest is situated on the steep cliffs of Innajuattoq Mountain where 375 pairs were recorded in 2010 (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011). Small colonies are also found on Qeqertannguit in the main branch of the fjord and at Innaarsunnguaq, along the shipping route to Taserârssuk (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011).

Figure 4-4 Several colonies of Black-legged Kittiwakes are found in the main branch of Godthåbsfjord

4.2.13 Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea

A single breeding colony of this tern is found in Godthåbsfjord at Qeqertannguit, where 25-100 pairs breed most years (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011).

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 23/50 4.2.14 Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle

This is the most widespread auk in Greenland, and it breeds in small to medium sized colonies along most coasts. It is usually strictly sedentary, only leaving the breeding areas when forced away by ice. It feeds mainly on small fish.

Several colonies are found in the Godthåbsfjord system. The most important is situated on Qeqertannguit, where 790 birds were recorded in 2010 (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011). Another colony is at Innajuattoq where 46 Black Guillemots were recorded in June 2009, indicating a breeding population of at least 23 pairs (Orbicon 2011) and at Innaarsunnguaq where 100 black guillemots were observed in April 2010 (Juul- Pedersen et al. 2011)

4.2.15 Razorbill Alca torda

In Greenland the razorbill breeds in colonies scattered along the west coast. It is migratory arriving to the colonies in April and leaving in August. It feeds on small fish.

A small colony at Innaarsunnguaq is the only breeding site for this auk in the study area. In 2010 36 razorbills were observed at this site in June (Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011).

4.3 Fish

Generally, little is known about the marine fish in Godthåbsfjord that are not utilised commercially or in connection with subsistence fishery (Pedersen and Kannewolf 1995). Atlantic cod is common in the fjord, but not in the numbers of the 1960s where fisheries were booming.

4.3.1 Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua

The Atlantic Cod is common and widespread in Greenland waters up to Qeqertarsuup Tunua in the north. It is found from the coast down to about 600 m, and is found both close to the bottom and in the water column (Bugge Jensen & Christensen 2003). During the 20th century the cod stocks in Greenland fluctuated much in number and distribution. The reason for this is mainly believed to be Greenland’s position at the northern edge of cod’s natural range. This means that even small climatic changes in Greenland can lead to major shifts in cod distribution in Greenland waters. Although the Atlantic cod is far less numerous that in the 1960s and 1970s, it is still a common and widespread fish in the fjord.

4.3.2 Greenland Cod/Uvak Gadus ogac

The Greenland Cod, or Uvak, occurs along the coast and fjords north to Upernavik and it is common in the fjords of South West Greenland. In commercial fisheries it is considered inferior to the Atlantic Cod, but it has some subsistence importance. It is widespread in Godthåbsfjord system.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 24/50 4.3.3 Greenland Halibut Reinhardtius hippelglossoides

This is a common species in the waters surrounding Greenland. It is most frequently found on soft bottom at depths of 200 to 2,000 m (Jørgensen 1997). It is among the economically most important fish species in Greenland, and is exploited both commercially and for subsistence fishery. It is also a key fish for subsistence and inshore commercial fishing in Godthåbsfjord.

4.3.4 Capelin Mallotus villosus

Capelin is very common in Godthåbsfjord during the summer months. It grazes on the dense swarms of plankton found in the inner parts of the fjord. Larger Capelin also eats a great deal of krill and other crustaceans. Widespread spawning takes place along the shallow sandy beaches of the fjord. Capelin is an important forage fish, and is essential as the key food of Atlantic Cod.

4.3.5 Lumpsucker Cyclopterus lumpus

This is a common and widespread fish in southwest Greenland. It spends most of the year in deep offshore waters, but in spring and early summer it seeks into shallow coastal waters to spawn. Spawning takes place at specific sites along the coast, some of which are found in Godthåbsfjord. In these areas an important subsistence fishery of female Lumpsuckers takes place before they spawn.

Figure 4-5 Lumpsucker spawns many places along the rocky coasts of Godthåbsfjord

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 25/50 4.4 Threatened species

Five species listed on the Regional Greenland Red List of threatened species (Boertmann 2007) occur in the Godthåbsfjord, see Table 4.2

Table 4.2 Species on the Regional Greenland Red List of threatened species occurring in Godthåbsfjord

Importance of Period of Main Greenland red-list Godthåbsfjord to Species Status occurrence habitat status Greenland population Harbour Visitor (?) Year round Off shore Data deficient Low/Medium porpoise1 (West Greenland Common Mainly Visitor Coastal population) High Eider winter Vulnerable

White-tailed Breeding Year round Coastal Vulnerable Medium Eagle

Black-legged April - Coastal, Breeding Vulnerable Low Kittiwake October offshore

May- Arctic Tern Breeding Coastal Near threatened Low October

In spite of being widely distributed in Greenlandic water little is known about the population size and trend of Harbour porpoise and it therefore has “data deficient” status (Boertmann 2007).

The West Greenland Common Eider population is listed as vulnerable because of a large decline in number of the last 40 years (Boertmann 2007). In recent years this population has shown sign of recovery.

The White–tailed Eagle is listed as vulnerable because of the small and isolated breeding population in Greenland (Boertmann 2007).

The Black-legged Kittiwake is listed as vulnerable because of a massive decline in the Greenland breeding population over many decades (Boertmann 2007).

Arctic Tern is listed as near threatened because of a large decline (Boertmann 2007).

1 The status of this species in the Godthåbsfjord is discussed in Annex 3

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 26/50 5 SITES OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE FOR BIODIVERSITY

5.1 Areas protected according to international agreements

The Godthåbsfjord does not include a protected area listed in the Greenland list of Ramsar sites. Greenland is a signee of the Ramsar Convention on projection of wetlands and their biodiversity. It has designated 11 areas to be included in the list of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites) (Egevang & Boertmann 2001).

5.2 Areas protected according to national legislation

The Godthåbsfjord does not include a protected area according to national legislation. A number of nature reserves and a single national park (the Northeast Greenland National Park) have been designated according to the Greenland Nature Protection Act. This includes a number of sites protected according to national and local regulations.

5.3 Areas of conservation concern identified by NGOs

The Godthåbsfjord does not include “Important Bird Areas” – IBA’s” as designated by the global non-government conservation organization BirdLife International. This organisation has identified 55 IBA’s for Greenland (BirdLife International 2007). The criteria for an IBA is that the site either holds significant numbers of one or more globally threatened (bird) species, is one of a set of sites that together hold a suite of restricted- range species or biome-restricted species, or has exceptionally large numbers of migratory or congregatory species.

5.4 Sea bird colonies

Three sea bird colonies are found on islands and cliffs in the main branch of Godthåbsfjord (

Figure 5-1 T). A few other small colonies are situated on islands south of the entrance to the main branch.

The species and the breeding populations of the various colonies in the main branch are summarized in Table 4.2. The most important is Qeqertannguit in the inner part of Godthåbsfjord, which is a low-lying island, holding the largest diversity of breeding seabirds in the Nuuk District. A smaller colony is found at Innaarsunnguaq along the shipping route to Taserârssuk The steep cliffs of Innajuattoq are also an important breeding site for the sea birds of the fjord.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 27/50

Figure 5-1 The position of sea bird colonies in the main branch of Godthåbsfjord (Qeqertannguit, Innaarsunnguaq & Innajuattoq) and Nipisat Sound which is a very important wintering area for Common Eider

Bird species Innajuattoq Qeqertannguit Innaarsunnguaq

Great Cormorant 29 ind

Black-legged Kittiwake 375 42 16 Iceland Gull 1535 ind 44 477 Great Black-backed Gull 40 Lesser Black-backed 27 ind Gull Glaucous Gull 4

Herring Gull 0 Arctic Tern 154 ind Black Guillemot 112 ind 790 ind 100 ind Razorbill 36 ind

Table 5.1 Number of breeding pairs of sea birds at colonies in the main branch of Godthåbsfjord. The numbers refer to 2010. “Ind” is individual birds (not pairs). Data from Juul-Pedersen et al. 2011

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 28/50

Figure 5-2 Innajuattoq Mountain where large numbers of sea birds breed

5.4.1 Wintering areas of seabirds

The Nipisat Sound near the mouth of Godthåbsfjord (

Figure 5-1 T) is an important wintering area for Common Eider ducks (see 4.2.3) regularly accommodating up to 15,000 birds.

5.4.2 Spawning areas for Lumpsucker and Capelin

In early spring large numbers of Lumpsucker and Capelin migrate into the Godthåbsfjord in order to spawn in the shallow, intertidal waters. The spawning grounds are scattered along the coastline, in particular in the inner part of the fjord system. While Lumpsuckers prefer stony sea bottom, Capelin spawn mostly in the near shore of very shallow sandy beaches.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 29/50

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 Expected shipping activities for Isua Project

The port site at Taserârssuk will include two wharf, a tug berth and other infrastructures, designed to handle the import of consumables, spare parts, equipment and fuel required for mine operations and the export of bulk iron concentrate product at a throughput of 15 million tons/year.

During the construction phase, which will probably take 2-3 years, shipping to the port at Taserârssuk will consist mainly of cargo ships that will bring in goods and machinery to the site. When mine productions starts, the number of cargo ships will decline, while vessels to export the iron concentrate will start to arrive. Since the overall shipping (number of calls to the port and the ship classes that will navigate the fjord) is not expected to be significantly different during the construction and operation phases, this assessment will not assess impacts during the phases separately.

The majority of imports (such as consumables, spare parts etc.) will arrive at the site in shipping containers. It is assumed that the containers will be transported by 10,000 DWT vessels. During the operation phase the number of container ship calls is expected to be 3 per month.

The imports will include large amounts of chemicals to be used in mine production. The most important of these (by weight) are listed in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Amount of the most important chemicals (by weight) to be imported by ships to the port at Taserârssuk Product Amount (tons per month)

Explosives (Ammonium nitrate) 1,800

Sulfuric acid 1,100

Reagents 2,050

Delivery of fuel oil is assumed to be in 25,000 DWT ice-class tankers. One tanker call per month is expected during the operation phase.

The iron concentrate is expected to be transported in various classes of bulk carriers. The largest will be 180,000 DWT bulk carriers but also 100,000 DWT and 120,000 DWT carriers will probably be used. The total number of ship calls in connection with ore transport is estimated to 4-5 per month.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 30/50 Table 6.2 Parameters of typical vessels expected to call the Taserârssuk port.

Support of berthing and de-berthing manoeuvres will be accomplished with two 5000 HP tugs. As a secondary duty, the tugs will also perform ice-breaking duties when required. The tugs will normally operate near the port site at Taserârssuk only.

6.2 Impact assessment methodology

This section considers the methodology used to assess, and where possible, mitigate potential environmental impacts from the proposed shipping activities. The identification of potential impacts is based on the assumption that there is a source (from the shipping) and a receptor. The main receptors are considered to be the marine environment of the fjord and the associated flora and fauna.

Particular attention is paid on Valued Ecological Components (VECs) which are the particularly sensitive and/or important elements of the marine ecosystem in the fjord. This includes species of commercial value as well as species of conservation concern in Greenland. For the purpose of this study the following VECs were identified:

 Marine species listed on the Greenland red list: Common Eider, White-tailed Eagle, Black-legged Kittiwake and Arctic Tern.

 Important habitats for these species of birds.

 Humpback whale

Consequently the impact assessment considers:

 Activities related to the proposed shipping, that is the source of emissions, disturbances or other effects.

 Likely emissions, disturbances or other effects.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 31/50  Receptors that can be impacted by these effects.

 The potential impact to the receptors.

 Ways to mitigate the impacts.

This has been done in the following way:

 Shipping activities that could potentially cause an impact have been identified and are summarised in Chapter 6.1.

 The receptors considered susceptible to impact were sourced from the description of the marine environment in Chapter 4.

In the following sections of this chapter, each of the identified potential impacts of physical, air, water and natural environments are discussed.

For each impact, there is a brief description of the type (e.g. disturbance from traffic). This is followed by a description of the potential impact on caribou. If possible, proposals to mitigation are given. The passage is completed by an assessment of the severity of the impact.

The information is then summarized in an Impact Assessment Table (Table 6.3). The impact table identifies (1) the spatial extent (size of area) of the impact, (2) the duration of the impact, (3) the significance to the environment, (4) the probability that the impact will occur, and (5) the confidence by which the assessment has been made.

Impact during phases of the life of mine

Construction Operation Closure Post-closure

Importance of impact without mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Regional Short term Medium Definite High Mitigation measures  During detailed design and sighting of infrastructure avoid as far as possible areas with continuous vegetation. This can be done by fine-scale mapping of sensitive areas around the power plant, access roads and port.

Importance of impact with mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Local Short term Low Possible High

Table 6.3 In this example, the dark shaded bar would indicate that the impact is mainly applicable to the construction phase of the mine project with minor applicability during operation (light shading) and no applicability at closure and post-closure (no shading). Without mitigation, the activity will have a regional impact, a short term duration and have medium impact on the environment. It is further definitive that the impact will take place and the confidence of this assessment is high i.e. it is based on robust data. With mitigation in place, the activity will have only Local impact, short term duration and have Low impact.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 32/50 This is followed by a list of proposed mitigating measures (if relevant) and a bar with an assessment of the spatial extent, duration, significance, probability and confidence when mitigation has been taken into account.

For the purpose of this EIA study the following terminologies are used in the Impact Assessment Table:

Spatial scale of the impact:

 Project area; that is within the footprint of the mine project, i.e. confined to the activities per see, the infrastructure itself and the very close vicinity hereof (few hundreds of meters away),  Locally; within a few km from the activity (about 0- 5 km), including the road-pipeline corridor,  Regional; within a distance up to 50 – 75 km from the project area and along Godthåbsfjord coastline.

Duration (reversibility) Duration means the time horizon for the impact. The term also includes the degree of reversibility, i.e. to what extent the impact is temporary or permanent (i.e. irreversible)

 Short term; the impact last for a short period without any irreversible effects  Medium Term; the impact will last for a period of months or years but without permanent effects or definitely without irreversible effects  Long term; the impact will be long lasting (> 15 years) e.g. cover the entire lifetime of the operational phase. Permanent and close to irreversible effects might be ascertained.  Permanent; the impact will last for many decades and have irreversible character.

Significance of the impact:  Very low; very small/brief decline/displacement of a few (non-key) animals from mine site and/or loss of habitat in the mine area,  Low: small decline/displacement of caribou and/or loss of habitat in the project area,  Medium: some decline/displacement of caribou and/or loss of habitat at local level,  High; significant decline/displacement of caribou and/or loss of habitat at regional level.

Probability that the impact will occur:

 Improbable  Possible  Probable  Definite

Confidence that the assessment is correct:

 Low - data are weak,  Medium - data from Greenland or other parts of the High Arctic (in particular Canada) points to the conclusion,  High – data from the Nuuk-Godthåbsfjord area or neighbouring parts of West Greenland are conclusive.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 33/50 6.3 Impacts to marine environment due to shipping (planned events)

Project-related shipping in the Godthåbsfjord system will generate noise both above and below water. This could potentially result in disturbances and displacements of sea birds and marine mammals. The sea birds that are thought to be particularly vulnerable to noise from shipping in the fjord are the breeders at the colonies at Qeqertannguit and Innaarsunnguaq in the summer and the large flocks (> 15,000) of Common Eider ducks wintering at Nipisat Sound, near the mouth of the fjord, during winter months. The marine mammals that are thought to be particularly vulnerable to disturbances and masking of underwater sound communication are humpback whales and harp seals during the summer months.

6.3.1 Present and future ship traffic

It should be noted that Greenland’s capital Nuuk is located within the Godthåbsfjord, and many large cargo vessels and cruise ships already call at the port of Nuuk at present. For the period from January 2011 to May 2012, both months inclusive, a total of 866 ships were recorded in the port log of Nuuk harbour. This equates to an average of about 50 ships a month for the whole period. Humpback whales are generally present in summer months, when ship traffic is also higher, and the average monthly number of ships was just over 70 in the period from May-September 2011. In Figure 6 1 the average monthly ship calls are shown, with the expected monthly ship calls to Taserârssuk during the Isua Project added for comparison

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 34/50 Average monthly port calls For Nuuk for period May-September 2011 35

30

25

20

15

10

Avergare Avergare monthly of berthings number 5

0

Size-classes of shipping in gross tonnage

Figure 6-1 Average monthly ships in Nuuk Harbour Log for May-September 2011, divided into size classes after gross tonnage. Ten expected monthly ships of Isua operational phase included for comparison.

The number of ships calling at the Isua port at Taserârssuk is estimated to total approximately 9-11 ships per month, with 2 ships calls for import of consumables and fuel and 7 to 9 ships exporting iron concentrate (See Navigational Safety Investigation).

The estimated increase of shipping in the approaches to Nuuk and the outer parts of the Godthåbsfjord systems caused by the project are not considered significant.

In addition to the merchant shipping it is noted that a large number of small boats and pleasure craft are also present in the Godthåbsfjord as indicated by the fact that Nuuk Boating Association counted 861 active boat members in 2010 (Boye et al. 2011). On top of this can be added a number of boat owners who are not a member of the association and small commercial vessels, such as whale watching vessels and occupational hunting/fishing craft, which operate out of marinas are not recorded in Nuuk’s commercial harbour log.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 35/50 6.3.2 Ambient noise

High wind speeds occur in the Godthåbsfjord system, so wind and wave generated noise is expected to be present, as is noise from glaciers calving into the inner parts of the fjord. These noise sources generate sound over a broad frequency range, overlapping some of the shipping noise frequencies. Average ambient noise spectra can be seen in the Wentz curves in Figure 6-3.

Figure 6-2 Plot showing total acoustic power between 5 Hz–16 kHz (label number is dB) for ten merchant ships entering and exiting ports at different speeds (from Hallett, 2004).

It should be noted that while the Capesize bulk carriers are almost twice as large as the largest cruise ship that visited Nuuk in 2011, the amount of disturbance a ship generates is not necessarily directly proportional to its size, see Fejl! Henvisningskilde ikke fundet..

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 36/50

Figure 6-3 Wenz Curves showing plots of the average ambient noise spectra for different levels of shipping traffic, and sea state conditions/wind speeds. Sea state is a descriptive index of the general condition of the free surface on a large body of water, the range here shown (from 0.5 to 6) covers from ’calm’ to ’very rough’. (Source: National Research Council. 2003, adapted from Wenz, 1962).

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 37/50 6.3.3 Noise sources that can affect a noise budget

Figure 6-4 Average Merchant Ship source level during port entry/exit showing one standard deviation (from Hallett, 2004).

While large ships are generally accepted to produce more noise than small ships, many other factors, such as state of maintenance and speed also plays a role. A study of ships entering and exiting ports in Australia (Hallett 2004) showed that the total acoustic power between 5 Hz–16 kHz of ships ranging from 3500 to 201000 dead weight tonnes were highly comparable, and it is expected that most merchant ships will lie within one standard deviation of the same source level curve, see Figure 6-4. Bearing in mind the large number of ships weighing 2000 gross register tonnes and up, it is not expected that the additional shipping of the Isua Project will have a large effect on the noise budget for the outer part of the Godthåbsfjord.

At present there is little shipping traffic, apart from fishing trawlers, deeper infjord from Nuuk. Some (smaller) cruise ships visit the settlement of Kapisillit further inland, and when sea ice does not interfere with the shipping schedule, Kapisillit is serviced about twice a month by a small freight vessel from Royal Arctic Line (Settlement master schedule, 2012). Nonetheless, the Capesize bulk carriers expected to be used for the Isua Project are significantly larger than other ships presently sailing in the Godthåbsfjord system, and will introduce large ship traffic in the inner parts of the fjord system, where there previously was none.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 38/50 The ships to and from the port at Taserârssuk will pass the sea bird colonies at Qeqertannguit and Innaarsunnguaq and the wintering area for Common Eider at Nipisat sound in a distance of 2-3 km. Further into the fjord, flocks of wintering eiders resting and feeding in the main fjord branch and Qugssuk Fjord might be temporarily disturbed by ships calling in at Taserârssuk The noise disturbance will be slight at this distance, and since the ships will move slowly in the fjord, the approach will be gradual and constant and should not cause significant displacement (DMU, 2011). Ice breaking will be limited to a small area in Qugssuk bay around the port. All in all, the impact of noise disturbance on sea birds in the fjord is assessed to be Low.

Table 6.4 Summary of the impact assessment of disturbance from shipping

Impact during phases of the life of the mine

Construction Operation Closure Post-closure

Importance of impact without mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence

Main branch Long term Low Definite High of fjord

Mitigation measures  Low speed while in the fjord

 Keep good distance to sea bird colonies (in summer) and – when possible – to flocks of wintering sea bird

Importance of impact with mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence

Main branch Long term Low Definite High of fjord

Underwater, commercial vessels produce relatively loud and predominately low frequency sounds (Hildebrand 2004). Such noise from shipping often causes short-term behavioural reactions and temporary displacements of marine mammals. The exact characteristics of these disturbances depend on vessel type, size, operational mode and implemented noise-reduction measures. The strongest energy tends to be concentrated below several hundred Hz, with broadband source levels generally in the 180 - 190 dB (re: 1μPa @ 1m) range (Richardson et al. 1995). Most of the acoustic field surrounding large vessels is the result of the following sources:

 Propellers and thrusters: The collapse of cavitation bubbles created by the motion of propellers causes ships to emit low frequency tonal sounds at their service speed.

 Machinery noise: When the vessel is stationary or moving at low speeds the dominant noise often comes from machinery, such as large power generation units (diesel engines or gas turbines) and compressors. The noise tends to be of low frequency and tonal in nature. It can be transmitted through different

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 39/50 pathways, i.e. structural (machine to hull to water), airborne (machine to air to hull to water) or through a mixture of both.

 Echo sounding: The technique of using sound pulses directed from the surface vertically down to measure the distance to the bottom. Echo sounders can have very high frequencies of several hundred kHz, and are vertically focused.

 Ice breaking: The breaking of ice emits noise at frequencies of 20 -1,000 Hz. Ice breaking creates short loud pulses of underwater sound.

In whales underwater sound serves in communication, orientation, predator avoidance, and in foraging. Noise from large vessels can potentially lead to significant disturbances. Concerns regarding masking of underwater communication have mainly been associated with low frequencies noise from large ships. In addition to their predominant low-frequency radiated noise, modern cargo ships can also radiate high frequency noise. Noise in these frequency bands has the potential to interfere (over relatively short ranges) with the communication signals of many marine mammals, including toothed whale species, not typically thought of in terms of masking from shipping noise. This has been demonstrated for white whales and killer whales in Canada (Foote et al. 2004; Scheifele et al. 2005).

The tugs and export vessels which could be expected to service the Isua Project are expected to emit noise in the 50-1000 Hz range at 170 dB (re: 1μPa @ 1m) for the tugs and in the 10-100 Hz range at 180-190 dB (re: 1μPa @ 1m) for the cargo ships and bulk carriers. Impacts of noise within these frequency ranges can, above certain limits, cause physical injury and hearing damage, masking and behavioural disturbances in marine mammals.

Auditory injury of marine mammals could occur at sound levels around 220 dB, and permanent threshold shifts can occur if levels exceed 230 dB (McCauley 1994, Southall et al. 2007). Such levels are not often associated with shipping and physical damage and hearing damage is not considered possible in relation to the Isua Project.

6.3.4 Behavioural disturbances

Masking and behavioural disturbances at the lower frequencies in question could possibly affect the low frequency cetacean hearing group, which includes the baleen whales (such as humpback, fin, blue and sei whales). Whales within the group appear to avoid sounds of received levels greater the 150 to 180 dB, exhibit significant behavioural responses at 140-160 dB and subtle behavioural responses at levels above 120 dB (McCauley 1994, 2000a &b, Malme et al. 1985, Myrberg, 1990 and Southall et al. 2007). In order to estimate the distance from project shipping at which noise of the expected frequencies drops below 120 dB, one can roughly calculate the decay distances using the Spherical Spreading Law. According to this a 190 dB noise will have dropped to 120 dB at a range of 3162 meters; a 180 dB noise will have dropped to 120 dB at a range of 1000 meters and a 170 dB noise will have dropped to 120 dB at a range of 316 meters. It should be noted that the decay distances are calculated without taking bottom reflection, linear absorption and possible reflection from hard rock walls within the fjord into account. Acoustic modelling of the Godthåbsfjord system could possibly clarify this to some extent, but a number of factors are unknown at present, and

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 40/50 are likely to be highly variable, affecting the reliability of such a model. Given the relatively low frequency of shipping and limited disturbance ranges expected, it seems unnecessary at present. An estimated range for subtle behavioural responses around a Capesize bulk carrier could be set at 5 kilometres in order to factor in some sound reflection.

Along the project shipping route in the Godthåbsfjord, humpback whales are expected to be the most noise-vulnerable whale species with a risk of temporary displacement from important habitats. The humpback whales in the Godthåbsfjord display a high degree of residency, even though they are part of an open population (Boye et al. 2010). However, the risk of ”scaring off” the resident individuals is not considered to be significant, as a very large part of the whale observations noted in Boye et al. 2010 were made within 5 km of Nuuk. This implies that the present noise from many monthly ship calls to the port of Nuuk has not dissuaded the resident individuals from occupying this part of the Godthåbsfjord system. An additional 10 ships a month seems unlikely to change this.

Other species of whales may also occur in the fjord occasionally, and will also be vulnerable, but their occurrence is less regular and no areas of high concentration are known along the shipping route.

Seals also occur in the fjord, but severe disturbance is not considered likely, as seals in general display considerable tolerance to underwater noise (Richardson et al. 1995), confirmed by a study in Arctic Canada, in which ringed seals showed only limited avoidance to seismic operations (Lee et al. 2005).

Nuuk Boating Association’s 861 active boat members (number from 2010) as well as boat owners who are not members of the association also use the fjord. This is a high number of boat owners when considering that the population of Nuuk is roughly 15000 people (Sermersooq 2012). Particularly close to Nuuk, but in summer months with clear weather also further infjord, high frequency anthropogenic noise caused by local traffic of small fast vessels is expected to be high. Small boats with large outboard engines can produce sounds on the order of 175 dB (re: 1 µPa @ 1m). Boats in this class often create tones at frequencies up to several hundred Hz (Richardson et al. 1995a).

While high frequency noise is attenuated in water over much shorter distances than lower frequency noise, such as that from cargo ships, steady speed and direction is much preferable to rapid changes in speed and direction in relation to acoustic impact on whales (Evans et al. 1992). If occurring close to whales, speed boats are therefore considered more likely to evoke startle responses in whales than large slow moving ships, even if the latter are louder.

6.3.5 Navigational speed expectations

From a navigational safety perspective, the operating speed has to be above a certain minimum to ensure steerage and navigational safety in the fjord. This will vary between individual ships and weather conditions, but will likely be around 3-4 knots (Gray et al. 2001). As there can be obstacles such as icebergs in the fjord, and relatively limited manoeuvring space is available, an upper limit on navigational speed will likely be imposed for safety measures, as well as to reduce noise and emissions (See

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 41/50 Navigational Safety Investigation). The expected navigational speed of the ships as they sail through the Godthåbsfjord system has yet to be determined, but will depend on several of the above factors, and could be expected to be around 10 knots. The majority of the calling bulk carriers are expected to be of large Capesize or above, and such very large ships often have fixed pitch propellers rather than variable pitch propellers. Therefore, it is expected that the noise generated at slower speeds will be comparably less.

6.3.6 Risk of collisions

The risk of ship strikes is also comparably less at lower speeds. According to a study of humpback whales and cruise ship speeds carried out in Alaska, sailing at speeds of less than 11.8 knots reduces the risks of a ship strike considerably (Gende et al. 2011). 10 knot speed restrictions have been imposed along parts of the eastern seaboard of the United States by NMFS and NOAA (National Marine Fisheries Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and are aimed at reducing causalities in endangered North Atlantic right whales. Similar navigational speeds of about 10 knots in the Godthåbsfjord system would be considered an adequate measure, and the significance of collisions in the Isua Project is therefore assessed to be Very Low.

6.3.7 Overall risk assessment

Because of the relatively low number of vessels serving the Isua project, and expected low speeds in the fjord, risk of injury, hearing damage, masking and behavioural disturbance of marine mammals is assessed to be Low.

Table 6.5 Summary of the impact assessment of noise from shipping

Impact during phases of the life of the mine

Construction Operation Closure Post-closure

Importance of impact without mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Main branch Long term Low Definite High of fjord Mitigation measures  Keeping the speed as low as possible minimizes the noise impact.

Importance of impact with mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Main branch Long term Low Definite High of fjord

Nonetheless, the underwater acoustic environment in the Arctic is very complex, and sound channelling layers can occur when fresh run-off water lies on top of deeper more

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 42/50 saline layers. Such layers may exist in the Godthåbsfjord system and help propagate sound over longer distances. Reflections of noise from the bottom and sides of the fjord may add further complexities to the underwater acoustic environment and it could be beneficial to set up a monitoring programme to follow the development of underwater noise along the shipping route in the inner reaches of the fjord. It is, however, not deemed necessary to initiate the monitoring at this stage, as base-line conditions can be obtained by measurements in between periods of shipping traffic.

6.3.8 Air emissions

Exhaust emissions from shipping in Godthåbsfjord in connection with the Isua project will lead to increased global air pollution. This includes sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter (black carbon) when diesel engines burn high sulfur content bunker oil. The particulate matter (black carbon) will increase snow and ice melting in the surroundings by absorbing sunlight and reducing albedo. The exhaust emissions will also include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons.

The emission levels from ships are internationally regulated with upper limits for sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide stipulated by the IMO‘s Marpol Annex VI. The vessels that will call at the port at Taserârssuk will be governed by these regulations. Given the limited amount of shipping trips in the fjord (approx. 20 passages a month) required for the transport of exports and imports, greenhouse gas emissions from shipping are considered to have a small environmental impact. Consequently the impact is assessed as Very Low.

Table 6.6 Impact of the impact assessment of air emissions from shipping

Impact during phases of the life of the mine

Construction Operation Closure Post-closure

Importance of impact without mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Main branch Long term Very Low Definite High of fjord Mitigation measures  Keeping the speed as low as possible minimizes the air emissions.

Importance of impact with mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Main branch Long term Very Low Definite High of fjord

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 43/50 6.3.9 Introduction of invasive non-indigenous species with ballast water

The introduction of invasive species into new marine environments by ships’ ballast water has been identified as one of the greatest threats to the ecology of the world’s oceans.

In 2004, the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) was adopted. It is a new international convention to prevent the potentially devastating effects of spreading of harmful aquatic organisms carried by ships' ballast water. The convention will come into force 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. As of July 2011, 28 States have ratified the convention, including Denmark.

The BWM will require all ships to implement a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan. All ships are required to carry out ballast water management procedures to a given standard. The IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has already adopted guidelines, which are part of a series developed to assist in the implementation of the BWM Convention.

To minimize a potential introduction of non-indigenous species in Godthåbsfjord, regulations of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM) should be followed. The Convention requires the establishment of a ballast water management system on board ships, which will replace uncontrolled ballast water uptake and discharge operations. The Convention requires that ballast water is treated on board, before being discharged into the marine environment in compliance with the ballast water performance standard in Regulation D-2 of the Ballast Water Convention.

When vessels that call in at Taserârssuk follow the BWM regulations, the risk of introducing invasive non-indigenous species with ballast water is assessed as Very Low.

Table 6.7 Summary of the impact assessment for risk of introducing invasive non-indigenous species with ballast water

Impact during phases of the life of the mine

Construction Operation Closure Post-closure

Importance of impact without mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Regional Long term Medium Possible High Mitigation measures  Follow regulations of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM)

Importance of impact with mitigation Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Regional Long term Very Low Improbable High

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 44/50 6.3.10 Impact to marine mammals and sea birds of ice management

The inner part of the Qugssuk Bay freezes up in cold winters, especially during cold spells. To permit vessels to call in at the port all year tug boats will break the ice in and around the wharfs.

The breaking of ice around the port can potentially have a negative impact on marine mammals. In particular ringed seals could in theory be harmed since they construct lairs on ice covered by a deep snow where they give birth to a pup in March-April. However it seems unlikely that ringed seals will breed in this part of Godthåbsfjord. This is due to the fact that the ice conditions at Qugssuk are unstable since strong winds or mild weather can cause the ice to break up in most of this bay even during winter. The ice breaking by tug boats around the port will therefore have insignificant impact on marine mammals.

6.4 Impacts to marine environment due to shipping (unplanned events)

This section addresses the potential for unplanned collisions between a vessel and a whale in the fjord.

6.4.1 Ship strikes

Ship strikes are collisions between a vessel and a whale, causing either injury to, or the death of, the marine mammal. The threat and impact differ depending on vessel type and in particular the navigation speed. In the Godthåbsfjord strikes from vessels serving the Isua project would potentially involve mainly Humpback whales which in some summers occur in relatively high numbers in the outer part of the fjord.

Due to the low number of ships calling in at the port at Taserârssuk (approx. 20 passages a month), and in particular the low speed in the fjord, the likelihood of a collision with a whale is assessed as Very Low.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 45/50 Table 6.8 Summary of the impact assessment of ship strikes

Impact during phases of the life of the mine Construction Operation Closure Post-closure

Importance of impact without mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Main branch Long term Very Low Improbably High of fjord Mitigation measures  No mitigation is necessary since the vessels will always navigate at low speed in the fjord.

Importance of impact with mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence Main branch Long term Very Low Improbable High of fjord

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 46/50 7 REFERENCES

Agersted, M.D., Nielsen, T.G., Munk, P., Vismann, B. & Arendt, K.E. 2011. The functional biology and trophic role of krill (Thysanoessa raschii) in a Greenlandic fjord. Mar. Biol. 158: 1387 – 1402.

Boertmann, D. 2007. Grønlands Rødliste, 2007. Direktoratet for Miljø og Natur, Grønlands Hjemmestyre. 152 pp.

Boye, T.K. Simonsen, M. & Madsen, P.T. 2008. Interaction between humpback whales and whale watchers in Godthåbsfjord. In. Jensen, I.M. & Rasch, M. (eds.). Nuuk Ecological Research Operations 2nd Annual report, 2008. National Environmental research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 80 pp.

Boye T.K., Simon M., and Madsen P.T. (2010) Habitat use of humpback whales in Godthaabsfjord, West Greenland with implications for commercial exploitation. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 90 pp.1529-1538

Boye, T.K., Simon, M. and Ugarte, F. 2011. A note on guide-lines for sustainable whale watching in Greenland, with spe-cial focus on humpback whales. A report for the Greenland Tourism and Business council and Kommuneqarfik Sermer-sooq Pinngortitaleriffik, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources

Bugge Jensen, D. and Christensen, K. D. 2003. The Biodiversity of Greenland – a country study. Technical Report No 55, Pinngortitalerifik, Grønlands Naturinstitut. 210 pp.

Calbet, A., Riisgaard, K., Saiz, E., Zamora, S., Stedmon, C. & Nielsen, T.G. 2011. Phytoplankton growth and microzooplankton grazing along a sub-Arctic fjord (Godthåbsfjord, west Greenland) Mar Ecol Prog Ser 442:11-22.

DMU 2011. . Identifikation af sårbare marine områder I den grønlandsk-/danske del af Arktis. Faglig Rapport udarbejdet af Christensen T., Falk K., Boye T., Ugarte F., Boertmann D., Mosbech A.

Egevang, C. & Boertmann, D. 2001. The Greenland Ramsar sites, a status report. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark. Technical Report No. 346, 96 pp.

Evans, P.G.H., Canwell, P.J. and Lewis, E.J. (1992) An experimental study of the effects of pleasure craft noise upon bottle-nosed dolphins in Cardigan Bay, West Wales. Pp. 43-46. In European Research on Cetaceans - 6. (Editor P.G.H. Evans). European Cetacean Society, Cambridge, England. 254pp.

Foote, A. D., Osborne, R. W. and Hoelzel, A. R. 2004. Whale-call response to masking boat noise. – Nature 428: 910.

Friis-Rødel, E. and Kanneworff, P. 2002. A review of capelin (Mallotus villosus) in Greenland waters. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59: 890–896.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 47/50 Frost, K.J. and Lowry, L.F. 1993. Assessment of damages to harbour seals caused by Exxon Valdez oil spill. Pp 300-302 in Exxon Valdez Oil spill Symposium, February 2-5, 1993, Anchorage, AK. U.S.A.- Abstract Book.

Gende S.M., Hendrix A.N., Harris K.R., Eichenlaub B., Nielsen J., Pyare S. (2011) A Bayesian approach for understanding the role of ship speed in whale-ship encounters. Ecological Applications, 21(6), pp.2232-2240.

Gray W.O., Waters J., Blume and Landsburg A.C. (2001). When ships get too big for their ditches. Paper from International Workshop on Channel design and Vessel Maneuverability, Norfolk VA, USA.

Hallett M.A. (2004). Characteristics of merchant ship acoustic signatures during port entry/exit. Proceedings of Acoustics 2004.

Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., M. Juul Simon, and K. L. Laidre. 2007. Estimates of large whale abundance in Greenland in September 2005. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9(2): 95-104.

Hildebrand J. (2004) Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Sources of anthropogenic sound in the marine environment, Int. Policy Workshop on Sound and Marine Mammals, London, 28-30 September 2004.

Jensen, L.M. and Rasch, M (eds) 2008. Nuuk ecological research operations, 1th annual report 2007. Danish Polar Centre, Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Science. Technology and Innovation, Denmark.

Johansen, P., Aastrup, P., Boertmann, D., Glahder, C., Johansen, K., Nymand, J., Rasmussen, L.M. & Tamstorf, M. 2008. Aluminiumsmelter og vandkraft I det centrale Vestgrønland. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet. 110 s. – Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 664.

Juul-Pedersen, T., Rysgaard, S., Batty, P., Moetensen, J., Arendt, K.E., Retzel, A., Nygaard, R., Burmeister,A., Martinsen, W., Sejr, M.K., Blicher, M.E., Krause-Jensen, D., Christensen, P.B., Marbà, N., Olesen, B., Labansen, A, Rasmussen, L.M., Witting, L., Boye, T. and Simon, M. 2011. The MarineBasis programme. In Nuuk Ecological Research Operations 4th Annual Report 2010. Aarhus University. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy.

Kapel, F.O. 1979. Exploitation of large whales in West Greenland in the twentieth centery. Report to the International Whaling Commission 29: 1997-214

Larsen, F. & Hammond, P.S. 2000. Distribution and abundance of West Greenland humpback whales. SC/52/IA1.

Lee, K., Azetsu-Scott, K., Cobanli, S. E., Dalziel, J., Niven, S., Wohlgeschaffen, G., and Yeats, P. 2005. Overview of potential impacts from produced water discharges in Atlantic Canada. Pp. 319-342 in Armsworthy et al. (eds.): Offshore oil and gas environmental effects monitoring. Approaches and technologies. – Batelle Press, Columbus, Ohio.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 48/50

Malme C.I., Miles P.R., Tyack P., Clark C.W.and Bird J.E. (1985). Investigation of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Report No. 5851.

Malta Rasmussen, L., Blicher, M.E. & Sejr, M.K. and Rysgaard. 2010. Evidence for strong tropic coupling between macrozoobenthos and wintering eider in Nipisat Sound, SW Greenland. In. Jensen, I.M. & Rasch, M. (eds.). 2010. Nuuk Ecological Research Operations 3rd Annual report, 2009. National Environmental research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 80 pp.

McCauley, R. D. (1994). ‘‘Seismic surveys,’’ in Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia—The Findings of an Independent Scientific Review, edited by J. M. Swan, J. M. Neff, and P. C. Young (Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney), pp. 19–122.

McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J. Jenner, C., Jenner, M-N., Penrose, J.D.Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J. and McCabe, K.( 2000a). Marine seismic surveys: analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles fishes and squid. Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University of Technology, Project CMST 163, Report R99-15, 198 pages.

McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J. Jenner, C., Jenner, M-N., Penrose, J.D. Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J. and McCabe, K. (2000b). Marine seismic surveys-a study of environmental implications. APPEA Journal, 40, 692-708.

Merkel, F.R., Mosbech, A., Boertmann, D. & Grøndahl, L. 2002. Winter seabird distribution and abundance off south-western Greenland, 1999. Polar Research 21: 17- 36.

Merkel, F.R., Jamieson, S.E., Falk, K. & Mosbech, A. 2007. The diet of Common Eiders wintering in Nuuk, Southwest Greenland. Polar Biology 30: 227-234.

Merkel, F.R. & Mosbech, A. 2008. Diurnal and Nocturnal Feeding Strategies in Common Eiders. Waterbirds 31: 580-586.

Mortensen, J., Lennert, K., Bendtsen, J. and Rysgaard, S., 2011. Heat sources for glacial melt in a sub-Arctic fjord (Godthåbsfjord) in contact with the Greenland Ice Sheet. J. Geophys. Res., 116, C01013, doi:10.1029/2010JC006528

Myrberg A.A. Jr. (1990). The effects of man-made noise on the behavior of marine animals. Environment International, Vol 16. Pp 575-586.

National Research Council. 2003. OCEAN NOISE AND MARINE MAMMALS.Committee on Potential Impacts of Ambient Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES.THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS,Washington, D.C.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 49/50

Navigational Safety Investigation (2012). Engineering Report for London Mining PLC by SNC-Lavalin. Document number 505076-6000-4PER-0003 version dated 2012-05-18.

Orbicon. 2009. The Isua Iron Ore Project, Southwest Greenland. Report on inventory of breeding Harlequin duck in the Isua area. Report to London Mining. 20 pp.

Orbicon. 2011 The Isua Iron Ore Mining Project, Greenland. The natural environment of the project area 3th edition. 83 pp.

Pedersen, S.A. and Kannewolf, P. 1995. Fish on the West Greenland shrimp grounds, 1988 – 1992. - ICES Journal of Marine Science 52: 165 – 182.

Richardson, W. J., Greene, C. R. Jr., Malme, C. I. and Thomson, D. H. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. – Academic Press, San Diego. 576 pp.

Richardson, W.J., K.J. Finley, G.W. Miller, R.A. Davis, and W.R. Koski. 1995a. Feeding,social and migration behavior of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in Baffin Bay vs. the Beaufort Sea: Regions with different amounts of human activity. Marine Mammal Science 11(1):1-45.

Rosing-Asvid, A. 2010. Grønlands sæler. Ilinniusiorfik Undervisningsmiddelforlag. 144 pp.

Salomonsen, F. 1967. Fuglene på Grønland. Rhodos. København. 343 pp.

Scheifele, P. M., Andrew, S, Cooper, R.A., Darre, M., Musiek, F.E. & Max, L. 2005. Indication of a Lombard vocal response in the St. Lawrence River beluga. – J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117 (3): 1486–1492.

Sejr, M.K., Wlodarska-Kowalczuk, M., Legezynska, J. & Blicher, M.E. 2010. Macrobenthic species composition and diversity in the Godthaabsfjord system, SW Greenland. Polar Biol. 33: 421 – 431.

Sermersooq, 2012 http://www.sermersooq.gl/da/om_kommune/byerne/nuuk/fakta Settlement master schedule 2012 for Royal Arctic Line: http://ral.gl/images/stories/2011/Sejlplaner/BygdeMasterplan_2012.pdf

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas and P.L. Tyack. (2007) Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33(4):411-522.

Annex 3 to the EIA of Isua Iron Ore Project 50/50