ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NORTHEAST NEWFOUNDLAND SLOPE 2-D SEISMIC SURVEY PROGRAMME
MULTI KLIENT INVEST AS
Submitted to: Canada – Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board
APRIL 2012
Environmental Assessment of MKI INVEST AS’s Northeast Newfoundland Slope 2-D Seismic Survey Programme 2012-2017
Prepared By: YOLO Environmental Inc. 35 Newcastle Street Dartmouth, NS B2Y3M6
in association with Spatial Metrics Atlantic Limited 243 Ritcey Crescent Dartmouth, NS B2W 6J9
Prepared For: RPS Group Liberty Place 2nd Floor, 1545 Birmingham Street Halifax, NS B3J 2J6
April 2012 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Multi KIient Invest (MKI) AS proposes to undertake a multiyear 2-D seismic survey programme within a large regional area that encompasses the Northeast Newfoundland Slope and North Grand Banks totaling 40,000 km in the Labrador Basin, Orphan Basin, Flemish Basin, and Jeanne d’Arc Basin over the next six years (2012-2017). MKI foresees the 2-D seismic surveys occurring sometime between May 1 and November 30. The 2012 survey will not commence until August. The survey durations will be of 50 to 70 days and possibly an upper limit of 150 days. This document provides a Screening Level Environmental Assessment to allow the Canada – Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board to fulfill its responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As per the Scoping Document issued by the C-NLOPB, the valued ecosystem components include Marine and Migratory Birds, Marine Fish and Shellfish, Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, Species at Risk, Sensitive Areas and Ocean Resource Users. Engagement of stakeholder groups to collect and compile information on activities and concerns of these groups in the Study Area included several fishing industry organizations, scientists, and government agencies. Information was obtained through telephone interviews, emails, and face-to-face meetings. Environmental mitigative measures include: deferring seismic data acquisition in intensive shrimp and crab fishing areas until after July in 2012 and the need for avoidance will be discussed each year; avoidance of fish spawning in EBSAs until July; placement of an Environmental Observer onboard the vessel to provide proper identification of marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds to ensure adherence to commitment and mitigation purposes; and to collect opportunistic data on their behaviours and distribution with and without air guns operating. Mitigation measures will be applied as set out in Fisheries and Oceans Statement of Canadian Practice on Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment. Operational plans will be developed to avoid or lessen any potential effects on the commercial fishery. These plans will include elements such as good communications with fisher organizations (e.g., Notices to Shipping), a dedicated Fisheries Liaison Officer on the seismic vessel, a Single Point of Contact, use of a picket or chase vessel, avoidance of areas during times of heavy fixed gear use, and a fishing gear damage compensation program. With the application of mitigative measures, this environmental assessment predicts that potential adverse environmental effects on the above VECs will not be adversely significant because the potential extent of physically harmful sound levels on fish occurs within 20 of m or less of the air gun source. No other marine species is expected or known to experience physical harm by these seismic surveys. Avoidance reaction by cetaceans may occur within 6.5 km of the array and within 500 m of the array for sea turtles.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page (i) MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Species Effects Sound Level (RMS)
marine fish startle 156 dB re 1µPa marine fish transient stunning 192 dB re 1µPa marine fish internal injuries 200 dB re 1µPa marine fish egg/larval damage 220 dB re 1 Pa marine fish mortality 230-240 db re 1µPa marine mammals temporary threshold shift 200-205 dB re 1 µPa cetaceans harassment 180 dB re 1 µPa pinnipeds harassment 190 dB re 1 µPa marine mammals strong avoidance 160-170 dB re 1 μPa marine turtles avoidance 166 dB re μPa marine turtles erratic behaviour 175 dB re μPa
Potential cumulative environmental effects external to the Project include fishing, research surveys, military, submarine cables, marine transportation, and other seismic surveys and drilling programmes. Compared to existing vessel traffic in the area, the incremental amount of the MKI vessel traffic as a result of this Project will be negligible. Cumulative environmental effects resulting from any of the Project activities will not be additive or cumulative because the Project activities are transitory, moving about 100 km a day, and there must be sufficient distance in the range of 40 to 50 km between seismic vessels, a 20 km distance from DFO fishing research vessels, and 500 safety zone around stationary oil platforms/FPSOs. With the implementation of mitigative measures and the limited spatial overlap with other activities, the residual cumulative environmental effect of the Project in conjunction with other projects and activities is predicted to be not adversely significant. The potential of accidental events is limited to a diesel spill in the unlikely events of a seismic vessel sinking, or a collision with another vessel. Given how unlikely these events are, and the mitigative measures that will be applied to the Project (including an FLO, on-board spill response plan and equipment), the residual environmental effect of an accidental event is predicted to be not adversely significant.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page (ii) MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Need for the Project...... 1 1.2 Proponent Contact Information ...... 3 1.3 Regulatory Context ...... 3 1.4 Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits ...... 4 1.5 Stakeholder Consultation ...... 4
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 5 2.1 Project Name and Location...... 5 2.2 Project Overview ...... 5 2.2.1 Project Activity Area ...... 6 2.3 Alternatives to the Project & Alternatives for the Project...... 7 2.3.1 Alternatives to the Project...... 7 2.3.2 Alternative Means for the Project ...... 7 2.3.2.1 Alternatives to Survey Method ...... 7 2.3.2.2 Alternatives to Program Timing...... 8 2.4 Project Components...... 8 2.4.1 Seismic Vessel ...... 9 2.4.1.1 Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) ...... 10 2.4.1.2 Waste Management – Sanco Shipping AS...... 11 2.4.2 2-D Seismic Survey Towed Array...... 11 2.4.3 Streamer...... 17 2.4.4 Logistical Support...... 17 2.5 Emissions and Waste Discharges...... 18 2.5.1 Noise Emissions...... 18 2.5.2 Atmospheric Emissions ...... 18 2.5.3 Liquid Emissions...... 19 2.5.4 Solid Waste ...... 19 2.5.5 Light Emissions ...... 19 2.6 Potential Malfunctions and Accidental Events ...... 19
3 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT...... 21 3.1 C-NLOPB Scoping Requirements...... 21 3.1.1 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement...... 21
4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 23 4.1 Approach...... 23 4.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Methodology ...... 24
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page i MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
4.2.1 Identification of Valued Environmental Components...... 24 4.2.2 Description of Existing Conditions...... 25 4.2.3 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries and Study Area ...... 25 4.2.3.1 Temporal Boundaries...... 25 4.2.3.2 Spatial Boundaries...... 25 4.2.3.3 Ecological Boundaries ...... 26 4.2.3.4 Administrative Boundaries ...... 26 4.2.3.5 Technical Boundaries...... 26 4.2.4 Interactions Between Project Activities and VECs ...... 27 4.2.5 Significance Criteria and Evaluation...... 27 4.2.6 Analysis, Mitigation and Environmental Effects Evaluation ...... 28 4.3 Follow-Up and Monitoring ...... 29 4.4 Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment...... 29
5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...... 31 5.1 Marine Physical Setting...... 31 5.1.1 Bathymetry and Physiography...... 31 5.1.2 Seafloor Stratigraphy...... 33 5.1.3 Geological Formations...... 35 5.1.4 Tectonics and Seismicity...... 38 5.2 Metocean Setting ...... 38 5.2.1 Climatology...... 38 5.2.2 Air and Sea Surface Temperature...... 42 5.2.3 Precipitation...... 42 5.2.4 Fog ...... 43 5.2.5 Tropical Storms ...... 43 5.2.6 Vessel Icing ...... 43 5.2.7 Wind and Wave – Extreme Analysis ...... 43 5.2.8 Wind ...... 46 5.2.9 Wave ...... 46 5.2.10 General Ocean Circulation ...... 46 5.2.11 Water Mass Structure...... 48 5.2.12 Sea Ice ...... 48 5.2.13 Icebergs...... 52 5.3 Noise Environment...... 54 5.3.1 Sound Measurements ...... 56 5.3.2 Comparison of Noise Levels...... 56 5.3.3 Acoustic Propagation...... 59 5.3.4 Source and Receiver Depths...... 59 5.4 Ocean Resources ...... 60 5.4.1 Plankton...... 60 5.4.2 Benthos ...... 61 5.4.3 Marine and Migratory Birds ...... 69 5.4.3.1 Distribution ...... 69
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page ii MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.3.2 Prey and Foraging Habits ...... 95 5.4.3.3 Seabird Colonies & Important Bird Areas ...... 96 5.4.4 Marine Fish and Shellfish ...... 98 5.4.4.1 Demersal Species...... 98 5.4.4.2 Pelagic Finfish...... 106 5.4.4.3 Shellfish ...... 109 5.4.5 Marine Mammals...... 110 5.4.5.1 Cetaceans ...... 110 5.4.5.2 Seals ...... 120 5.4.5.3 Sea Turtles...... 122 5.4.6 Species at Risk...... 124 5.4.6.1 Marine Fish ...... 125 5.4.6.2 Marine Mammals...... 130 5.4.7 Sea Turtles ...... 134 5.4.7.1 Marine and Migratory Birds...... 135 5.4.8 Sensitive Areas...... 136 5.4.8.1 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area (EBSA)...... 136 5.4.8.2 Southeast Shoal and Tail...... 139 5.4.8.3 Lilly and Carson Canyons ...... 140 5.4.8.4 Northeast Shelf and Slope ...... 140 5.4.8.5 Virgin Rocks ...... 140 5.4.8.6 Bonavista Cod Box...... 140 5.4.8.7 Corals and Sponges...... 140 5.4.8.8 NAFO Fishing Closures ...... 142 5.5 Ocean Resource Users...... 144 5.5.1 Commercial Fisheries...... 144 5.5.1.1 Study Area Domestic Fisheries...... 144 5.5.1.2 Harvesting Locations ...... 147 5.5.1.3 Harvest Season...... 153 5.5.1.4 Key Fisheries ...... 161 5.5.2 Marine Traffic...... 169 5.5.2.1 Commercial Marine Traffic...... 169 5.5.3 Submarine Cables...... 170 5.5.4 Military Ocean Disposal...... 171 5.5.5 Petroleum Industry ...... 172
6 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES...... 179 6.1 Marine and Migratory Birds ...... 179 6.1.1 Boundaries ...... 179 6.1.2 Potential Issues ...... 179 6.1.3 Significance Criteria...... 179 6.1.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation...... 180 6.1.4.1 Vessel Presence ...... 180 6.1.4.2 Noise Emissions...... 181 6.1.4.3 Vessel Discharge and Accidental Events ...... 182 6.1.4.4 Monitoring and Follow-up...... 183 6.1.4.5 Residual Effects Summary...... 183
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page iii MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.2 Marine Finfish and Shellfish ...... 184 6.2.1 Boundaries ...... 184 6.2.2 Potential Issues ...... 185 6.2.3 Significance Criteria...... 185 6.2.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation...... 186 6.2.4.1 Vessel Presence ...... 186 6.2.4.2 Noise Emission ...... 186 6.2.5 Malfunctions and Accidental Events...... 201 6.2.6 Monitoring and Follow-up ...... 202 6.2.7 Summary ...... 202 6.3 Marine Mammals...... 203 6.3.1 Boundaries ...... 203 6.3.2 Potential Issues ...... 204 6.3.3 Significance Criteria...... 205 6.3.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation...... 205 6.3.4.1 Vessel Presence ...... 205 6.3.4.2 Noise Emissions...... 206 6.3.5 Malfunctions and Accidental Events...... 215 6.3.6 Monitoring and Follow-up ...... 215 6.3.7 Summary ...... 215 6.4 Sea Turtles...... 217 6.4.1 Boundaries ...... 217 6.4.2 Potential Issues ...... 217 6.4.3 Significance Criteria...... 217 6.4.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation...... 218 6.4.4.1 Vessel Presence ...... 218 6.4.4.2 Noise Emissions...... 218 6.4.5 Malfunctions and Accidental Events...... 220 6.4.6 Monitoring and Follow-up ...... 220 6.4.7 Summary ...... 220 6.5 Species at Risk ...... 221 6.5.1 Boundaries ...... 222 6.5.2 Potential Issues ...... 223 6.5.3 Significance Criteria...... 223 6.5.4 Effects Assessment...... 224 6.5.4.1 Marine and Migratory Bird Species at Risk...... 224 6.5.4.2 Fish Species at Risk...... 224 6.5.4.3 Marine Mammals at Risk ...... 227 6.5.4.4 Sea Turtle Species at Risk...... 230 6.5.5 Follow up and Monitoring ...... 231 6.5.6 Summary ...... 231 6.6 Sensitive Areas ...... 232 6.6.1 Boundaries ...... 232 6.6.2 Potential Interactions and Issues...... 233
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page iv MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.6.3 Significance Criteria and Evaluation...... 233 6.6.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation...... 233 6.6.4.1 Vessel Presence ...... 233 6.6.4.2 Noise Emissions...... 233 6.6.4.3 Malfunctions and Accidental Events ...... 234 6.6.5 Follow-up and Monitoring ...... 235 6.7 Summary of Residual Effects...... 235 6.8 Commercial Fisheries and RV Surveys ...... 236 6.8.1.1 Boundaries ...... 236 6.8.1.2 Potential Interactions and Issues...... 236 6.8.1.3 Significance Criteria and Evaluation ...... 236 6.8.1.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation...... 237 6.8.1.5 Malfunctions and Accidental Events ...... 242 6.8.2 Follow-up and Monitoring ...... 242 6.8.3 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects ...... 243
7 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT...... 245 7.1 Metocean ...... 245 7.2 Ice ...... 245
8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 246 8.1 Species at Risk ...... 247 8.2 Marine Fish ...... 247 8.3 Ocean Resource Users...... 250 8.3.1 Marine Traffic...... 250 8.3.2 Offshore Petroleum Activity...... 250 8.3.3 Commercial Fisheries...... 250
9 SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 252 9.1 Summary of Mitigation and Follow-Up ...... 252 9.2 Conclusions...... 253
10 LITERATURE CITED ...... 254
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page v MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont) PAGE
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Known Seismic Survey Parameters...... 6 Table 2.2: Sercel – G Gun 2 Seismic Array Parameters ...... 12 Table 3.1: Results of Fisher Stakeholder Consultations ...... 22 Table 4.1: Selection of Valued Environmental Components...... 24 Table 4.2: Potential Project-environment Interaction Matrix ...... 27 Table 5.1: Date Range and Ice Types Present...... 51 Table 5.2: Comparison of Natural and Seismic Exploration-related Noise Levels...... 56 Table 5.3: Sea Bird Hotspot Summary ...... 70 Table 5.4: Distribution and Abundance of Seabirds Known to Occur in the Study Area...... 72 Table 5.5: Species Groupings for Analysis and Mapping ...... 74 Table 5.6: Feeding Characteristics of Several Types of Marine Birds in the Offshore (adapted from Mendenhall 2004) ...... 96 Table 5.7: Codfish of the Study Area ...... 98 Table 5.8: Flounder Species of the Study Area ...... 100 Table 5.9: Wolffishes of the Study Area...... 103 Table 5.10: Skate Species in the Study Area ...... 105 Table 5.11: Pelagic Fish Species of the Study Area...... 106 Table 5.12: Marine Mammals Occurring in the Study and Regional Areas ...... 110 Table 5.13: Population Estimates of Marine Mammals That Occur in the Study Area ...... 113 Table 5.14: Individual Cetacean Sightings That Occurred Within the Study Area (1961 to 2007) ...... 119 Table 5.15: True Seal Species Occurring in the Study and Regional Areas ...... 121 Table 5.16: Marine Fish Species Found Within the Study Area Having SARA and/or COSEWIC Designations...... 125 Table 5.17: Marine Mammal Species found within the Study Area having SAR and/or COSEWIC Designations ...... 130 Table 5.18: Marine Turtle Species Found Within The Study Area Having SARA and/or COSEWIC Designations ...... 134 Table 5.19: Marine & Migratory Species Found Within The Study Area Having SAR and/or COSEWIC Designations ...... 135 Table 5.20: Conservation Measures, Depleted Species, and Top 10 Trophic and Structural Ecologically Significant Species (ESSs) ...... 139 Table 5.21: Annual Study Area Harvest (t), by Species, May to November, 2005-2010 ...... 146 Table 5.22: Annual total Allowable Catch (t) Quote for Northern Shrimp, 2005-2012 ...... 162 Table 6.1: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Marine and Migratory Birds...... 183 Table 6.2: Hearing Ranges in Some Finfish Species ...... 186 Table 6.3: Detected Sound Frequencies of Shellfish and Cephalopds...... 188 Table 6.4: Summary of Behavioural Effects of Fish and Invertebrates from Nearby Air Sleeve Operations...... 190 Table 6.5: Observation from Exposures of Marine Macro-invertebrates to Air Sleeves at Close Range...... 195 Table 6.6: Observations of Exposures of Fish and Shellfish Planktonic Life Stages to Seismic Airguns at Close Range...... 198 Table 6.7: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Marine Fish and Shellfish...... 202 Table 6.8: Hearing Sensitivity in Marine Mammals...... 206
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page vi MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 6.9: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Marine Turtles...... 220 Table 6.10: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Species at Risk ...... 231 Table 6.11: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Sensitive Areas...... 235 Table 6.12: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Ocean Resource Users...... 243 Table 9.1: VEC – Specific Mitigation Measures and Follow-Up...... 252
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: 2-D regional seismic survey study area...... 2 Figure 2.1: Seismic vessel and towed system (Source UKOOA) ...... 9 Figure 2.2: Profile view of a standard sub-array ...... 13 Figure 2.3: Array configuration top view, i.e. positive Y denotes starboard ...... 14 Figure 2.4: Source signature filter GeoStreamer LChyd, 3(7) - 214(341) Hz (dB/oct.)...... 15 Figure 2.5: Directivity plots for constant azimuth: 0 and 90 degrees ...... 16 Figure 5.1: Bathymetry and seafloor features of the Study Area ...... 32 Figure 5.2: Quaternary deep water sediments in the Study Area ...... 34 Figure 5.3: Geological formations of the Study Area ...... 37 Figure 5.4: Offshore faults and seismic activity ...... 39 Figure 5.5: Mean Upper Wind Patterns (Summer – left; Winter – right) ...... 40 Figure 5.6: January storm tracks – (a) Great Lakes Lows; (b) Cape Hatteras Lows; (c) Gulf of Mexico Lows ...... 41 Figure 5.7: July storm tracks – (a) Hudson Bay Lows ...... 42 Figure 5.8: MSC50 grid points within the Study Area ...... 45 Figure 5.9: Surface circulation features in the western North Atlantic ...... 47 Figure 5.10: 30-year Freeze-Up Dates of Ice 1981 and 2010 ...... 49 Figure 5.11: 30-year median of ice concentration, week of March 12, 1981-2010, ...... 50 Figure 5.12: 30-year frequency of occurrence of sea ice, week of March 19, 1981-2010 ...... 50 Figure 5.13: 30-Year Frequency of Ice Concentration, 1981 and 2010, Week of July 2 ...... 51 Figure 5.14: Estimated number of icebergs south of 48°N during 2009 ice season ...... 53 Figure 5.15: Iceberg chart for 31 May 2009...... 53 Figure 5.16: May 30 iceberg limit climatology, 1975-1995...... 54 Figure 5.17: Ambient noise spectra attributable to various sources ...... 58 Figure 5.18: Distribution of cold-water corals off Newfoundland and Labrador and in eastern Arctic waters...... 63 Figure 5.19: Known locations of Antipatharia (black corals) in the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves biogeographic unit...... 64 Figure 5.20: The positions of catches of sea pens and gorgonians in the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves biogeographic unit...... 65 Figure 5.21: Presence and absence of sponges in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelves biogeographic unit based on research vessel surveys...... 67 Figure 5.22: The positions of large catches of sponges in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelves biogeographic unit ...... 68 Figure 5.23: Vulnerable all waterbirds (March to August)...... 76 Figure 5.24: Vulnerable all waterbirds (September to February) ...... 77 Figure 5.25: Vulnerable Northern Fulmar (March to August)...... 78 Figure 5.26: Vulnerable Northern Fulmar (September to February) ...... 79 Figure 5.27: Vulnerable shearwaters (March to August) ...... 80 Figure 5.28: Vulnerable shearwaters (September to February)...... 81 Figure 5.29: Vulnerable Storm-Petrels (March to August) ...... 82
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page vii MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.30: Vulnerable Storm-Petrels (September to February) ...... 83 Figure 5.31: Vulnerable Northern Gannet (March to August) ...... 84 Figure 5.32: Vulnerable Northern Gannet (September to February) ...... 85 Figure 5.33: Vulnerable large gulls (March to August)...... 86 Figure 5.34: Vulnerable large gulls (September to February)...... 87 Figure 5.35: Vulnerable Black-legged Kittiwake (March to August)...... 88 Figure 5.36: Vulnerable Black-legged Kittiwake (September to February) ...... 89 Figure 5.37: Vulnerable Dovekie (March to August) ...... 90 Figure 5.38: Vulnerable Dovekie (September to February) ...... 91 Figure 5.39: Vulnerable murres (March to August)...... 92 Figure 5.40: Vulnerable murres (September to February) ...... 93 Figure 5.41: Vulnerable other alcids (March to August)...... 94 Figure 5.42: Vulnerable other alcids (September to February)...... 95 Figure 5.43: Locations of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and seabird nesting colonies relative to the Study Area ...... 97 Figure 5.44: Atlantic Halibut Distribution on Spring Research Surveys, 1998 to 2000...... 102 Figure 5.45: Atlantic Halibut Distribution on Fall Research Surveys, 1998 to 2000...... 102 Figure 5.46: Cetacean sightings within the Study Area ...... 115 Figure 5.47: Cetacean sightings – baleen whales within the Study Area ...... 116 Figure 5.48: Cetacean sightings – toothed whales within the Study Area ...... 117 Figure 5.49: Cetacean sightings – dolphins and porpoises within the Study Area ...... 118 Figure 5.50: Locations of loggerhead sea turtle captures recorded by at-sea observers on Canadian pelagic longline fishing trips, 1999-2008...... 123 Figure 5.51: Tracks of three leatherback turtles equipped with satellite-linked time– depth recorders ...... 124 Figure 5.52: Locations of the PBGB LOMA EBSAs and Bonavista Cod Box ...... 138 Figure 5.53: NAFO Divisions and Coral/Sponge Closure Areas relative to the Study Area ..... 141 Figure 5.54: NAFO Seamount Closure Areas relative to the Study Area ...... 143 Figure 5.55: NAFO Unit Areas ...... 145 Figure 5.56: Study Area Harvest by Year, 2005 – 2010, All Species, May-Nov ...... 147 Figure 5.57: All Species Harvesting Locations, May to November, 2005 – 2010 ...... 148 Figure 5.58: Harvesting Locations Shrimp, May-Nov, 2005-2010 ...... 150 Figure 5.59: Harvesting Locations Snow Crab, May-Nov, 2005-2010...... 151 Figure 5.60: Harvesting Locations Turbot, May-Nov, 2005-2010 ...... 152 Figure 5.61: Harvest by Month, All Species, 2005-2010...... 153 Figure 5.62: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, May, 2005-2010 ...... 154 Figure 5.63: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, June, 2005-2010 ...... 155 Figure 5.64: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, July, 2005-2010 ...... 156 Figure 5.65: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, August, 2005-2010...... 157 Figure 5.66: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, September, 2005-2010 ...... 158 Figure 5.67: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, October, 2005-2010 ...... 159 Figure 5.68: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, November, 2005-2010 ...... 160 Figure 5.69: Monthly northern shrimp harvesting from 2005 to 2010 (combined) ...... 161 Figure 5.70: Northern shrimp fishing areas...... 162 Figure 5.71: Annual landings of northern shrimp in the Study Area, 2005-2010 ...... 163 Figure 5.72: Snow crab management areas...... 164 Figure 5.73: Monthly harvest of snow crab in the Study Area, 2005-2010 combined...... 165 Figure 5.74: Annual harvest of snow crab in the Study Area, May to November, 2005- 2010 ...... 166 Figure 5.75: Monthly harvest of snow crab in the Study Area, 2005-2010 combined...... 166 Figure 5.76: Annual harvest of Greenland halibut in the Study Area, May - November ...... 167
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page viii MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.77: Post-season snow crab trap survey stations ...... 168 Figure 5.78: Major shipping routes: great circle routes...... 169 Figure 5.79: Major Shipping Routes: Traffic Density ...... 170 Figure 5.80: Submarine Cables ...... 171 Figure 5.81: Potential warfare agent disposal site ...... 172 Figure 5.82: Study areas of proposed / current projects within the MKI Study Area ...... 173 Figure 6.1: Sound pressure threshold for the onset of fish injuries (dB)...... 195 Figure 6.2: Anthropogenic noise frequencies in relation to marine mammal hearing ...... 208 Figure 6.3: Schematic representation of zones of potential effects associated with anthropogenic sounds on marine mammals...... 211
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1: Survey Vessel M/V Sanco Spirit...... 9
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – C-NLOPB SCOPING DOCUMENT ...... 280
APPENDIX B – LEACH’S STORM PETREL – GENERAL INFORMATION AND HANDLING INSTRUCTION...... 281
APPENDIX C – CWS’S STANDARDIZED PROTOCOLS FOR PELAGIC SEABIRDS SURVEYS FROM MOVING AND STATIONARY PLATFORMS FOR THE HYDROCARBON INDUSTRY: INTERIM PROTOCOL – JUNE 2006...... 282
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page ix MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
1 INTRODUCTION Multi Klient Invest AS (MKI), is a wholly owned subsidiary of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). PGS and TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA (TGS) have entered into a joint venture to conduct a regional marine two-dimensional (2-D) seismic reflection survey programme. The surveys involve an offshore region that encompasses portions of the Labrador Shelf Orphan Basin (east and west), Flemish Pass Basin and Jeanne d’Arc Basin of the northeast Newfoundland Slope in the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1.1). The multi-year survey is proposed to commence in second quarter of 2012 for a six-year seismic program (2012-2017) between May 1 through until November 30 each year on a seasonal basis. MKI has taken the lead role as The Operator in the regulatory approval requirements and operations. The Project requires approval through the Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). The CEAA identifies a marine seismic survey with an output level of 275.79 kPa at a distance of one metre from the seismic energy sources (i.e. 228.69 dB re 1 µPa@1m) as a trigger for an environmental screening level of assessment. This project is not supported by federal funding. Federal lands are involved and administered by the C-NLOPB. The Project Description was submitted to the C-NLOPB in December 2011. This document provides a Screening Level Environmental Assessment to allow the C-NLOPB to fulfill its responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The technical and scope advice received from the C-NLOPB and other Federal Agencies through the Federal Coordination Regulations, and from other stakeholders consulted by MKI has guided the preparation of this EA.
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Project The purpose of the proposed Project is to determine the presence and likely locations of structures that might contain hydrocarbon deposits. Seismic data provide high resolution and quality images that are used to find potential locations for exploration drilling. With regard to location, survey lines will be selected based on existing understanding of the geological conditions within the areas of interest and are intended to test geological concepts. This Project is a necessary step in allowing MKI to maximize returns to shareholders and in fulfilling work commitments related to its agreements with the C-NLOPB. Furthermore, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas resources contribute to the provincial and federal economies by providing new business opportunities within the region, through large capital and operating expenditures, transfer of technology, providing employment opportunities, and generating royalties to government.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 1 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 1.1: 2-D regional seismic survey study area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 2 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
1.2 Proponent Contact Information
Operator and Work Authorization Applicant
Multi Klient Invest AS 15150 Memorial Drive Houston, Texas, USA 77079 Contact: Gary Morrow Tel: (281) 509-8000 Email:[email protected]]
1.3 Regulatory Context In accordance with its mandate under the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts, the C-NLOPB may issue an Authorization to Conduct a Geophysical Program to allow MKI to carry out the seismic survey program described herein. Offshore geophysical surveys (including geohazard surveys) on federal lands are subject to screening under the CEAA. In addition, Section 19.1 (a) of the CEAA’s Inclusion List Regulations identifies those projects relating to seismic surveys for which a screening level of assessment is required. Under Part II Oil and Gas Projects, physical activities that require an authorization referred to in paragraph 138(1)(b) of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act relate to a marine or freshwater seismic survey during which the air pressure measured at a distance of 1 m from the seismic energy source is greater than 275.79 kPa (40 psi) requires completion of an EA. The C-NLOPB is the designated federal representative mandated under the Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts as well as the CEAA. The C-NLOPB acts as the federal environmental assessment coordinator in this context. Because seismic survey activities have the potential to affect seabirds, marine mammals, and fish and fisheries, both Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Environment Canada (EC) are the primary federal agencies with interests and expertise in the environmental aspects of the proposed program. Relevant government regulations and guidelines to be reviewed during the issues scoping process will include: Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts; CEAA; Fisheries Act; Oceans Act Migratory Birds Convention Act and Regulations; Canadian Environmental Protection Act; Committee on Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Species at Risk Act (SARA) Navigable Waters Act
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 3 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Canada Shipping Act Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (NEB et al. 2010); and Geophysical, Geological, Environmental, and Geotechnical Program Guidelines, (C-NLOPB 2011)
The Statement of Canadian Practice on Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment (DFO 2007) is integrated verbatim into the above referenced C-NLOPB guidelines.
1.4 Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits MKI is committed to benefits for Canadian companies with emphasis on organizations from Newfoundland and Labrador. A benefits plan is being finalized for MKI which will govern all company operations in the future with its guiding principles as follows: Companies from Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular will be given full and fair opportunity to provide goods and services to MKI; MKI must make decisions based on what optimizes value to its projects; Value to MKI will be quantified through vendor impact on project economics, product and/or service quality, timing, vendor experience and reputation and other similar metrics.
1.5 Stakeholder Consultation MKI recognises the importance of communications to keep stakeholders informed about its proposed program and to obtain valuable input that may serve to contribute to the Project’s overall success. A focused environmental assessment requires a process of scoping to define the components and activities that are to be considered in the assessment, to identify the key environmental issues, and to set the spatial and temporal boundaries of the assessment. Candidates for stakeholder consultations are well established in the environmental assessment arena of Newfoundland and Labrador and include: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Transport Canada Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service Fish, Food and Allied Workers One Ocean Ocean Choice Limited Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council Clearwater Seafoods Icewater Seafoods Association of Seafood Producers
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 4 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Name and Location The official Project name is Northeast Newfoundland Slope 2-D Geophysical Survey Project. The study area is defined by the following coordinates: North 54° 54.5’ N East 40° 50.7’ W West 51° 50.0‘ W South 45° 00.0’ N
All lines are within the C-NLOPB jurisdiction and are outside the Canada 12 mile nautical limit.
2.2 Project Overview MKI proposes to conduct an offshore regional 2-D seismic reflection survey programme, totaling 40,000 km in the Labrador Basin, Orphan Basin, Flemish Basin and Jeanne d’Arc Basin over the next six years (2012-2017) in the jurisdiction the C-NLOPB. No survey lines will enter within 12 nautical miles territorial waters of Newfoundland and Labrador. The proposed project is a regional survey designed to provide a better understanding of the offshore geology of the northeast Newfoundland Slope region and to use this information to introduce new exploration opportunities to the industry. This information will be used to determine the regional extent of geological formations. This program is being used to develop geological concepts and is not the basis of an exploration drilling program, as the survey line spacing is much too coarse for that purpose. The proposed survey season is May through November each year. The 2012 survey may commence in the month of August due to the MKI survey in Labrador commencing beforehand using the same vessel. Each program will be about 50 to 70 days in duration, with any potential for an upper limit of about 150 days. The exact dates will depend on the location, weather conditions, and vessel availability. Based on previous work in Newfoundland and Labrador weather usually allows productive recording until approximately mid-October. It is expected that work might be able to continue as late in the year as November with the streamer technology deployed by MKI. Although the proposed survey vessel is an ice-class vessel (1A1 Ice C) data will not be acquired in areas of pack ice. The survey data will be acquired such that ice-free areas are surveyed first (i.e., the southern portion of the survey area) then, as the season progresses, the vessel will move north. The vessel will be at sea and operate continuously (i.e., 24-hour operations) during survey operations. Seismic vessels typically operate on a 5/6 week crew change schedule, which will be maintained for this project. Crew changes will be made via port call. MKI will provide updates to the C-NLOPB on the timing of Project activities as soon as they are determined. Given the length of this Project timeframe, MKI has committed to the periodic
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 5 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA review of the EA Report, including proposed mitigation and proposed monitoring to ensure on- going validity and applicability of this assessment. Although the environmental assessment has not been completed to fully address environmental mitigations for the planned geophysical surveys, it is anticipated that a marine mammal observer and fisheries liaison officer will form a component of the operational crew. Furthermore, procedures will be implemented to minimize effects on the local marine ecosystem. For example, “soft-starts” or “ramp-ups” industry standard procedures of the air gun arrays will be implemented. The energy source will be a dual airgun array system. A soft start approach would occur at the beginning of a new line within the perimeter or at the start of operations anywhere within the program area. Table 2.1 summarises the survey acquisition parameters for this programme.
Table 2.1: Known Seismic Survey Parameters
Total Linear Length of Lines (km) 40,000 km multi year programme Number and Length of Streamers 1 x Geostreamer™ 8 -10 km Group Interval 12 groups per section; 12.5 m Shot Interval 25 m Airgun Arrays 4135 cu in Airgun Operating Pressure 138 to 172bar (2000 psi) Hydrophones Dual sensor Recording Time 10 seconds Source Array Tow Depth 9 m Vessel Speed 4.5 knots while shooting, 10 knots in transit Turning Radius 10 to 12 km
2.2.1 Project Activity Area The Project Activity Area encompasses the geographic area within which MKI expects to undertake seismic survey and associated activities within the next six years. The 2-D surveys would be conducted over the exploration licences in the areas of interest as depicted in Figure 1.1. MKI acknowledges that the scope of the Project to be assessed in the EA Report extends over several years, during which time the regulatory, biophysical, and socio-economic environment may change from that assessed in this report. MKI will periodically review the EA Report, as directed by the C-NLOPB, for current applicability, will continue stakeholder consultations, and will work with regulatory authorities to ensure that the EA remains fit for purpose.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 6 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
2.3 Alternatives to the Project & Alternatives for the Project
2.3.1 Alternatives to the Project Alternatives to the Project are defined as functionally different ways of achieving the same end [Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Agency 1997]. The one alternative to the proposed seismic Program is the 'do nothing' scenario. In the case that the project does not proceed, the mitigated impacts of seismic operations on the environment will of course not occur, however, the environment will not necessarily maintain its current baseline condition as impacts from fishing and vessel activity (i.e., ice breakers, cargo vessels, cruise ships, and other seismic or research vessels), climate change, waste materials, sedimentation, fall-out of atmospheric pollutants, discharge of ballast waters, etc. will still take place. The 'no-go alternative' would also mean that the renewed interest in exploration in this area would cease, or at least be significantly set back, as geologists would not have the information required to map the subsurface in this area. This would consequently mean that the potential to assess the hydrocarbon potential of this area would not proceed, along with the assessment of opportunity for further subsurface exploration and drilling programs. Ultimately, the project not proceeding in this case would effectively preclude the potential to evaluate the area’s offshore hydrocarbon resources. This would result in the removal of future potential business, royalty, and tax revenue sources and the data would not exist for future knowledge and research. It would also lead to significant reduction in direct employment opportunities on the vessel and the opportunity to collect biological observation information.
2.3.2 Alternative Means for the Project Alternative means for the Project are defined as methods of similar technical character or methods that are functionally the same (CEA Agency 1997). Alternative means for carrying out this Project include variations in technology, Project schedule, and location.
2.3.2.1 Alternatives to Survey Method Air source arrays are the most common, environmentally responsible and practical energy sources for marine geophysical surveys. Noise pulses with high peak levels are produced; however, each pulse is short, limiting total energy. Richardson et al. (1995) indicated that pulses from air source arrays generally decrease in intensity, but increase in duration further away from the site. Sleeve exploders and gas guns have similar effects to airguns. Although marine vibrators produce lower instantaneous pressure than airguns, the total acoustic energy transmitted is similar due to the extended duration of the signal. Marine vibrators are also in their infancy and are not a practical alternative. Marine vibrators cannot substitute for the airgun array in seismic surveys as they provide a lower output at low frequencies. There are few alternatives for the proposed survey methodology that would provide the information required to assess the area’s submarine hydrocarbon resources. Exploration and production companies would not accept alternatives for their purposes. Airborne electromagnetic and magnetic (aeromag) surveys are valuable tools, but do not provide the level of detail required for precise resource assessments.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 7 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The compressed air source array proposed for the current survey uses a proven technology and program design that is standard throughout many parts of the world. It has been used successfully on many occasions over the past several years on the Scotian Shelf, the west coast of Newfoundland, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Grand Banks, and the Labrador Shelf and Slope. Because of its reliability for data acquisition, the history of use in similar areas, and the available information related to its minimal environmental impacts, the compressed air technology proposed by MKI is the preferred alternative.
2.3.2.2 Alternatives to Program Timing The proposed program is scheduled to occur between May and November 2012 to 2017. Specific timing of the program will depend on a variety of factors, including coordination with other survey programmes, ice conditions, weather conditions, timing, and sensitivities associated with biological and socio-economic constraints. For example, mitigation options to minimize potential impacts can potentially include modification of the operations schedule within specific areas, and the survey plan has been developed on this basis. In consultation with the FFAW and One Ocean, MKI have scheduled their 2012 survey to minimize interference with shellfish harvesting. Further consultation in subsequent years will be undertaken, as required.
2.4 Project Components Marine seismic surveys for petroleum exploration use arrays of air source units as the source of seismic signals. All conventional seismic surveys share the same basic concept. Seismic airguns/air source send sound waves through the water, and formations beneath the seafloor reflect the sound waves back to hydrophone streamers trailing behind the vessel. The components of a 2-D survey include a seismic vessel, the source towed array (air source units); the receiver (hydrophone) towed array; a support chase/picket vessel, and possibly a helicopter. These components are shown in Photo 1 below and Figure 2.1.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 8 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 2.1: Seismic vessel and towed system (Source UKOOA)
2.4.1 Seismic Vessel The program is proposed to be conducted with a dedicated seismic research vessel, the M/V Sanco Spirit, which was purpose built in 2009 (Photo 1).
Photo 1: Survey Vessel M/V Sanco Spirit
The vessel will have equipment, systems, and protocols in place for prevention of pollution by oil, sewage, and garbage in accordance with international standards and certification
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 9 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA authorities, specifically the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Act (ASPPA) and Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASPPR). These regulations require that the survey vessel possess an Arctic Pollution Prevention Certificate. The vessel will be subject to pre- survey audits by the operator in the port of mobilization prior to survey commencement. Transport Canada (TC) will conduct a Safety Inspection of the vessel in accordance with the issuing of the Coasting Trade License to operate in Canada. The survey vessel will comply with all applicable regulations concerning management of waste and discharges of materials into the marine environment. The vessel has a ballast water management plan. The International Maritime Organization (IMO; http://www.imo.org/) is the United Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships. Canada became a member of the IMO in 1948. Vessel speed will be approximately 4.5 kn when the survey gear is deployed, similar to trawling fishing vessels. Typical survey vessels are capable of cruising at 10 kn while in transit with gear onboard. During the survey, the ship sails along a track from 12 to 20 hours depending on the size of the survey area. Reaching the end of the track will take two to three hours to turn around. It is estimated that the survey vessel will require a turning radius of 10 km to 12 km outside the identified survey area
2.4.1.1 Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) The Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (hereafter referred to as the ”Plan”) is written in accordance with the requirements of regulation 37 in compliance with latest revision of MARPOL Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. The purpose of the Plan is a guidance to the Sanco Spirit Masters and of officers on board the ship with respect to the steps to be taken when an oil pollution incident has occurred, or is likely to occur. Used correctly in a given situation, you and we as ship operator will, avoid any claims and responsibility from official authorities. The Plan contains all information and operational instructions as required by the ”Guidelines for the development of the Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan” as developed by the Organisation (IMO) and published under MEPC/Circ. 256. The appendix contains names, telephone, telex numbers, etc. of all contacts referenced in the Plan, as well as other reference material. The Plan will be regularly reviewed and updated. Revision will be the responsibility of the owner and carried out at intervals not exceeding 12 months. This Plan is available to assist the ship’s personnel in dealing with an unexpected discharge of oil. Its primary purpose is to set in motion the necessary actions to stop or minimise the discharge of oil, and to mitigate its effects. Effective planning ensures that the necessary actions are taken in a structured, logical and timely manner. The primary objectives of this Plan are to - prevent oil pollution, - stop or minimise oil outflows when damage to the ship or its equipment occurs, - stop or minimise oil outflows when an operational spill occurs in excess of the quantity or instantaneous rate permitted under the present Convention. Further, the purpose of the Plan is to provide the Master, officers and crewmembers with a practical guide to the presentation of oil spills and in carrying out the responsibilities associated with regulation 26 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78. reporting procedures to report an oil pollution incident, Coastal
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 10 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
State contacts to be contacted in the event of an oil pollution incident, response actions or reduce or control the discharge of oil following an incident, - co-ordination with national and local Authorities in combating oil pollution. In summary, the Plan will serve to promote a practised response when the ship’s personnel are faced with an oil spill. The Plan is designed as a ship- specific tool and together with the shorebased plans this Plan will be an effective instrument in mitigating the effects of an oil spill incident.
2.4.1.2 Waste Management – Sanco Shipping AS MANAGEMENT POLICY The company’s safety and environmental protection policy is described in the Office Manual. The Garbage Management Plan is intended to meet the objectives of the company's policy and conform to the requirements of the regulations. The following environmental principles are incorporated in the management systems; Environmental management is recognized as being among the highest priorities and practices for conducting operations in an environmentally sound manner; continue to improve practices and environmental performance, taking account of current legislation, industry codes of practice, technical codes of practice, technical developments, consumer needs and community expectations; take voluntary steps where it is considered possible and appropriate to improve current environmental standards; educate, train and motivate employees to conduct their activities in an environmentally responsible manner; assess, design and operate ships taking into consideration the efficient use of energy and materials, the minimization of any adverse environmental impact and waste generation, and the safe and responsible disposal of residual wastes; develop and maintain emergency preparedness plans in conjunction with emergency services, relevant authorities and the community, consistent with current legislation and good practice; promote the adoption of these principles by suppliers and contractors acting on behalf of the company, encouraging and, where appropriate, requiring improvements in their practices to make them consistent with those of the company; promote good public relations and foster openness and dialogue with employees, relevant authorities and the public, anticipating and responding to their concerns about the potential environmental hazards and impact of company operations; and measure environmental performances, conduct regular audits and assessments of compliance with company requirements, legal requirements and these principles and publish relevant information internally and externally as appropriate.
2.4.2 2-D Seismic Survey Towed Array For the 2-D surveys, typical ships tow a single source array 100 to 200 m behind the ship. Following 100 to 200 m behind the source array is a single streamer between 8 and 10 km long.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 11 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
A tail buoy with radar reflectors is attached at the end of the streamer. At the end of the track, the ship will take two to three hours to turn around and start along another track. Spacing between tracks for the 2012 program will range from 50 km to 120 km over the regional spaced survey and 20 km for the dense spaced survey. The energy source will be an air source array system. An air source unit is essentially a stainless steel cylinder (often referred to as an air gun) charged with high-pressure air. Despite the term, no explosive devices are incorporated. The seismic signal is a popping sound created when air is released forcefully into the water column. The streamers are towed behind the vessel to receive the sound source from the air source as it reflects from and within the seafloor. The typical marine seismic airgun array sources referenced have a total volume of 3,000 to 5,500 cu. in. consisting of 20 to 30 airguns (type Bolt, Sodera-G or Input-output Sleeve Gun II airguns) operating at 2,000 to 2,500 psi. The total pressure per source for those array source volumes will be between 137 to 172 bar-m. The peak-to-peak pressure output will be about 252 dB re 1 µPa @ 1 m. The seismic air guns chosen for the 2012 program are a Sercel – G Gun 2 system. The guns have a working pressure of 2000 psi. The total pressure source output in peak-to-peak will be 147.4 bar-m and 72.6 bar-m zero-to-peak. The survey parameters for the program are shown below in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Sercel – G Gun 2 Seismic Array Parameters
Effective volume of standard array(s) 4135 cu in Maximum number of sub-arrays 3 Standard array depth(s) 9 m Position of depth transducers Front and tail of sub-array Working pressure 2000 psi Type of firing sensors Pressure activated Type of firing synchroniser unit RTS BigShot Timing resolution 0.1ms ms Timing accuracy +/- 1.0ms Air compressors capacity Neuman & Esser, 2200 cfm each Number of air compressors 2
The typical array is a single source array of 4135 cu in made up of three sub-arrays: 1315 cu in 1070 cu in and 1750 cu in. The gun arrangement for the sub-array is detailed below in Figure 2.2.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 12 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 2.2: Profile view of a standard sub-array
As indicated in the diagram, the sub-array is composed of varying pairs of airgun clusters and single airguns, for a total of 8 to 11 airguns, depending on the subarray. There are 31 airguns in total. The clusters have their component airguns arranged in a fixed side-by-side fashion with the distance between the airgun ports set to maximise the bubble suppression effects of clustered airguns. There are two positioning sensors generally located at the front and aft of each string. All the data from these sensors are transmitted to the vessel for input into the onboard systems and recording to tape. The following diagram shows the array (and three sub- arrays) geometry. The individual source unit volumes range from 45 cu in to 250 cu in. The larger the cylinder volume and the higher the internal air pressure, the louder the sound. For each air source unit, the amplitude (or loudness) of the seismic signal is a function of the volume and pressure of the air inside the cylinder and the cylinder’s depth under the water surface. The larger the cylinder volume and the higher the internal air pressure, the louder the sound. The individual source unit volumes can range from 70 cu in to 290 cu in. The larger source units are positioned at the front of the array with progressively smaller volumes to the back of the array. The 4135 cu in array configuration is shown in Figure 2.3.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 13 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 2.3: Array configuration top view, i.e. positive Y denotes starboard
About 30 minutes prior to arriving at the start of a line, the airgun array is slowly brought up to a specified power, a ramp-up procedure referred to as a “soft start”. This procedure is an environmental protection measure to permit marine animals opportunity to temporarily vacate that area if the sound levels are perceived as a disturbance. A soft start approach would occur at the beginning of a new line within the perimeter or at the start of operations anywhere within the program area. This approach is discussed in greater detail below. Vessels towing streamers have reduced manoeuvrability when the equipment is deployed. MKI will include a 10 to 12 km vessel turn-around perimeter around the survey area. The following figures show the time series and amplitude spectrum for the far-field signature and the computed acoustic emission pattern for the vertical inline and crossline planes for the 5085 in3 array with guns at a depth of 10.0 metres (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 14 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 2.4: Source signature filter GeoStreamer LChyd, 3(7) - 214(341) Hz (dB/oct.)
The following plots show the inline and crossline directivity of the array in (dip angle-frequency) form. Both plots are scaled as db relative to 1 µPa per Hz at 1m. Both plots are generated
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 15 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA using Nucleus+ version 2.0.1 and Marine source modelling version 1.4.1 (DFSV 0-128/72 Hz filter). The acoustic emission pattern plots for an array depth of 6 m show that the energy emitted by the array is uniformly distributed in the inline and crossline directions.
Figure 2.5: Directivity plots for constant azimuth: 0 and 90 degrees
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 16 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
2.4.3 Streamer The vessel utilises the PGS GeoStreamer®, which is a solid streamer. Solid streamers are less sensitive to weather related noise than liquid streamers and further minimises the environmental impact of fluid loss from breaks or tears in conventional fluid-filled streamers. Technical specification of the streamer system is provided in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: PGS GeoStreamer® Solid Streamer Specification Skin material Polyurethane Outside diameter 62 mm Length of each group 12.5 m Streamer set-up Typical 1 x 10,050 m Manufacture and type of hydrophones Hydrophones: Teledyne T-2BX or equivalent, Velocity Sensors: PGS confidential (Mark III) Number of hydrophones per group/distance apart Hydrophones: 12 per 12.5 m, Velocity Sensors: PGS confidential Coupling between phones and pre-amp Capacitive Sensitivity of near and far group at 1/P to recorder 20 V/Bar Bandwidth over which above sensitivities apply Specified at 100 Hz Availability of shore-side spares if required Pool system Manufacturer and type of depth controller and ION DigiCourse 5011 compass
2.4.4 Logistical Support Details of logistical operations to support the subject geophysical program will largely depend on seismic acquisition company, season, and weather.
Support Vessels The primary functions of support boats are to provide supplies for the seismic vessel and to assist in emergency situations (including oil spills). At least one support vessel will be utilized for the duration of the proposed seismic survey. Seismic vessels are recognized as having restricted manoeuvrability and, in this respect, under marine sailing directions, they have priority over vessels that are not similarly restricted. In areas where poor charting, or the presence of other vessels, may pose a potential problem to the survey operation, the support boats will ensure that other vessels do not cross over, or otherwise interfere with, the towed equipment. The support boats may also check that the way ahead of the survey vessel is clear of obstructions, such as uncharted shallow water and fishing equipment. The seismic vessel carries a Fisheries Liaison Observer to make communication with the fisheries in order to ensure that seismic activity does not interfere with the fishermen.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 17 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Shore Supplies MKI will use shore facilities in Newfoundland and or Labrador, the ports of call will be dictate by refueling facilities. No new shorebase facilities will be established as part of this Project. MKI will establish a representative in St. John’s for day-to-day survey management and liaison with local services and regulators.
Helicopters The larger seismic vessels are usually equipped with a helicopter platform and helicopters are often used for crew changes, and can be used in case of medical and other emergencies and re-supply. The MKI bridge crew prefers to come to shore for crew changes and re-supply. Helicopters may or may not be utilized depending on type of helicopter available and seismic vessel procured. For the duration of the seismic program, it is possible that the fleet of helicopters available out of St John’s will be Sikorsky S-92’s only. The implication of this is that many of the seismic vessels currently available on the market are not capable of allowing S-92’s to land on their helideck. Super Pumas or equivalent are the only type of helicopter potentially available that are approved for landing on the helidecks of the anticipated seismic vessels.
2.5 Emissions and Waste Discharges The vessels and towed array will generate underwater noise. The vessels also generate atmospheric, light, liquid, and solid emissions. Discharges and emissions from this program will be similar to those of any standard marine vessel. These emissions and discharges are described below.
2.5.1 Noise Emissions The firing of an air source generates an oscillating bubble in the surrounding water. At the time of firing, the pressure of the air inside the cylinder far exceeds the outside pressure in the surrounding water. This difference in pressure causes a bubble to rapidly expand in the water around the air source. It is this initial bubble expansion that generates the relatively broadband seismic pulse. Sound decreases with distance from the source. This is referred to as transmission loss and it is influenced by geometric spreading loss and attenuation. Pressure measured at some distance away for the air source array is determined by using the model of spherical and cylindrical spreading. Sound travels out in a progressively large area from the sound source in all directions. There are many factors that contribute to decay a sound wave, including frequency and local conditions such as water temperature, water depth, and bottom conditions.
2.5.2 Atmospheric Emissions Atmospheric emissions will result from vessel and equipment exhaust. These emissions are minor and will be reduced through best management practices and preventative maintenance procedures. These include properly maintaining and routinely inspecting ship equipment, controlling vapour loss from fuel tanks, and avoiding engine idling when not in use. Emissions from ship engines and onboard equipment will comply with the Air Pollution Control Regulations
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 18 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
(Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Protection Act) and the Ambient Air Quality Objectives (Canadian Environmental Protection Act).
2.5.3 Liquid Emissions Ballast water is stored in dedicated ballast tanks to improve vessel stability. No oil will be present in these tanks or in any discharged ballast/preload water. If oil is suspected to be in the water, it will be tested and, if necessary, treated to ensure that oil concentrations in the discharge do not exceed 15 mg/L as required by the MARPOL 73/78 (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and the Protocol of 1978 related thereto), IMO and the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (OWTG) (NEB et al.. 2010). The OWTG were developed specifically for the treatment and control of waste generated by petroleum operations related to exploration and production on Canada’s offshore areas. Bilge water often contains oil and grease that originate in the engine room and machinery spaces. Before discharge, bilge water is treated in accordance with MARPOL 73/78, IMO and OWTG, using an oil/water separator. The extracted water is tested to ensure that the discharges contain no more than 15 mg/L of oil. MKI will implement best practices to maintain equipment and avoid release of flotation fluid. Further, the contracted seismic vessel is equipped with solid-streamer technology, as this type of streamer is not reliant on flotation fluid to achieve a neutral ballast state, thus eliminating the risk of an accidental spill.
2.5.4 Solid Waste All solid waste will be transferred to shore and disposed of at an approved facility. Any hazardous materials (e.g., oily rags) will be handled separately in hazardous materials containers. Sanitary and food wastes will be macerated to a particle size of 6 mm or less and then discharged as per the OWTG.
2.5.5 Light Emissions The survey vessel will carry operational, navigation, and warning lights. Working areas will be illuminated with floodlights as required for compliance with occupational health and safety standards and will be fully equipped with emergency lighting. If a helideck is present, it will be floodlit and have omni-directional guidance lights with an average illumination intensity of between 20 and 25 candelas. Hazards in the vicinity of the helideck will also have omni- directional hazard lighting. Lighting will comply with relevant offshore standards/regulations, including TC’s Guidelines Respecting Helicopter Facilities on Ships. MKI will adhere to the CWS Leach’s Storm Petrel Program.
2.6 Potential Malfunctions and Accidental Events There are unplanned situations that may be encountered during seismic operations. Potential hazards are addressed during site-specific planning as part of emergency response planning. Procedures are developed by MKI to ensure that such events are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner. MKI have policies, plans, and procedures to prevent or mitigate effects of malfunctions and accidents. These policies, plans, and procedures will be located on
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 19 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA the seismic vessel, and in MKI St. John’s (shore office). During seismic surveys, there will be limited amounts of marine fuel and lube oil onboard that could potentially be spilled to the ocean. All of the vessels involved in the survey will use diesel fuel. The fuel capacity of seismic ships can range up to 1,550 t for large 3-D vessel. Any accidental spill will be reported to the C- NLOPB immediately. The contracted vessel is equipped with solid-streamer technology, as this type of streamer is not reliant on flotation fluid to achieve a neutral ballast state, thus eliminating the risk of an accidental spill from a damaged streamer. Other accidental events could include damage or loss of seismic equipment, entanglement of seismic equipment with fishing gear, and vessel collisions. Best management practices and communications will be used on the survey vessel to avoid equipment loss or damage. Gear will be retrieved from the water if wave heights reach or exceed unacceptable limits. In case of severe weather, the vessel may return to shore until conditions improve. A trained Fisheries Liaison Observer will be onboard during the seismic program to liaise with fishers who may have gear deployed in the Project Activity Area, in order to ensure effective and ongoing communication and avoid unnecessary gear conflicts and possible vessel collisions. Entanglement of marine mammals in seismic equipment is not likely since streamers have no tangle gear and marine mammals are expected to avoid the vessel during operations.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 20 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
3 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT A scoping process focuses the environmental assessment on the Project components and activities to be assessed, the key environmental issues, and the appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries. The scope of an EA must be established early in the process to ensure that the analysis remains focused and manageable. The scoping process for this assessment included the following: Project Description submitted by MKI (2011); the Scoping Document for the Environmental Assessment led by the C-NLOPB (2011; see Appendix A); stakeholder consultation; preliminary research, which included a review of existing literature, relevant scientific research publications and regulatory guidelines; and professional judgment of the EA study team.
The scope of the project includes the combination of works and activities that must be considered during the environmental assessment. The Project components were identified by the Scoping Document (C-NLOPB 2011), based on analysis of the Project Description submitted by MKI.
3.1 C-NLOPB Scoping Requirements As the Regulatory Authority for the Project, the C-NLOPB identified the following issues of concern, through its regulatory stakeholder consultation for scoping, to be included within the scope of the EA: species at risk; special areas; ocean resource users; cumulative effects; and malfunctions and accidental events.
3.1.1 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement MKI recognizes the importance of communications to identify key stakeholder, to keep stakeholders informed of their proposed program, and to obtain valuable input that may serve to contribute to the Project’s overall success. A critically important aspect of conducting an effective environmental assessment is the participation of appropriate regulatory agencies; fishing representatives and organizations; representatives from users of resource sectors within the Study Area and relevant communities with an interest in the Project. This engagement process employed the strategy of working through appropriate representative organizations, such as the FFAW, to ensure effective information sharing. As a first step in the community, engagement process was to undertake a pre-assessment of the range of various organizations and agencies that operate within the Study Area, or which may be impacted by the Project activities.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 21 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Fishing Industry Organisations A list of fishing industry representatives were contacted and their comments are provided in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Results of Fisher Stakeholder Consultations
Person Contacted Group/Industry Issues/ Concerns R. Saunders FFAW Space conflict Reduction in shrimp and crab landings Coordination of FLOs M. Murphy One Ocean Space conflict Reduction in shrimp and crab landings VMS data service logistics Cpt.G. Chidley G&D Fisheries Ltd Reduction in shrimp and crab landings B. McNamara New Found Resource Reduction in shrimp landings J. Simms New Found Resources Reduction in shrimp landings C. Penney Clearwater Seafood No response R. Ellis OCI No comment M. O’Connor Icewater Seafoods No response G. Sheppard DFO RV Survey information
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 22 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The EA scope and methodology for the Project have been developed to meet the regulatory requirements of a screening under CEAA, as well as the C-NLOPB requirements for environmental assessment of offshore seismic projects under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Resources Accord Implementation Act. The EA methodology for this Project addresses the scope of the Project, as defined in Section 15(1) of CEAA, as well as the requirements of the Scoping Document for the Environmental Assessment prepared by the C- NLOPB (Appendix A). In accordance with subsection 16(1) of the CEAA, the EA shall include a consideration of the following factors: the environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of accidents that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; the significance of the effects referred to above; comments from the public that are received in accordance with the CEAA and the regulations; and measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the Project.
4.1 Approach The approach used in this report has evolved from Beanlands and Duinker (1983), who stressed the importance of focusing the assessment on environmental components of greatest concern to society or as indicators of environmental health. In general, the methodology is designed to produce an EA Report that: focuses on issues of greatest concern; addresses issues raised by the public and other stakeholders; addresses regulatory requirements; integrates mitigative and monitoring programs into a comprehensive environmental management planning process; and integrates cumulative effects assessment into the overall assessment of residual environmental effects.
The EA methodology for this Project includes an evaluation of the potential effects from routine activities, as well as accidents, with regard to valued environmental components (VECs). The evaluation of potential cumulative effects with regard to other projects and activities generally includes past, present and future activities that will be carried out and will interact temporally or spatially with the proposed Project. For each VEC, effects of the Project, as well as any potential accidental events, are evaluated within specified temporal and spatial boundaries. While the Project activities are generally
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 23 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA focused within the footprint of the Project activities (i.e., area of influence), the effects of these activities may extend beyond these footprints. Boundaries are defined for each VEC. Preparation of this EA Report consists of several steps including: assembling Project baseline information, including a clear description of the proposed Project and developing an understanding of existing conditions; establishing the scope of the assessment; and assessing the potential environmental effects of the Project including residual, cumulative and potential effects of accidental events.
4.2 Environmental Effects Assessment Methodology The analysis methodology employed for the environmental affects assessment represents accepted practice as defined in the CEA Agency’s Practitioner’s Guide to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Agency 1994), as well as evolving effects assessment methodologies practiced and accepted over the course of many assessments in recent years.
4.2.1 Identification of Valued Environmental Components The issues scoping process identified a focused list of environmental components. Scoping considerations for these components are presented in Table 4.1 along with the rationale for inclusion or exclusion of a VEC for further evaluation. Table 4.1: Selection of Valued Environmental Components
Environmental Scoping Considerations Selected VEC Component Marine and An assessment of the potential adverse environmental effects on Species at Risk Migratory Birds bird species at risk will be undertaken. Bird species on IBAs will be Sensitive Areas discussed under Special Areas and Species at Risk. Marine Fish and An assessment of potential adverse effects on fish species at risk Marine Fish Shellfish will be undertaken. Species at Risk
Marine Mammals Several species of marine mammals of special status are likely to Marine Mammals be present in the study area year-round and could potentially be Species at Risk affected by Project noise and vessel traffic. Sensitive Areas Sea Turtles An assessment of the potential adverse environmental effects on Sea Turtles sea turtle species at risk will be undertaken. Species at Risk Species at Risk The Project may interact with fish, mammal, turtle and bird species Species at Risk at risk (rare, endangered, or threatened species) or their critical habitat (see above). Of particular concern are the species currently listed on Schedule 1 of the SARA and those that have potential for future listing. Therefore, an assessment of the potential for significant adverse environmental effects on species at risk in the study area shall be included in the EA. Sensitive Areas There are several EBSA and VEMs inside the Study Area. These Sensitive Areas designated areas support species at risk and provide critical habitats for deep water corals, sea birds, marine mammals and fish species.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 24 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Environmental Scoping Considerations Selected VEC Component Commercial The commercial fishery is an important element in Newfoundland’s Ocean Resource Fisheries socio-economic and cultural environments. Seismic operations will Users interact with commercial fisheries directly and indirectly (i.e., potential effects on fish). The assessment will focus on commercial fisheries occurring within the study area. Other Ocean Other resources users (e.g., marine traffic) conduct activities Ocean Resource Resource Users offshore Newfoundland within the Study Area, thereby potentially Users interacting with the Project. Various research surveys are conducted within the Study Area that may interact with Project activities and are included in the assessment of other ocean users. Other projects and activities are considered in the assessment of cumulative effects as appropriate.
To ensure that the assessment is holistic, the CEA Agency (1994) suggests a description of each VEC, and its ecological and/or socio-economic context. This includes an evaluation of the relationship of each VEC with other components of the ecosystem or human systems (e.g., trophic relationships). A description of the VEC, along with a rationale for its selection is provided for each VEC assessment in Section 6.0.
4.2.2 Description of Existing Conditions Section 5.0 of this report provides a description of the existing conditions (i.e., pre-Project) for each VEC. The description is focused on the status and characteristics of the VEC within the boundaries established for the assessment and focuses on aspects that are relevant to potential Project interactions. In some cases, baseline data are only available on a larger regional basis extending beyond the boundaries of the assessment, but are still considered relevant and appropriate for the purposes of the assessment.
4.2.3 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries and Study Area Temporal and spatial boundaries encompass those periods during, and areas within which, the VECs are likely to interact with or be influenced by the Project.
4.2.3.1 Temporal Boundaries The temporal boundaries considered for this assessment include seismic activities from the time the vessel arrives within the licence area, until it departs the licence, and estimated time frames for recovery of pelagic and nektonic communities. Effects of the routine activities associated with the proposed Project have been assessed from May to November from 2012 to 2017.
4.2.3.2 Spatial Boundaries Spatial boundaries encompass those periods during, and areas within which, the VECs are likely to interact with, or be influenced by, the Project. Spatial ecological boundaries may be limited to the Study Area, or may extend well beyond the immediate footprints, as the distribution and/or movement of an environmental component can be local, regional, national or international in extent. Spatial boundaries for the assessment vary according to the VEC. Such factors as population characteristics and migration patterns are important considerations in
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 25 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA determining ecological boundaries, and may influence the spatial extent and distribution of an environmental effect and are particularly important for assessing cumulative environmental effects. This assessment considers two levels of spatial boundaries: the Study Area, as directed by the Scoping Document, and the Regional Area: The Study Area encompasses the 2-D Project Area; a 30 km estimated distance to account for a turning radius and sound attenuation from the array at a distance where a level that will
startle fish (156 dB re 1 µParms). This area also includes potential interactions with other vessels. The Regional Area extends beyond the Study Area in all cases. The Regional Area varies according to the life history of the biological VEC. For fisheries, the boundary is defined largely, for the purposes of this assessment, by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Unit Areas 3L, 3M, 3N, 3K, and 2J.
4.2.3.3 Ecological Boundaries Ecological boundaries are determined by the spatial and temporal distributions of the biophysical VECs under consideration. Factors such as population characteristics and migration patterns are important considerations in determining ecological boundaries, and may influence the extent and distribution of an environmental effect. Spatial socio-economic boundaries are determined by the nature of the VECs under consideration (e.g., the spatial distribution of fishing activity). Such boundaries are particularly important for assessing cumulative environmental effects. Temporal ecological boundaries consider the relevant characteristics of environmental components or populations, including the natural variation of a population or ecological component, response and recovery times to effects, and any sensitive or critical periods of a VEC’s life cycle (e.g., spawning, migration), where applicable.
4.2.3.4 Administrative Boundaries Administrative boundaries are the spatial and temporal dimensions imposed on the environmental assessment for conservation, political, socio-cultural, or economic reasons. Spatial administrative boundaries can include such elements as the way in which natural and/or socio-economic systems are managed (e.g., NAFO Fishing Areas). Temporal administrative boundaries may include, for example, fishing seasons.
4.2.3.5 Technical Boundaries Technical boundaries or knowledge gaps represent any technical limitations on the ability to assess, evaluate, and/or monitor potential environmental effects. For example, insufficient data on the abundance, status, and distribution of a fish or wildlife population may limit the ability to predict the potential effects of a project. Where limitations exist, it is important that they be recognized and acknowledged.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 26 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
4.2.4 Interactions Between Project Activities and VECs The scope of the proposed Project includes all of the components and activities detailed in Section 3.0 of this report, including any potential accidental events that may occur in relation to the Project. To further focus the assessment, the interactions between Project activities and the VECs need to be identified (Table 4.2). A potential interaction, signified by an “X”, does not necessarily indicate a predicted effect, but warrants further analysis in the EA. A full assessment of these interactions is contained in Section 6.0 (planned events and accidental events). Where appropriate, the assessment includes a summary of main concerns regarding the effect of each Project activity on the VECs being considered. Knowledge may exist in the scientific literature and is referred to where possible. Negligible interactions are blank and are not discussed further. An interaction may be negligible due to the limited nature of the activity and interaction, strict regulations, or lack of sensitive receptors.
Table 4.2: Potential Project-environment Interaction Matrix
Valued Environmental Component Special Areas Special Areas Marine Traffic Species at Risk Species at Military Operations Petroleum Industry Industry Petroleum Commercial Fisheries Commercial 2-D Seismic Survey - Noise Emissions (Acoustic Array) X X X X Vessel Presence X X X X X Presence of Streamers and Cables X X X X X Accidental Spills X X X
4.2.5 Significance Criteria and Evaluation Section 16(1)(b) of CEAA requires that the significance of environmental effects be determined. Accepted practice in meeting this requirement involves establishing and applying criteria for the determination of significance (significance criteria). Residual environmental effects evaluation criteria are established based on information obtained in issues scoping, available information on the status and characteristics of each VEC, and may involve the application of environmental standards, guidelines or objectives, where these are available (e.g., applicable waste management guidelines). Consideration of the carrying capacity, tolerance level, or assimilative capacity of the area or VEC may be helpful, even though it may not be possible to quantify these characteristics. For each VEC, a definition is provided for a “significant adverse effect” and a “non-significant adverse effect”.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 27 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
4.2.6 Analysis, Mitigation and Environmental Effects Evaluation For each VEC, the potential interactions are investigated and evaluated based on current scientific knowledge with regard to each interaction. Effects are analyzed qualitatively, and, where possible, quantitatively, using existing knowledge, professional judgment, and appropriate analytical tools. Where applicable, mitigation measures are identified and the significance of the predicted environmental effects of the Project is evaluated based on a set of defined significance criteria tailored to the Project. The significance evaluation of residual effects for each VEC is adapted from the attributes recognised by the CEA Agency (1994, 1997) as commonly accepted by EIA practitioners. The rating of options and their definition depends on the nature of the VEC and the potential effect from this Project. The significance attributes for this Project are as follows:
Magnitude – the nature and degree of the predicted environmental effect Negligible Essentially no effect rating = 0 Affects a specific group or critical habitat for one generation or less; Low rating = 1 within natural variation Affects a portion of a population or critical habitat for one or two Medium rating = 2 generations; temporarily outside the range of natural variability Affects a whole stock, population or critical habitat (may be due to the High loss of an individual(s) in the case of a species at risk) outside the range rating = 3 of natural variability. rating
For socio-economic components – the magnitudes of potential effect Negligible Essentially no effect rating = 0 Does not have a measurable effect on fishing or catch levels or marine Low rating = 1 traffic Has a measurable effect on with marine traffic and other offshore Medium rating = 2 operators or on fishing or catch levels, but is within natural variability Has a measurable and sustained adverse effect on marine traffic and High offshore operations or fishing activities or catch levels beyond natural rating = 3 variability
Geographic extent – the area over which the particular effect will occur. Immediate Effects are adjacent to the array or vessel, within 10s of metres rating = 1 Local Within <500 m of array or vessel rating = 2 Near Field 1 – 10 km of array or vessel rating = 3 Far Field 10-50 km of array or vessel rating = 4 Regional > 50 km rating = 5
Frequency – how often the effect will occur. Isolated occurring once or twice rating = 1 Intermittent occurring repetitively with starts and stops rating = 2
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 28 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Continuous occurring non-stop rating = 3
Duration – how long the disturbance will occur. Immediate limited to days rating = 1 Short-term limited to two weeks rating = 2 Mid-term limited to one month rating = 3 Long term limited to two months rating = 4
Reversibility – the ability of a VEC to return to an equal, or improved, condition once the disturbance has ended (for example, reclaiming habitat area equal or superior to that lost). Predicted effects are rated as reversible (R) or irreversible (I), based on previous research and experience. Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context – rating 1 relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity; 2 = evidence of existing adverse effects. Uncertainty - This allows for disclosure of the level of scientific confidence in the predicted outcomes, and the general reliability of the data and models used to predict impacts.
4.3 Follow-Up and Monitoring Monitoring by the proponent may be undertaken for a number of reasons including compliance, permit approval/renewal, evaluation of mitigating measures, strengthening predictive capacity in future EAs, and commitments to third parties. Monitoring and follow-up requirements are evaluated for each VEC and are linked to the sensitivity of a VEC to both Project related and cumulative environmental effects. The likelihood and importance of such effects, as well as the level of confidence associated with the adverse residual effects rating, are also taken into consideration.
4.4 Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment Individual environmental effects can accumulate and interact to result in cumulative environmental effects. Past and ongoing human activities have affected the region's natural and human environments. The description of the existing (baseline) environment reflects the effects of these other actions. An environmental assessment pursuant to CEAA must, however, include consideration of the “cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.” A critical step in the environmental assessment, therefore, is determining what other projects or activities have reached a level of certainty (e.g., “will be carried out”) such that they must be considered in an environmental assessment. It is helpful to consider the clarification provided by the Joint Review Panel for the Express Pipeline Project in Alberta (NEB and CEA Agency 1996). Following an analysis of subsection 16(1)(a) of the CEAA, the Joint Review Panel determined that certain requirements must be met for the Panel to consider cumulative environmental effects: there must be a measurable environmental effect of the Project being proposed;
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 29 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
the environmental effect must be demonstrated to interact cumulatively with the environmental effects from other projects or activities; and it must be known that the other projects or activities have been, or will be, carried out and are not hypothetical (NEB and CEA Agency 1996).
Furthermore, the Joint Review Panel indicated that it is an additional requirement that the cumulative environmental effect is likely to occur, that is, there must be some probability, rather than a mere possibility, that the cumulative environmental effect will occur. These criteria were used to guide the assessment of cumulative environmental effects. The other projects and activities considered in this assessment include those that are likely to proceed (such as those listed in the CEAA registry), and those which have been issued permits, licences, leases or other forms of approval (as specified by the CEA Agency 1994). Past and present activities that may impact cumulatively with the Project have been assessed as part of the assessment of routine Project activities in Section 6.0. Future activities that have the potential to interact cumulatively with the Project include: marine traffic (domestic and international); commercial fishing activities; research surveys; and other petroleum projects in the regional area.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 30 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
5.1 Marine Physical Setting
5.1.1 Bathymetry and Physiography The proposed Study Area includes the Labrador Basin, Orphan Basin, Flemish Basin and Jeanne d’Arc Basin. The depth of the Study Area ranges from around 100 m to beyond the abyssal zone of ≥4000 m. A majority of the Study Area lies within depths of ≥2000 m. The southward-flowing cold Labrador Current is the main physical feature. (Figure 5.1). A funnel-like formation for the Labrador Current occurs between the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, which likely creates an upwelling of nutrients as the current hits the north end of the banks (LGL 2003). At the northwestern end of the Study Area is the Labrador Basin. Depths in this Basin range from approximately 2000 m on the western end to abyssal depths of ≥4000 m to the north and east end. Gentle slopes are found on the western side with a slightly steeper, more irregular gradient toward the northeast. The bathymetry of Orphan Basin is discussed in great detail by Campbell (2005). As a summary of his study, he describes this Basin as a bathymetric embayment in 2000 to 3000 m water depth and forms part of the continental margin off eastern Canada. To the west and south, the Basin is bounded by the Newfoundland Shelf and Flemish Cap, and by the Orphan Knoll to the northeast. The western slope has a low gradient of 1° to 2°, while the southeast slope has a much higher gradient of 4° to 6°. Canyons incise the southwestern slope while broad submarine channels on the southern Orphan Basin floor appear to coalesce towards the gap between Orphan Knoll and Flemish Pass. Otherwise, the floor of Orphan Basin is relatively flat and gently slopes towards the east. Jacobs (1989) discusses the bathymetry of Flemish Basin. Situated between 46ºN to 48.5ºN and 46ºW to 47ºW, Flemish Pass is described as a 1 km deep trough running almost north- south between the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Flemish Cap. The pass is flanked by fairly steep slopes on both sides, from the shelf break (200 m in the south, 300 m in the north) down to approximately 1100 m. Gentle concave slopes between 1100 m and 1170 m allow the centre of the pass to be almost flat. Jeanne d’Arc Basin extends southeast from the southern end of the Orphan Basin. Similar in size and shape of the Flemish Basin, it is bound to the west by the Grand Banks and to the east by Flemish Cap. The western slope has a low gradient in comparison to the eastern slope and depths range from approximately 300 m in the west, 500 m to the east, 2000 m to the south, and 1000 m on the Basin bottom.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 31 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.1: Bathymetry and seafloor features of the Study Area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 32 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.1.2 Seafloor Stratigraphy The surficial sediments found in the Study Area range from fine (proglacial silts & recent mud) to extremely coarse (glacial till). Surficial sediments on the Grand Banks have originated from both glacial and non-glacial processes. On the southwestern Grand Banks, seafloor sediments are mostly sand, with local admixtures of mud and gravel. On the northeastern Newfoundland Shelf, the predominant sediment type is mud, with ice-rafted debris. Over the innermost parts of the banks, there is a veneer of gravel. Much of the rest of the banks are covered by quartz sand, which becomes increasingly finer with increasing distance from land. Five formations are recognized, they are: Grand Banks Drift, Downing Silt, Placentia Clay, Grand Banks Sand and Gravel, and Adopholus Sand. These units are stratigraphic equivalents of Scotian Shelf sediments (i.e., Scotian Shelf Drift, Emerald Silt, and LaHave Clay). Fader et al. (1982), Piper et al. (1990), Brown (1990), and Miller (1999) discuss each of these sedimentary units in detail. A summary of their descriptions is provided below. Where Quaternary deepwater sediment mapping is available, it showed that the majority of the Study Area seafloor geology consists of Grand Banks Sand and Gravel, and Grand Banks Drift, primarily a coarse till. Placentia Clay, primarily a clayey silt, is found intermittently amongst the Grand Banks Drift. Also, a small amount of Downing Silt is found along the north and northeast side of Grand Banks (Figure 5.2). The glacial till is classed as Grand Banks Drift and was not modified by the last advance of the sea across the continental shelf. Extending beyond the available maps, is Espernato Beds and Equivalent: sand, clay, and silt (includes Tertiary volcanic rocks). In general, the upper 50 or so metres of seabed in most of the deepwater areas can be divided into 1) Stratified glacial marine and hemipelagic sediments 2) Mass transport deposits (submarine landslide deposits), 3) Sandy channel floors 4) Gravelly channel floors, 5) Contourites (bottom current deposits) (C. Campbell, Geological Survey of Canada, pers. comm. 2012).
Grand Banks Drift Grand Banks Drift consists of till deposited at the base of a grounded ice sheet, generally in contact with bedrock surfaces. This unit is less than 60 m thick and found at water depths of up to 500 m, as on the upper continental slope. It is an olive-grey to reddish brown, poorly sorted till, composed of sand, silt, and clay with various amounts of pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. Where this unit is exposed at the seabed it appears as protruding cobbles and boulders within a matrix of sandy mud. It occurs as a thin veneer or ground moraine, as infillings in old subaerial erosional channels in underlying bedrock, or in thick morainal ridges. Although this unit is not exposed in the Study Area, it does occur as a thin, discontinuous sheet under later Quaternary sediments. Within the Study Area it is found on the western boundary line.
Downing Silt Downing Silt is a unit that overlies and locally interfingers with Grand Banks Drift. It is typically less than 90 m thick and is interpreted to have been deposited at the front of a grounded ice sheet, beneath an ice shelf, or as a proglacial deposit. Downing Silt is a dark greyish-brown to
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 33 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA greenish-brown, clayey and sandy silt that locally grades to a silty and clayey sand with minor angular gravel. In the Study Area Downing Silt is found in small quantities to the northwest of the Grand Banks and near the northwest corner. Icebergs extensively furrow this unit. Furrows can be up to 10 m deep.
Figure 5.2: Quaternary deep water sediments in the Study Area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 34 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Placentia Clay Placentia Clay is a dark greyish brown to dark olive, homogeneous silty clay to clayey silt formation. It is less than 30 m thick and has a relatively flat surface. Within the Study Area it is found in small quantities on the northeast tip of the Grand Banks and at the northwest corner. This unit originates primarily from reworking of Downing Silt and glacial tills during the marine transgression of the Holocene.
Adolphus Sand Adolphus Sand is characterized as a sublittoral deposit of fine-grained sand and muddy sand, grading locally to a gravelly sand. It is less than 10m thick and occurs in water depths of >100 m. Within the Study Area it is found as an encapsulating, outermost band of deposit on the Grand Banks. The northeast tip of the Grand Banks contains more of this deposit, than is found elsewhere in this band. Adolphus Sand is also the primary deposit of Flemish Cap.
Grand Banks Sand and Gravel The Grand Banks Sand and Gravel is a result of reworking of the Grand Banks Drift and Downing Silt, during marine transgression. It’s less then 20m thick and is found within the Study Area only on the Grand Bank in water depths of <100 m. It is fine to coarse well-sorted sand, grading to subrounded to rounded gravels; and locally to cobbles and boulders.
5.1.3 Geological Formations Subsurficial geology is shown in Figure 5.3. G & G Exploration and Consulting Ltd. (2003) describe the geological history of the Orphan Basin as being similar to that of the Jeanne d’Arc and Flemish Pass Basins. Seismic data indicates the presence of a thick Tertiary and Mesozoic sequence, underlain locally by Paleozoic sequences. In addition, they reported that seven wells drilled in the basin were located on top of, and near the tops of, large structural highs, which generally proved to be basement blocks with thin Mesozoic cover. The Orphan Knoll is a fragment of continental crust that detached from North America during continental rifting (Keen and Beaumont 1990 in Toews and Piper 2002). Its lower flanks are partly mantled by late Cenozoic drift deposits (Toews and Piper 2002). Piston core samples were collected in the Orphan Knoll that contained primarily hemipelagic, ice rafted and from glacial plume deposits (Toews and Piper 2002). The basement of the Flemish Cap consists of Precambrian metamorphic rocks about 590 million years old (A.C. Grant 1971 in Alam 1979). Three geological formations exist here. The Cap is Undivided Hadrynian and Paleozoic. To the southwest, the Horton Group and Equivalent is found, which consists of sandstone, shale, conglomerate and locally volcanic rocks. Lastly, surrounding the Cap are the Mississauga, Logan Canyon and Wyandot Formations, which consist of sandstone, shale and chalk. The Flemish Pass has been studied considerable for the past 30 years by the Geological Survey of Canada. Box, gravity and piston cores along with extensive sonar and seismic surveys have resulted in over 70 sediment samples taken from area (Campbell et al. 2002).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 35 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The Pass’s bottom is overlain by Miocene sediments over a thick Mesozoic sequence (Kennard et al. 1990 in Campbell et al. 2002). Campbell et al. (2002) further discusses the possible existence of geohazards such as slumping, shallow gas, gas hydrates, and boulder beds within Flemish Pass. The Northeast Newfoundland Shelf is located in the northwest of the Study Area and is several hundred kilometres wide and reaches water depths in excess of 500 m. Two bands of shelf exist. The inner is narrow and irregular, while the otter consists of shallow banks separated by deep channels cut into the Mesozoic-Cenozoic Sequence (Cutt and Laving 1977 & Piper et al. 1979 in Alam 1979).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 36 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.3: Geological formations of the Study Area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 37 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.1.4 Tectonics and Seismicity The potential for structural damage by an earthquake is primarily determined by two mechanisms: the nature of associated ground movements at the structure site, and the construction elements of the structure itself. In Canada, expected ground motions (also referred to as seismic hazard) are calculated on the basis of probability theory and are represented by seismic zoning maps (Figure 5.4). The Study Area contains several fault zones in the Flemish Pass area, the largest being the Cumberland Belt. To the east the East Newfoundland Hinge Zone bound the Study Area, and to the north the Study Area extends slightly beyond the Charlie Gibbs Fracture Zone. Between 1985 and 2012 (to date), NRCan and the National Earthquake Information Centre recorded 17 seismic events occurring within the Study Area (Figure 5.4). The most recent to occur within the Study Area was on December 1, 2010 at a magnitude of 3.3ML. In addition, 10 earthquakes have been recorded outside the Study Area. The magnitude of these quakes ranged between 2 and 4 on the Richter scale. The majority of events have been recorded on the Grand Banks, and Northeast Newfoundland Shelf and Slope. Examination of cores and seismic profiles suggest that a major earthquake may occur in the Orphan Knoll area about once every 70,000 years (Toews and Piper 2002). It should be noted that in 1929 a 7.2 magnitude earthquake on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and a resulting tsunami was recorded along the eastern seaboard as far south as South Carolina and across the Atlantic Ocean in Portugal. The tsunami resulted in widespread damage and many deaths on the southern end of the Burin peninsula of the Newfoundland coast.
5.2 Metocean Setting
5.2.1 Climatology The climate for a majority of the Study Area has been extensively covered in the Orphan Basin SEA (LGL 2003-Section 3.1.2), the Orphan Basin Exploratory Drilling Program EA (LGL 2005- Section 3.2) and most recently in Oceans (2011-Section 2.0 & 3.0) and EA’s conducted for Chevron and Statoil (LGL 2011a-Section 3.1; LGL 2011b-Section 3.2). The proceeding information is a general overview and summary of the climate, air and sea-surface temperatures, visibility, precipitation and wind and wave analysis expected in the Study Area.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 38 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.4: Offshore faults and seismic activity
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 39 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The climate for the Study Area is of a typical marine environment. It is influenced heavily during the fall and winter by passing systems. The temperature in a marine environment is moderated by the surrounding waters. Summers are generally cool and winters milder than continental climates. Persistent high levels of humidity reduces visibility, increases precipitation levels, and increases levels of fog. The waters of the Study Area are very dynamic and are controlled mainly by high and low- pressure circulation systems. These circulation systems are embedded in, and steered by, the prevailing westerly flow that typify the upper levels of the atmosphere in the mid-latitudes, which arises because of the normal tropical to polar temperature gradient. The mean strength of the westerly flow is a function of the intensity of this gradient, and as a consequence is considerably stronger in the winter months than during the summer months, due to an increase in the south to north temperature gradient. (Meteorological convention defines seasons by quarters; e.g., winter is December, January, February, etc.) The upper level flow in the atmosphere during the winter can be as much as 60 percent stronger than the summer months due to the stronger temperature gradient that exists between the northern and southern latitudes. Figure 5.5 illustrates the predominant upper wind flow during the summer and winter months. Note how the isobars (lines of equal pressure) are closer together in the mean winter pattern, which correlates to stronger winds. Upper level troughs (an elongated area of low pressure) over Eastern North America lead to the development of surface low pressure systems that affect Atlantic Canada. Upper troughs produce areas of cloud and precipitation and tend to be strongest in the winter.
Figure 5.5: Mean Upper Wind Patterns (Summer – left; Winter – right) (Source: NAV Canada, 2001. The Weather of Atlantic Canada and Eastern Quebec)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 40 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.6: January storm tracks – (a) Great Lakes Lows; (b) Cape Hatteras Lows; (c) Gulf of Mexico Lows (Source: NAV Canada, 2001. The Weather of Atlantic Canada and Eastern Quebec)
By summer, the main storm tracks have moved further north resulting in less frequent and weaker low-pressure systems (Figure 5.7). There is a northward shift of the main band of westerly winds at upper levels and a marked development of the Bermuda-Azores sub-tropical high-pressure area to the south. This warm-core high-pressure cell extends from the surface through the entire troposphere. The main track of the weaker low-pressure systems typically lies through the Labrador region and tends to be oriented from the west-southwest to the east- northeast. The prevailing south to southwesterly flow during the late spring and early summer tends to be moist and relatively warmer than the underlying surface waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Cooling from below coupled with mixing of the air in the near-surface layer frequently results in saturation of the air, the condensation of water vapour, and the development of advection fog, which can persist for days at time if the air flow remains stagnant. The incidence of advection fog and the frequency of poor visibility are normally highest during July.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 41 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.7: July storm tracks – (a) Hudson Bay Lows (Source: NAV Canada, 2001. The Weather of Atlantic Canada and Eastern Quebec)
5.2.2 Air and Sea Surface Temperature Section 2.5.1 of Oceans (2011) describes air and sea surface temperature for two regions: the Grand Banks and the Orphan Basin. ICOADS data sets were used and it was found that in both regions the atmospheric temperature was coldest in February (-0.4ºC; 0.1ºC) and warmest in August (14.3ºC; 12.6ºC). Surface sea temperatures were coldest in March (0.3ºC; 1.6ºC) and warmest in August (13.7ºC; 12.3ºC). Section 4.2.4 of LGL (2008) identified three regions of interest and also used ICOADS data sets to compute air and sea surface temperatures. Two of the regions overlapped with those identified in Oceans (2011). As such they reported similar air and sea surface temperature. The third region, encompassing the Flemish Pass area (North-49.0°N, South-46.0°N, East- 45.5°W, West-47.0°W.), deviated slightly in temperatures. Here the mean air temperature was coldest in February (1.3ºC), 1.7ºC warmer than the Grand Banks Region, and 1.2ºC warmer than the Orphan Basin Region. August air temperature averaged at 13.3ºC. The largest difference was discovered between sea surface temperatures. February and March had a mean water temperature of 3.1ºC, 2.8ºC warmer than the Grand Banks Region and nearly double that of the Orphan Basin Region. August water temperature averaged at 12.4ºC.
5.2.3 Precipitation A variety of precipitation types occur through the Study Area due to the migratory high and low pressure systems transiting the temperate middle latitude of the Northern Hemisphere (LGL 2005). According to the data presented in Ocean (2011), there was only a minimal difference in the percent frequency of the annual precipitation between the Regions (22.1%, 21.8%). Overall,
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 42 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA the occurrence of rain/drizzle is the most likely form of precipitation to be experienced in the Study Area during the proposed operating period of May to November. The Study Area will likely experience the lowest occurrence of precipitation during the months of July. Snow is likely during the months of April, May, October and November. The frequency of snow occurring in the Study Area increases in the southeast, northeast, and northwest regions. During the months of September and October, moderate to heavy rainfall occurred most frequently. The risk of freezing precipitation is very low for the Project window of activities May through November.
5.2.4 Fog The biggest factor for reduced visibility in the area is the formation of fog, which becomes quite frequent by mid-spring and remains until late summer. Advection fog is primarily observed within the Study Area beginning during the months of April and May and extending through July, with July having the highest percentage of obscuration to visibility. The southwest portion of the Study Area will experience <1km of visibility 40% of the time in July. Annually, 47.8% of the observations had reduced visibility. The central portion of the Study Area will experience <1km of visibility 50% of the time in July. Annually, 39% of the observations had reduced visibility.
5.2.5 Tropical Storms The hurricane season in the North Atlantic basin normally extends from June through November. Section 2.6 of Oceans (2011) provides information on the types of tropical systems that are likely to occur within the Study Area. There has been a significant increase in the number of hurricanes that have developed within the Atlantic Basin within the last 15 years. Also, there has been little change in the 5-year trend for hurricanes coming through the Study Area.
5.2.6 Vessel Icing The combination of low air and sea temperature, strong winds, high waves, precipitation, and condensation can lead to vessel icing. The vessel itself is also a critical factor for icing potential: the vessel size, hull design which affects amount of spray produced during sailing, and amount of vessel rigging which can act as a ‘trap’ for spray accumulation. For freezing spray to occur, air temperatures must be -2°C (the freezing point of salt water) or colder, and sea temperatures generally less than 5°C.
5.2.7 Wind and Wave – Extreme Analysis Characterization of the wind and wave climate in the offshore Newfoundland and Labrador area is frequently made using the long-standing Meteorological Service of Canada MSC 50 year Wind and Wave Climatology (an update of the Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) 40 year) of North Atlantic Wind and Wave Climatology (Swail et al., 1998; Swail et al., 2006; Meteorological Service of Canada, 2006; Meteorological Service of Canada, 1999; Oceanweather Inc. 2001). The hindcast was developed at Oceanweather with support from Climate Research Branch of Environment Canada (Oceanweather Inc. 2001). The hindcast involved the kinematic reanalysis of all significant tropical and extra-tropical storms in the North Atlantic for the continuous period 1958 to1998. Oceanweather's 3rd generation wave model
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 43 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
(OWI3G) was adopted onto a 0.625 by 0.833 degree grid. Wind and wave fields were archived at all active model gridpoints. The AES40 methodology and validation has been extensively documented and presented in peer-reviewed journals and conferences (Swail et al. 1998). In 2005, the AES40 hindcast in Canadian waters was improved by a shallow water version of the OWI3G on a 0.1-degree grid covering much of the Canadian Maritimes. The North Atlantic basin model was similarly upgraded and run at a 0.5-degree resolution. The MSC50 also extended the time-series to include the 52 years 1954 to 2005 (Swail et al. 2006). Oceans (2011) Section-2.2 to 2.4 provides an in-depth analysis and discussion for wind and wave characteristics. As part of their analysis they make reference to four MSC50 grid points used in the extreme wave and wind analysis. Figure 5.8 shows the four points in relation to this Study Area. According to Oceans (2011), Grid Points 10255 and 11820 were chosen to represent the conditions in the Jean d’Arc Basin region and the western side of Flemish Pass, while Grid Points 13428 and 14697 were chosen to represent conditions in Flemish Pass and the Orphan Basin. Supplementary information for wind and wave analysis is available in EAs prepared for Chevron (LGL 2011a, Section 3.1.2.1 to 3.1.2.3) which makes reference to Grid Points 13428 and 14697, and in the EA prepared for Statoil (LGL 2011b, Section 3.2.2.1 to 3.2.2.2) which makes reference to the four Grip Points used in Oceans (2011) report. A summary of wind and wave analysis based on these reports is discussed below.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 44 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.8: MSC50 grid points within the Study Area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 45 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.2.8 Wind Wind predominantly blows from the southwest in both regions and is light (0.5 ≤ 5.7 m/s) 25 to 30% of the time, moderate (5.7 ≤ 9.8 m/s) 35 to 37% of the time, and strong (9.8 ≤ 17.0 m/s) 29 to 30% of the time. Gale force winds (17.0 ≤ 24.2 m/s) were recorded less than 5% of the time. During the annual 100-year extreme 1-hour wind speed analysis, strongest extreme winds were determined to be between 31.5 to 33.4 m/s. For the exception of Grid Point 14697, the highest extreme wind was determined to occur in February, with an estimate of 30.7 m/s to 32.7 m/s. For Grid Point 14697, December has the highest 1-hour extreme wind estimate of 32.8 m/s. Mean and maximum wind speed statistics were also analyzed in Section 2.3 of Oceans (2011) report. For this survey programme operating season of May to November, the mean wind speed ranged from 6.3 m/s in July to 11.4 m/s in November. Maximum wind speed statistics for the operating season ranged from 20.5 m/s in July to 31.8 m/s in August.
5.2.9 Wave Section 2.4 of Oceans (2011) analyzes wave characteristics based on the four MSC Grid points previously mentioned. A summary of their report found that the Study Area should experience wind wave from various directions during the operating season of May to November. During the summer, both the wind wave and swell are southwesterly, resulting in a combined significant wave height from a southwesterly direction. Wind wave will veer direction in September and October and become westerly and becomes the more dominant component of the combined significant wave height. A westerly direction is felt throughout the winter season when it once again changes in the spring. Section 3.2.2.2 of LGL (2011b) provides an analysis for extreme value estimates for waves from a Gumbel Distribution based on the four MSC Grid Points. During the annual 100 year extreme significant wave height analysis, wave heights ranged from 15.2 m to 16.2 m, and for the exception of Grid Point 14697, the highest extreme significant wave heights occurred during the winter in the month of February. Grid Point 14697 was felt during the month of December.
5.2.10 General Ocean Circulation In recent years, many other environmental assessments have described the ocean circulation for study areas overlapping this Study Area [LGL 2003 (Section 3.1.5), LGL 2005 (Section 3.3.3), LGL 2008a (Section 4.3.1), LGL 2011a (Section 3.2), and LGL 2011b (Section 3.3)]. Oceans (2011 - Section 4.0) provided a detailed description of the physical oceanography and current velocities expected within the Study Area. A summary of the major currents in the Study Area is provided below. The Study Area is strongly influenced by the cold Labrador Current. The circulation of the Continental Shelf waters off eastern Canada is dominated by a general southward flow; from Hudson Strait to the Grand Banks (Figure 5.9), the waters are transported southward by the Labrador Current (DFO 1997). This complex is also influenced by the warm Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current (a mixture of the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current) (LGL 2003). The Labrador Current consists of an inshore and offshore branch. The inshore branch flows through the Avalon Channel, east of the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland, and around Cape
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 46 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Race. This branch then divides into two parts; one flowing to the west (splitting along both sides of the Burgeo Bank) around the north of St. Pierre Bank and the other flowing to the south between the southern portion of St. Pierre Bank and Green Bank. This southern branch then joins a part of the offshore branch flows southward until it reaches the southern part of Orphan Basin where it gets diverted eastward by the bathymetry. Upon reaching the entrance to the Flemish Pass, the current divides into two branches. One branch continues to flow eastward north of Flemish Cap and the other branch flows southward through the Flemish Pass (LGL 2005).
Figure 5.9: Surface circulation features in the western North Atlantic (Source: Fratantoni and Pickart, 2007 as reported in Southern Newfoundland SEA Section 2.2.1 (LGL, 2009a)).
The waters between the Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean are primarily exchanged at the Cabot Strait. This leads to particularly strong and rather complex current streams; one branch (Labrador origin) is flowing in, and another (Gaspé current origin) is flowing out of the Gulf. The inflow branch concerns the eastern part of the Strait, whereas the outflow occupies the west part. The outflow is larger than the inflow and occupies approximately 66 percent of the width, but the inflow is spread more deeply. The strength of these two branches is seasonal, but globally, the outflow is slightly stronger than the inflow, with approximately 1 Sv in winter and 0.8 Sv in summer (for an inflow of approximately 0.7 Sv year around). The mean speed of these flows is high and can reach up to 45 cm/s for the outflow in fall (20 cm/s for the inflow in winter and summer) (Han et al. 1999).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 47 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The secondary circulation regime of relevance in the region is that consisting of warmer currents originating from the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream generally flows south of 40°N, although its meanders can cross north of 40°N. The meanders can separate from the main flow and form warm core eddies with diameters in the order of 200 to 400 km that can persist for significant periods of time and travel independently of the main flow. A warm water current separates northward from the Gulf Stream at roughly 60°W as the Slope Water Jet, and flows along the shelf edge eastward.
5.2.11 Water Mass Structure Oceans 2011 (Section 4.3), LGL 2011a (Section 3.2.2), LGL 2008a (Section 4.3.3), and LGL 2003 (Section 3.1.6) describe the water mass structure of the Labrador Current Water, the Labrador Sea Water, and the North Atlantic Deep Water, all of which are found in the Study Area. Furthermore, Section 4.3 in the Oceans (2011) reports on water mass properties (temperature and salinity) at various water depths. A brief overview is presented below. Three major water masses are found within the Study Area: from surface to 400 m depth is the Labrador Current Water; from 200 m to 1500 m depth is the Labrador Sea Water; and from 1500 m to 4000 m depth is the North Atlantic Deep Water. The Labrador Sea Water and the North Atlantic Deep water are nearly homogeneous with little or no seasonal variability in water properties. The Labrador Sea Water is an intermediate layer water mass with temperatures between 2°C and 4°C and salinities between 34.86% and 35%. The North Atlantic Deep Water is characterized by its high salinity (34.9 to 34.97 psu) and low temperatures (2°C to 3.5°C). In the Study Area, the North Atlantic Deep Water is found in the southern section of Orphan Basin, north and east of the Orphan Knoll, and southeast of the Flemish Cap. The Labrador Sea Water will be found in Flemish Pass and on the northeast Newfoundland Slope as well as in Orphan Basin. The Labrador Current Water will be found on the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Along the northeast section of the Grand Banks, three identifiable features characterize the water structure. Literature on these features from Petrie et al. 1988, Colburne et al. 1996, Colbourne 2002, and Colburne 2004, is summarized in Oceans 2011 (Section 4.3) and LGL 2008a (Section 4.3.3). On an annual basis, DFO Collects CTD transects for the Flemish Cap and Bonavista transects. The Flemish Cap transect maps the temperature and salinities near the southern boundary of the Study Area. The Bonavista transect maps the same for the Study Area north of the Grand Banks. The temperature and salinity profiles for 2009 and 2010 are shown in Figures 4.17 through 4.24 in Oceans (2011 in Appendix D).
5.2.12 Sea Ice Oceans 2011 (Section 5.0) and Orphan Basin SEA (LGL 2003, Section 3.1.7) describe sea ice conditions. The study areas associated with these reports are within the boundary of the Study Area outlined in this report. The following information is in addition to the previously mentioned data, and where applicable has been updated and is specific for this Study Area. Sea ice extent can be variable on the Newfoundland coast as both winds and temperatures are effective in changing the location of the edge (Canadian Ice Service 2001). The maximum
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 48 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA southern extent of the ice generally occurs from the end of February to the middle of March, (Figure 5.10) coincident with the usual period of freeze-up for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope.
Figure 5.10: 30-year Freeze-Up Dates of Ice 1981 and 2010 (Source: Canadian Ice Service, 2010)
The 1/10 concentration ice generally extends down to just below 48°N, (Figure 5.11) but in some years can extend (1 to 15 percent of the years between 1981 and 2010; Figure 5.12) down to 43°N. During the second half of March, the rate of melting at the ice edge increases sufficiently to counterbalance the southward ice drift, and the slow retreat of sea ice generally begins. In early May, the rate of melting increases and the southern ice edge retreats. As seen in Figure 5.11 and 5.12, sea ice is likely to occur in the Study Area, especially in the area encompassing the Grand Banks, Flemish Cap, and in the water west of the Orphan Basin. The weeks of March 12 and March 19 show the time of most southerly extent of sea ice. .
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 49 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.11: 30-year median of ice concentration, week of March 12, 1981-2010, (Source: Canadian Ice Service, 2010)
Figure 5.12: 30-year frequency of occurrence of sea ice, week of March 19, 1981-2010 (Source: Canadian Ice Service, 2010)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 50 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
As seen in Figure 5.13, a small portion of ice is still frequent 1 to 15% of the time in central portion of the Study Area during the week of July 2nd.
Figure 5.13: 30-Year Frequency of Ice Concentration, 1981 and 2010, Week of July 2 (Source: Canadian Ice Service, 2010)
Canadian Ice Services “30 year Median of Predominant Ice Type When Ice is Present” charts (1981 to 2010), were used to summarize the information presented in Table 5.1 Table 5.1: Date Range and Ice Types Present
Date Range Predominant Ice Types Other Ice Types Present Grey New Ice January 8th to February 12th Grey-White Thin First-Year Ice New Ice Thin First-Year Ice February 19thth to March 5th Grey Ice Grey-White Ice Medium First-Year Ice Medium First-Year Ice Grey-White Ice March 12th to March 26th Thin First-Yea Ice New Ice Grey Ice Thin First-Year Ice April 2nd Thick First-Year Ice Medium First-Year Ice Thin First-Year Ice April 9th Medium First-Year Ice Thick First-Year Ice
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 51 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Date Range Predominant Ice Types Other Ice Types Present Thick First-Year Ice Old Ice April 16th Medium First-Year Ice Thin First-Year Ice Old Ice April 23rd to June 4th Thick First Year Ice Thin First-Year Ice Medium First Year Ice
5.2.13 Icebergs Icebergs are masses of fresh water ice which calve each year from the glaciers of Greenland. Icebergs are moved by both the wind and ocean currents, and typically spend one to three years traveling a distance up to 2,897 km (1,800 miles) to the waters of Labrador, then Newfoundland. The West Greenland and Labrador Currents are major ocean currents which move the icebergs about the Davis Strait, along the coast of Labrador, to the northern bays of Newfoundland, and to the Grand Banks. Icebergs will exhibit little or no melting in sea temperatures of about 5ºC or less while waves and warm air temperatures will tend to erode them along their travels. A medium iceberg (15 to 30 m high, 45 to 90 m long) will deteriorate in sea water of 4.4ºC in about 10 days. The presence of easterly and northeasterly winds can strongly influence the numbers of icebergs that make their way to the Newfoundland coast, onto or off the Grand Banks, and through the Study Area. This combined with prevailing wind directions and sea and air temperatures will determine whether and for how long any icebergs stay in a particular region. The majority of icebergs on the East Coast of Newfoundland will be present from March to June or July. By August in most years, the icebergs both along the coast and offshore Newfoundland will have drifted south of the Grand Banks or melted. The U.S. Coast Guard International Ice Patrol (IIP) has monitored the number of icebergs crossing latitude 48º N (about 30 km north of St. John’s) since 1914 as part of its core purpose to promote safe navigation of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean when the danger of iceberg collision exists. This number is highly variable from one year to the next, being 483 icebergs on average from 1900 to 2010. The count of icebergs south of 48º N in 2010 was 1, and tied for the third rank as the lowest number of icebergs estimated to have drifted south of 48°N. According to the IIP, by the second half of April, the little remaining sea ice south of 52°N began to retreat northward, and by month’s end, there was no appreciable ice east on Newfoundland’s northern peninsula (2010). Because of the observed low number, 2009 is used in the proceeding discussion. Additional historical information is available from Oceans (2011, Section 5.2), LGL (2011a, Section 3.3.2), LGL (2011b, Section 3.4.2), and LGL (2005, Section 3.4.2.1). These reports provide pertinent up to date information on sightings, distribution and size of icebergs that are likely within the Study Area boundaries. A summary of these reports is provided below. Figure 5.14 shows the 2009 ice season monthly distribution of icebergs drifting south of 48°N. These icebergs drift primarily to the southeast of Newfoundland (e.g., Figure 5.15 where the number in each grid square indicates the number of icebergs. The count of icebergs south of
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 52 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
48º N in 2009 was 1204) and were within the lower half of the Study Area (48ºN, West 50ºW, East 40ºW).
Figure 5.14: Estimated number of icebergs south of 48°N during 2009 ice season (Source: IIP, 2009a)
Figure 5.15: Iceberg chart for 31 May 2009 (Source: IIP, 2009a)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 53 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The Study Area is situated in three separate identified zones of icebergs for Newfoundland (Figure 5.16). The area northwest of 48°N lies in the Minimum Zone. The area just below the Flemish Cap and northeast of it lies within a Median Zone. Lastly, the largest portion of the Study Area is positioned within the 75th percentile.
Figure 5.16: May 30 iceberg limit climatology, 1975-1995 (Source: IIP, 2009b)
As outlined above, the probability of an iceberg entering the Study Area is high and will likely be seen as early as March, especially in the northwest region. High probability continues into the surveying activity in May to July, especially in the region nearest the Grand Banks. The probability decreases in the waters southeast of Flemish Cap and northeast of the Orphan Knoll.
5.3 Noise Environment Sound is generated by many sources, and in the uppermost part of the ocean, weather has a significant impact on the sound level. Ambient noise is that sound received by an omni- directional sensor which is not from the sensor itself or the manner in which it is mounted. Ambient noise is made up of contributions from many sources, both natural and anthropogenic. These sounds combine to give the continuum of noise against which all acoustic receivers have to detect required signals. Ambient noise is generally made up of three constituent types – wideband continuous noise, tonals and impulsive noise and covers the whole acoustic spectrum
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 54 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA from below 1 Hz to well over 100 kHz. Above this frequency the ambient noise level drops below thermal noise levels. There are a number of basic mechanisms by which ambient noise is generated. All of the sources of ambient noise involve one or more of these basic generation mechanisms: Impact noise - Impact noise occurs when water strikes water, e.g. breaking waves; water strikes solid, e.g. waves hitting a rock; solid strikes water, e.g. hail hitting the water surface; or solid strikes solid underwater, e.g. sediment noise (“siltation”). It is usually a broadband, transient noise, possibly with resonant peaks if solids are involved. Bubble noise - There are several types of bubbles in sea water. Passive bubbles are quiescent and do not generate noise. Active bubbles are formed during an energetic process such as breaking waves or rain striking the surface. These bubbles oscillate and generate comparatively narrowband signals centered on the resonant frequency of the bubble, typically in the range 15 to 300 kHz. Collective oscillations of bubble clouds, particularly under breaking waves, can have resonant frequencies which are much lower than this. Turbulence - Turbulence associated with surface disturbance or turbulent tidal flow around an obstruction generates low frequency continuous noise. Seismic - Movement of the seabed can be coupled into the water column and generate very low frequency noise. Cavitation - Propellers and other fast moving objects in the water can cause cavitation noise when the pressure in the flow around the moving object goes sufficiently negative. This causes a cavitation bubble which very quickly collapses, causing a loud transient sound. The resulting spectrum is wideband but generally has a peak between 100 Hz and 1 kHz. Machinery noise - Machinery generally produces a broadband continuous spectrum with tonals superimposed resulting from the rotation rates of the various parts of the machinery. There may also be impulsive sounds. Tonals - Some systems either deliberately, or as a by-product, generate high levels of tonal signals (e.g. sonar systems, seal scarers). Sources of ambient noise include: wind-sea noise precipitation noise surf noise and sediment transport commercial shipping and leisure craft industrial noise military noise sonar fishing activity aircraft biological noise thermal noise
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 55 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.3.1 Sound Measurements Sound levels are measured in many ways: The root mean square (rms) or the equivalent to a static pressure having the same power. Zero to peak (0-p), or the maximum value measured from the zero line Peak to peak (p-p), or the maximum negative-to-positive measurement of the signal. (This is the standard for specifying air-gun signal levels.) Frequency spectrum gives the pressure as a function of frequency.
To compare 0-p levels with rms levels, one must add 3 dB (assuming a sinusoidal signal, higher if noise is considered); for comparison with p-p levels, 9 dB must be added. Other methods may require even higher dB corrections to make direct comparisons. Spectral measurements, as are common for most noise analyses, involve a differentiation for each single frequency contributing to the broadband signal. This means that, for a seismic signal, approximately 40 dB must be added to the spectral levels for comparisons with broadband p-p measurements. To place seismic signal levels in perspective, the pressure of low-level background noise (spectral level) is above 60 dB re 1 µPa (10-100 Hz). This corresponds to gentle wave action and little wind. In bad weather, low-frequency background noise increases to 90-100 dB re 1 µPa. Heavy ship traffic generates higher levels of background noise. Marine vessels generate significant noise. Large tankers may have a source level of 170 dB re 1µPa (spectral level) at 1 metre; similarly the source level of active trawler will be in the order of 150-160 dB re 1µPa. Whales can generate signal levels exceeding 180 dB re 1µPa at 1 metre. Signals from air guns are given as peak-to-peak (p-p) measurements, and they range from 210 to above 250 dB pp re 1 µPa at 1 m (comparable to a spectral level of 170-210 dB per Hz re 1 µPa at 1 m).
5.3.2 Comparison of Noise Levels A comparison of natural and potential exploration-related noise levels is provided in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Comparison of Natural and Seismic Exploration-related Noise Levels
Source Level Sound Source Notes (dB re 1µPa) Frequency (Hz) Ambient Noise Calm Seas 60 - Moderate Waves/surf 102 100 to 700 Fin whales 160 to 186 20 Fin whales produce series of one to five second noise pulses across 3 to 4 Hz around the 20 Hz level. Seismic Exploration Small Single Airgun 216 10 to 5,000 0 to peak Medium Single Airgun 225 10 to 5,000 0 to peak Large Single Airgun 232 10 to 5,000 0 to peak
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 56 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Source Level Sound Source Notes (dB re 1µPa) Frequency (Hz) GSC 7900 Array 259 10 to 5,000 0 to peak ARCO 4000 Array 255 10 to 5,000 0 to peak GECO 3100 Array 252 10 to 5,000 0 to peak Supply boats 170 to 180 100 Other Industrial Noise Fishing trawlers 158 At 100 Commercial freighter 172 - Supertanker Chevron London 190 dominant tone of 6.8 Hz Helicopter (Sikorsky @ 305 m 105 - above water) Source: Richardson et al. 1995; Lawson et al. 2000; Thomson et al. 2000
Wenz (1962) published a thorough study of noise in the ocean, and a composite of his conclusions are given in Figure 5.17. The figure also gives the limits of prevailing noise, showing that for the frequency band 10 to 100 Hz, the noise density level is between 40 and 120 dB, but with a strong increase with lower frequencies. At sound frequencies below 500 Hz, shipping noise is an important factor and above 500 Hz, wind and wave conditions are the primary cause of deep ocean ambient noise (Davis et al. 1998). Most of the man-made noise is continuous signals, such as from shipping etc. Industrial activities and oil exploration create repeated signals of short duration, such as explosions and seismic signals.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 57 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.17: Ambient noise spectra attributable to various sources (source Wenz 1962)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 58 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.3.3 Acoustic Propagation Sound produced by the various ambient noise sources has to propagate through the very complex underwater environment. Because of variations in temperature, salinity and pressure the path followed by the waves can deviate markedly from a straight line. The structuring is most marked in the vertical plane, causing the waves to be refracted upwards or downwards, depending on the sound speed gradient, but horizontal structuring can also be encountered. As the waves are refracted up or down they may interact with the surface and the seabed by reflection and scattering. The level of signal arriving at a distant point is therefore a complex sum of many paths that may or may not interact with the seabed and sea surface. The multiple paths followed by the sound waves can cause dispersion in time of the acoustic energy and can also cause a variation in propagation loss with frequency. Propagation loss varies on a diurnal and annual basis as the air temperature variations warm and cool the water.
5.3.4 Source and Receiver Depths Because of the temperature structuring of the water column, if the source and receiver depths vary the propagation loss can vary significantly. If a surface duct is formed by an isothermal layer near the surface this variation can be very large. Marine mammals use sound for communication and navigation, and locally this will add to the background sound level. Many marine animals rely, in part, on their acoustic sense for communication, social interaction, navigation, foraging and predator avoidance. They emit sound over a broad range of frequencies from a few Hz to 200 kHz - depending on species. Sounds emitted by marine mammals have been described as whistles, songs, moans, grunts, barks, growls, knocks, pulses, clicks, etc. Such sounds take on a variety of functions, and some calls of some species have been linked to different types of behavior, including travelling, resting, socializing, mother-calf contact, mating, nursing, foraging (coordinated group foraging as well as individual foraging), individual identification (signature whistles) and warning (alarm calls). Underwater noise (see Section 5.3) has the potential to interfere with sounds made by marine animals and with ambient sounds that animals listen to for successful navigation, foraging and threat avoidance. Dolphins and toothed whales (odontocetes) emit mid- to high-frequency sonar signals and listen to the reflections for navigation and foraging. Many animals likely listen to environmental sounds such as surf for navigation. Many species can hear the sounds of prey as well as the sounds of predators or other potential threats. Underwater noise (see Section 5.3) can mask these sounds to the point where they are no longer recognizable or detectable. Underwater noise (see Section 5.3) has also been shown to affect the behavior of marine animals. While temporary noise will mostly cause only temporary effects, ongoing noise exposure can drive animals away from potentially critical habitat (e.g., spawning/mating grounds, nursing grounds, feeding grounds). In extreme cases, loud underwater noise can cause physiological damage to marine animals, such as the rupture of eggs, larvae or gas-filled organs, and ear damage (hair cell damage in the inner ear).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 59 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Within deep oceanic waters far from shipping lanes, a sound level of 95 dB re 1 µPa can be assumed as ambient (Richardson et al. 1995) with considerably higher levels occurring closer to shipping lanes. Depending on proximity to shipping lanes, Urick (1983) gives values for oceanic waters equivalent peak-to-peak noise levels of 75 to 95 dB re 1µPa. In coastal shipping and harbours where human activity is concentrated, ambient noise in shallow, continental shelf waters (< 200 m) has a higher variance. Normal peak levels of ambient noise range from 110 to 120 dB re 1µPa in shallow, continental shelf waters (Richardson et al. 1995) and is dependent on oceanographic conditions, shipping and anthropogenic activities. Background noise levels in the area of The Gully and Sable Bank have been reported by Desharnais and Collison (2001). At frequencies between 20 Hz and 50 Hz, mean noise levels range from 76 to 114 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz. At these frequencies, the ambient noise is influenced by vocalizing finback whales. At frequencies between 50 Hz and 200 Hz, which are dominated by shipping noise, mean noise levels range from 68 to 114 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz. At higher frequencies up to 1000 Hz, which is dominated by wind stress on the ocean surface, noise levels range from 62 to 86 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz.
5.4 Ocean Resources This section presents an overview of the Study Area as it relates to the biophysical and socio- economical environment. These areas have been extensively covered in previous reports that include the Orphan Basin Strategic Environmental Assessment (LGL 2003, Section 3.2) the exploration and drilling EAs and their amendments for Orphan Basin (LGL 2005 Section 4.0, 2006b, 2009b) and Jeanne d’Arc Basin (LGL 2008a, Section 5.0), and most recently in EAs for Chevron (LGL 2011a, Section 4.0) and Statoil (LGL 2011b, Section 4.0). For completeness, updated information will be provided on marine mammals, fish and fish habitat, seabirds, sea turtles and commercial fisheries, species at risk and potentially sensitive areas, as it pertains to the Study Area.
5.4.1 Plankton Plankton consists of organisms that drift or swim weakly and are hence powerless to counteract currents. Marine plankton play an important role in most marine life as they serve as the base layers of most food webs (primary and secondary production). Plankton comprises the largest group of organisms in the ocean both in terms of diversity and biomass. Taxa in this group include invertebrates (zooplankton), microscopic marine plants (phytoplankton), macroinvertebrate eggs and larva (ichthyoplankton), bacteria, fungi, and even viruses.
Phytoplankton Phytoplankton are the base of most of the food web in the ocean and are called primary producers as they create organic matter using sunlight and nutrients. Phytoplankton are mostly composed of diatoms but other taxa such as dinoflagellates and cyanobacteria also occur. In the North Atlantic, primary production, or phytoplankton growth, has a peak, or bloom twice a year; once in the spring and once in the fall. This spring bloom is a result of an upwelling to the surface of nutrient-rich north Atlantic deep waters in combination of an increase in the amount of daylight. The spring bloom is dissipated by the secondary producers, zooplankton, that graze
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 60 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA on the phytoplankton resulting in a mid-summer phytoplankton low. A second upwelling event occurs in the Fall, which again trigger a bloom. This general pattern likely applies to the Study Area. Within the Study Area, there may be areas of enhanced production, specifically around the slope areas of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap. For example, MODIS chlorophyll ‘‘a’’ concentration images for October 2009 to September 2011 (http://www2.mar.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/bin/cgi/ocean/seawifs_1.pl) indicate highest chlorophyll ‘‘a’’ concentrations near the Grand Banks beginning in March and lasting until the middle of April, and near Flemish Cap beginning the 2nd week of March and lasting until the middle of April. The Grand Banks shelf saw another small increase during the first two weeks of November. The northeastern portion of the Study Area (near the eastern boundary at 52ºN) saw a significant increase during the first two weeks of April, and a smaller increase during the first two weeks of October. Overall, the majority of chlorophyll “a” concentrations were below 50ºN. Zooplankton Zooplankton are composed of both permanent plankton (holoplankton) or animals that have a temporary plankton stage (meroplankton). Meroplankton includes various larval fish and invertebrates (icythyoplankton), but the largest single animal taxa (by biomass) on the planet are the planktonic copepods. Zooplankton also play a key role in the food web converting phytoplankton energy, into zooplankton energy which is then taken into higher life forms. Zooplankton energy is termed secondary production. The zooplankton species that dominate the area are euphausiid krill (Meganyctiphenes norvegia and Thyasanoessa spp.) and calanoid copepods (Calanus spp.), all of which are important prey items for whales that congregate in the Laurentian Channel (White and Johns 1997). Calanoid copepods are also important prey items for larval fish. Other important zooplankton taxa includes, but are not limited to, hyperiid amphipods and chaetognaths. Zooplankton populations follow that of phytoplankton populations spatially and temporally in that they peak after the Spring bloom, die off as they deplete the bloom stock and are consumed by predators, and increase again following the Fall bloom. Many zooplankton also exhibit a pattern of diurnal migration where they migrate closer to the surface at night with decreased risk from visual predators and migrate to deeper depths during the day.
5.4.2 Benthos Benthic organisms are plants and animals that live on or in the seafloor. Benthic community can be divided by habitat (infauna burrowers vs. epifauna living on the surface), vertical zonation (intertidal vs. subtidal), movement (sessile vs. motile), or size (macrofauna vs. meiofauna). The benthos in the shallower area are within the photic zone (light zone) and can be photosynthetic macroalgaes. The benthic invertebrate food supply (organic matter, nutrients) is depended upon location with the more near-shore environments having more of a terrestrial input of nutrients from the land and river run-off while the more offshore communities have more of an influence by activities (i.e. algal blooms) happening higher in the water column. Benthic invertebrate communities can be spatially variable due to physical habitat characteristics such as water depth, substrate type, currents, and sedimentation. The primary factors affecting the structure and function of such communities in high latitude communities are water mass
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 61 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA differences, sediment characteristics, and ice scour (Carey 1991 in LGL 2011a). Given the expansive zone of the Study Area, and the wide range of the characteristic noted above, a variety of benthic communities are likely. The structure and metabolism of benthic communities can also be directly affected by the rate of sedimentation of organic detritus in shelf and deeper waters (Desrosiers et al. 2000 in LGL 2011a). The seasonality of phytoplankton can influence production in benthic communities, adding temporal variability to a highly heterogeneous community. Several literature reviews of coastal benthic resources of Newfoundland and Labrador are available (Dunbar et al. 1980, MacLaren 1977, South et al. 1979, Barrie and Browne 1980, Campbell and Sutterlin 1981, Thompson and Aggett 1981, LeDrew 1984, Hardy 1985, Gilkinson 1996). Despite the breadth of available literature on benthic ecosystems in the offshore waters of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Orphan Basin SEA (LGL 2003) and the Husky New Drill Centre Construction and Operations Program EA (Section 5.4 in LGL 2006a), indicate that there are still large gaps present in our current knowledge of this ecosystem. Subsection 3.2.2 of LGL (2003) and Subsection 5.5.1.1 of LGL (2006b) include more general information on benthos in the Study Area around the shelves of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Very little information presented itself for the Study Area north of 50ºN.
Deep-Sea Corals Deep-sea coral species have been shown to occur in eastern Canada on the continental slope, in submarine canyons, and in channels between offshore banks (e.g. Verrill 1922; Deichman 1936; Breeze et al. 1997; MacIssac et al. 2001; Mortensen et al. 2002; Edinger et al. 2007 in Templeman 2010). Figure 5.18 identifies fairly regular distribution along the shelf edge and slope, with coral hotspots near Funk Island Spur, Southwest Grand Banks, and the southeast portion of the Southeast Baffin Shelf. Corals have been classified into five functional groups: (1) large gorgonians or antipatharian corals, (2) small gorgonian corals, (3) cup corals, (4) sea pens, and (5) soft corals. Figure 5.19 shows known locations of Antipatharia (black corals) in the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves. Figure 5.20 identifies the positions of catches of Pennatulacea (sea pens), small gorgonians (Acanella arbuscula) and large gorgonians (sea fans; Primnoa, Paragorgia, Keratoisis, Paramuricea, Radicipes, etc.) in the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves. Large gorgonians or antipatharian corals and small gorgonian corals are considered the most sensitive of the deep-sea corals because these carbonate skeletal corals cannot reattach to substrate if dislodged (Gilkinson and Edinger 2009). Both of these corals exist in the Study Area. Deep-sea corals are known for their slow steady growth, and as such are vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbance such as fishing and oil and gas exploration (Watanabe et al. 2009). There has been a concerted effort in recent years to further study the ecology and geography of deep-sea corals in Newfoundland and Labrador waters (Gilkinson and Edinger 2009). There are a number of areas in the Northwest Atlantic the have been identified as protected areas or areas with unique deep-sea coral habitats. The ROPOS Discover Cruise (2007) surveyed and identified unique deep-sea coral habitats in Halibut Channel, Haddock Channel, and Desbarres Canyon (Wareham 2009). The results of this study and others resulted in the establishment of a
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 62 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
CAD-NAFO Coral Protection Zone along the southwest Grand Banks slope that closed fishing between 800 and 2000 m from January 1, 2008 until December 31, 2012.
Figure 5.18: Distribution of cold-water corals off Newfoundland and Labrador and in eastern Arctic waters (Source: Adapted from Gilkinson and Edinger 2009 in Campbell and Simms 2009)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 63 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.19: Known locations of Antipatharia (black corals) in the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves biogeographic unit (Source: DFO 2010a)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 64 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.20: The positions of catches of sea pens and gorgonians in the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves biogeographic unit (Source: DFO 2010a)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 65 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Wareham (2009) provides distribution maps within his report that identified approximately 16 species of corals occurring within the northwest portion of the Study Area in the waters of northeast Newfoundland Shelf and the Flemish Pass. The species identified include large gorgonians (Keratoisis ornata, Paragorgia arborea, and Paramuricea spp.), small gorgonians (Acanthogorgia armata, Acanella arbuscula, Radicipes gracilis), and soft corals (Anthomastus grandiflorus, Duva florida, and Gersemia rubiformis). One scleractinian species (Flabellum alabastrum) and six pennatulacean species (Pennatula phosphorea, Pennatula grandis, Anthoptilum grandiflorum, Umbellula lindahli, Halipteris finmarchica, and Funiculinia quandrangularis) are also noted to occur there. Antipatharian species were also noted by Wareham (2009) to occur within the Study Area, primarily on the north side of Flemish Cap and in or adjacent to the western boundary of the Study Area. A recent DFO Science Advisory Report (DFO 2010a) also discusses the occurrence and ecological function of corals in Canadian waters. The majority of coral species were observed to occur on the continental slope, with the exception of several soft corals (e.g., Gersemia rubiformis) found distributed on the shelf (DFO 2010, in LGL 2011b). Templeman (2010) reports that within the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelf Ecozone (NLSE) corals are locally abundant on hard substratum including cobbles and large boulders and in high current areas (Tendal 1992). In the NLSE there are at least 35 species from 4 Orders (Pennatulacea, Scleractinia, Alcyonacea, Antipatharia) (Vonda Wareham, pers comm. in Templeman 2010). Deep-sea corals are important components for benthic habitats and contribute to structure and species diversity (Templeman 2010). They provide structural complexity to relatively homogeneous seafloor and therefore likely to provide shelter, food, or substrate for epifaunal growth for other organisms (Watanabe et al. 2009) including commercial fish (Gilkinson and Edinger 2009). Damage to corals caused by humans results in slow recovery, and the potential to alternations in associated benthic and fish communities (Templeman 2010).
Sponges Similar to deep-sea corals, sponges also provide significant deep-sea habitat, enhance species richness and diversity, and exert clear ecological effects on other local fauna. Sponge grounds and reefs support increased biodiversity compared to structurally-complex abiotic habitats or habitats that do not contain these organisms (DFO 2010a). Sponges have similar characteristics and roles as corals within the ocean. They have the ability to influence near-bottom current and sedimentation patterns and provide substrate for other species. They are a form of substrate for other species and offer shelter for associated fauna. The glass spicules of siliceous hexactinellid sponges are known to fuse together to form reefs after the sponges die and provides settlement surfaces for other sponges, which in turn form a network that is subsequently filled with sediment (DFO 2010a). The shed siliceous spicules of non-reef-forming are known to accumulate forming a thick sediment-stabilizing mat. This constitutes a special bottom type supporting a rich diversity of species of which marine worms and bryozoans, as well as higher fauna are common. Live glass
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 66 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA sponge reefs have been show to provide nursery habitat for juvenile rockfish and high- complexity reefs are associated with higher species richness and abundance (DFO 2010a). The significance of sponges and corals is further discussed as a topic in sensitive areas. Figure 5.21 maps the distribution of the Newfoundland and Labrador sponges. Figure 5.22 maps the positions of large catches of sponges in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelves. These exist within close proximity of the northwest boundary line of the Study Area.
Figure 5.21: Presence and absence of sponges in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelves biogeographic unit based on research vessel surveys (Source: DFO 2010a)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 67 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.22: The positions of large catches of sponges in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelves biogeographic unit (Source: DFO 2010a)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 68 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.3 Marine and Migratory Birds Information on distribution, species habitats, feeding, breeding and migratory characteristics for the seabirds in the Jeanne d’Arc and Orphan Basin area has been reviewed in the SEA of the NE Grand Banks and Orphan Basin area (LGL 2003, Section 3.2.4), 2008 seismic EA (LGL 2008a, Section 4.4) plus Chevron’s Orphan Basin drilling EA and update (LGL 2005, Section 4.7.1; LGL 2009a, Section 3.4.2). Additional information was summarized by EAs prepared for Chevron and Statoil (LGL 2011a, Section 4.4.1, LGL 2011b, Section 4.4.1). The proceeding information is in addition to the already referenced reports and where applicable, specific to the Study Area. The Environmental Studies Research Funds (ESRF) combined with CWS to fund a 3.5 year project (2006-2009) focused on improving the knowledge of seabirds at sea on the northern Grand Banks and other areas of oil industry activity in eastern Canada (Fifield et al. 2009). A total of 76 survey trips were made and were primarily of the Grand Banks and Orphan Basin. Additional CWS surveys were conducted on the Scotian Shelf, Flemish Cap/Flemish Pass, Orphan Knoll, Northeast Newfoundland Shelf and Labrador Sea. During the 3.5 year project, 2,563 hours of observation were conducted, covering 51,392 km of ocean transect during which 123,909 birds were counted (Fifield et al. 2009). Surveys along the Grand Banks were covered monthly on a year-round basis. During the spring, good spatial coverage of the Grand Bank and Flemish Cap was obtained through a combination of ESRF trips and the Grand Banks through DFO’s Atlantic Zone Monitoring Program (AZMP) surveys. The southern Labrador Sea, the Orphan Basin and much of the Northeast Newfoundland Shelf was covered during the summer months. Survey trips were restricted most during the fall. During this time, with the exception of parts of the Grand Banks, other more exposed regions of the Atlantic received relatively less effort.
5.4.3.1 Distribution Eastern Canadian Seabirds at Sea (ECSAS) surveys of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia waters revealed that the Sackville Spur, Orphan Basin, Continental Shelf Edge, Northeast Newfoundland Shelf, and Flemish Pass all emerged as important to one or more species/groups in one or more seasons (Fifield et al. 2009). Section 4.6.3 of Fifield et al. (2009) describes these hotspots (a colloquial term) in detail. A summary of each hotspot is included in Table 5.3.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 69 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.3: Sea Bird Hotspot Summary Hotspot Location Season Boundary Extent Species Sackville Spur & Summer Northeast Dovekies Orphan Basin Southern Northern Fulmars Storm-petrels Shearwaters Western & Southern (most Black-legged Kittiwake productive) Eastern Orphan Knoll (high local densities) Spring Newfoundland & Labrador Gulls Shelves along Sackville Spur Northern Fulmars Winter Sackville Spur Gulls Northern Fulmars Continental Shelf Edge Year-Round Gulf or Maine to NE Dovekies (highest in spring) (Highly productive Newfoundland Shelf Tubenoses upwellings) Gulls Murres Northeast Spring & Summer Black-legged Kittiwake Newfoundland Shelf Gulls (home to largest Northern Gannets seabird colonies in world) Murres Other Alcids Winter Black-legged Kittiwake Dovekies Gulls Mures Flemish Cap & Pass Summer & Spring Black-legged Kittiwake Dovekie Murres Northern Fulmer Shearwater Gulls (spring only) Fall No survey efforts Likely same species as Summer and Spring (Brown 1986) Source: Adapted from Fifield et al. (2009)
A summary of the predicted abundance status for each species per month known to occur in the Study Area is provided in Table 5.4. As described above in the metocean section, along the shelf edge off eastern Newfoundland, a branch of the Labrador Current flows in a southward direction. The combination of this flow, the
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 70 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA shelf edge and the Grand Banks equate to prime conditions for the production of zooplankton. As previously mentioned, zooplankton is the basis of marine food chains, including those involving seabirds. The highly productive Grand Banks supports large numbers of seabirds during all seasons (Lock et al. 1994). The ECSAS surveys identified that of all the areas identified as hotspots, the Grand Banks was the most important region for seabirds. More specifically, the northeast (includes the location of the Jeanne d’Arc Basin oil production area) and southeast portions (including the Nose and Tail of the bank) were the most productive areas. All seasons, especially the non-breeding season (fall, winter and spring) produced the high concentrations of a variety of species. Murres were found in high abundance year-round on the bank, especially in the northeast, although the southern half of the bank had higher concentrations during the winter. During the spring, Black-legged Kittiwakes, Dovekies, gulls and Northern Fulmars were found in relatively high concentrations, particularly on the northeast portion of the bank. During the summer, storm-petrels and shearwaters were the most abundant birds on the bank, particularly in the northern half (although survey effort was limited in the south). During the fall, Fifield et al. (2009) note that generalizations were difficult to make (because of reduced ECSAS survey efforts); however, murres, Dovekies and Northern Fulmars had their highest densities (outside the Labrador Shelf). Additionally, the highest density of storm-petrels and shearwaters were recorded during this time. In the winter, high concentrations of Black-legged Kittiwakes, Dovekies, gulls and Northern Fulmars were all found on the Grand Banks and the highest densities of shearwaters in the study area during the winter were found on the southern Grand Bank early in that season.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 71 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.4: Distribution and Abundance of Seabirds Known to Occur in the Study Area
Common Name Scientific Name Distribution Monthly Abundance J F M A M J J A S O N D Offshore, Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis C C C C C C C C C C C C coastal Offshore, Greater Shearwater Puffinus gravis U U-C C C C C-U S coastal Offshore, Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus S S S S-U S-U S-U S S coastal Offshore, Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus VS VS S S S-VS VS coastal Wilson’s Storm Petrel Oceanites oceanicus Offshore VS VS-S VS S S VS Leach’s Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Offshore U-C C C C C C-U U Offshore, Northern Gannet Sula bassanus VS-S S S S S S S coastal Coastal, Herring Gull Larus argentatus S S S S-U U S VS VS VS VS VS offshore Coastal, Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides VS S S S VS VS VS VS offshore Lesser Black-backed Coastal, Larus fuscus VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS Gull offshore Greater Black-backed Coastal, Larus marinus S-U U-C U U U S S S S S-U S-U S-U Gull offshore Coastal, Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus S S S S VS VS S S offshore Offshore, Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla C C C C C S S S U C C C coastal Coastal, Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea S S S S VS offshore Great Skua Stercorarous skua Offshore VS VS VS VS VS VS South Polar Skua Stercorarius maccormicki Offshore S S S S S S Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus Offshore S S S S S S S Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Offshore VS VS-S S S S-VS VS Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus Offshore VS VS VS VS VS VS Offshore, Dovekie Alle alle C C C C C C C C VS VS C C coastal
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 72 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Common Name Scientific Name Distribution Monthly Abundance Offshore, Common Murre Uria aalge S S-U U U U-C S S S S S S-U S-U coastal Offshore, Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia U U U-C U-C U S S VS-S VS S-U C U-C coastal Offshore, Razorbill Alca torda, S VS VS VS VS VS VS VS coastal Black Guillemot Cepphus grille Coastal S Offshore, Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica S S VS S U U U U S S U U coastal Notes: C = Common, present daily in moderate to high numbers; U = Uncommon, present daily in small numbers; S = Scarce, present, regular in very small numbers; VS = Very Scarce, very few individuals or absent. Blank spaces indicate not expected to occur in that month. Sources: P. Chamberland, EC, March 2012 (data set 1966 to 2011) and Fifield et al. (2009).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 73 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.5 defines the species grouping that was used in the analysis and mapping of the nine most common bird groups that frequent the Study Area.
Table 5.5: Species Groupings for Analysis and Mapping
Group Common Name Scientific Name Fulmar Northern Fulmar Fulmerus glacialis Greater Shearwater Puffinus gravis Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus Shearwater Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea Audubon’s Shearwater Puffinus lherminieri Unidentified Shearwater Wilson’s Storm-Petrel Oceanites oceanicus Storm-Petrels Leach’s Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Unidentified Storm-Petrel Gannet Northern Gannet Morus Bassanus Herring Gull Larus argentatus Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides Gulls Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus Black-legged Kittiwake Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridectyle Common Mure Uria aalge Murres Thick-billed Mure Uria lomvia Unidentified Mure Uria sp. Dovekie Dovekie Alle alle Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica Other Alcids Black Guillemot Cepphus grille Razorbill Alca torda Unidentified Alcids Source: Fifield et al. 2009
5.4.3.1.1 Waterbirds Seasonal distribution of waterbirds within the Study Area are presented in Figures 5.23 to 5.24. This group is dominated by the seabirds (alcids, shearwaters, storm-petrels, fulmars, cormorants, gulls and terns, gannets, phalaropes, jaegers and skuas) and also includes the waterfowl, loons, grebes, herons and egrets (Fifield et al. 2009). March and April experience population densities between 1.01 to 10 birds/km around the Grand Banks, Flemish Cap and Pass, Jeanne d’Arc Basin, and Orphan Basin all of which were near or south of 50ºN. The period of May to August saw larger distributions of waterbirds in the northern extent of the Study Area, and remained consistent in the south, with numbers in the 10.01-100 birds/km range. There were slightly less densities near the northeast boundary with a range of 0 birds/km to
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 74 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA hotspots of 10.01-100 birds/km. During September and October, population densities were between 1.01-10 birds/km and situated on the Grand Banks and Jeanne d’Arc Basin, at or below 48ºN. Increased populations were recorded during November and February, and were between 10.01-100 birds/km. Distributions was on the Grand Banks, Flemish Cap and Pass, Jeanne d’Arc Basin, and Orphan Basin, trending north in the Study Area, only small pockets were observed north of 50ºN, near the northwest boundary of the Study Area.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 75 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.23: Vulnerable all waterbirds (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 76 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.24: Vulnerable all waterbirds (September to February)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 77 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Northern Fulmar The distribution and densities of Northern Fulmars are mapped in Figures 5.25 and 5.26 and show that these birds occur in the study area year round with the lowest density in September and October. March and April produced population densities between 0.1 to 10 birds/km, with two hotspots between 10 to 100 birds/km. May to August have good distribution of birds throughout the Study Area with predominant densities between 0.11 to 10 birds/km and two pockets of 10.01-100 birds/km were recorded during this period. The lowest densities were observed during September and October, 0.11-10 birds/km observed mainly on the Grand Banks and Jeanne d’Arc Basin. Densities increased during November to February and ranged from 0.11-1 to 1.01-100 birds/km.
Figure 5.25: Vulnerable Northern Fulmar (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 78 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.26: Vulnerable Northern Fulmar (September to February)
Shearwaters Shearwater distribution is mapped in Figures 5.27 and 5.28. These birds are not as abundant as other seabirds in the Study Area. Densities in March to April are low with a few pockets exhibiting <=0.1-1 birds/km along the Grand Banks, Jeanne d’Arc Basin and on the northeast corner of Flemish Cap. There is a wider distribution in May to August with higher densities between 0 and 10 birds/km, with a few isolated pocket of 10.01-100 birds/km. September to November populations densities were the lowest and the most sparse distribution.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 79 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.27: Vulnerable shearwaters (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 80 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.28: Vulnerable shearwaters (September to February)
Storm-Petrels Storm-Petrel distribution is mapped in Figures 5.29 and 5.30. These birds are most common offshore in the summer months. The highest distribution and densities occur around the Grand Banks, Orphan Basin and Knoll, Flemish Cap and Pass and trended north in the Study Area from May to August. Densities during this period ranged from 0.11-10 birds/km.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 81 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.29: Vulnerable Storm-Petrels (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 82 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.30: Vulnerable Storm-Petrels (September to February)
Northern Gannets Northern Gannets were observed in relatively low numbers throughout the entire year as shown in Figures 5.31 and 5.32. This is the least common seabird in the offshore Study Area.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 83 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.31: Vulnerable Northern Gannet (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 84 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.32: Vulnerable Northern Gannet (September to February)
Large Gulls Large Gulls distribution is mapped in Figures 5.33 and 5.34. They are most common in the Study Area in the spring, during the months of March and April. They occur least common in the September to October period. One gull species, the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) is listed as a Special Concern species under Schedule 1 of SARA. Ivory Gulls are associated with pack ice at all times of year (Gilchrist and Mallory 2005). Their winter occurrence in the Study Area is probably unlikely. The Ivory Gull is discussed as a species at risk in more detail below.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 85 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.33: Vulnerable large gulls (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 86 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.34: Vulnerable large gulls (September to February)
Black-legged Kittiwake Black-legged Kittiwake distribution is mapped in Figures 5.35 and 5.36. This species is most dense and widespread over the Study Area in winter and spring months of March and April, distribution occurred along the Grand Banks, Jeanne d’Arc Basin, Orphan Basin, and Flemish Cap and Pass. As with most of the other species, a significant decrease in both density and distribution was experienced during September and October, where only a few pockets of 0.11-1 birds/km were observed along the Grand Banks.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 87 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.35: Vulnerable Black-legged Kittiwake (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 88 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.36: Vulnerable Black-legged Kittiwake (September to February) Dovekie Figures 5.37 and 5.38 map the distribution and densities of the Dovekie. Like the other alcids, Dovkies are offshore primarily in the winter months. Population densities of 0.11-100 birds/km occur in November to April in the Study Area.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 89 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.37: Vulnerable Dovekie (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 90 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.38: Vulnerable Dovekie (September to February)
Murres Murre distributions are mapped in Figures 5.39 and 5.40. Murre density in the Study Area was almost entirely between 1.01-10 birds/km during winter and summer months of March and April, with good distributed along the Grand Banks, Jeanne d’Arc Basin Orphan Basin, and Flemish Cap and Pass. Distribution decreased between September and October, however densities on the Grand Bank remained between 1.01-10 birds/km.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 91 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.39: Vulnerable murres (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 92 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.40: Vulnerable murres (September to February)
Other Alcids Distribution and density of other alcids (Razorbills, Black Guillemots and Atlantic Puffins) are mapped in Figures 5.41 and 5.42. They are present in the Study Area in rather consistent densities of <= 0.1-10 birds/km and a wide distribution all year with exception in September and October when they were less common.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 93 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.41: Vulnerable other alcids (March to August)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 94 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.42: Vulnerable other alcids (September to February)
5.4.3.2 Prey and Foraging Habits Foraging strategies of these seabird groups vary from plunge diving (gannets) and pursuit diving (alcids) to surface feeding (phalaropes) and kleptoparasitism (jaegars and skuas). Some species such as terns and phalaropes specialize in foraging in shallow depths at the surface, feeding on fish (i.e. capelin), amphipods, and copepods. Alcids are pursuit divers and may dive to great depths (20 to 50 m) to feed on fish and invertebrates. Surface-feeding gull species are foragers, and their main prey consists of fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, and fish offal. An in- depth description of the prey and foraging habits for all species of birds found within the Study Area can be found in Section 3.2.3.4 of LGL (2003) and in Section 4.4.5 of LGL (2011a). A summary of these strategies can be found in Table 4.9 of the latter document. Table 5.6 describes the feeding characteristics of several types of seabirds which are found offshore Newfoundland.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 95 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.6: Feeding Characteristics of Several Types of Marine Birds in the Offshore (adapted from Mendenhall 2004)
Principle Diet Foraging Method Marine Bird Fish, Squid Grab from Surface Gulls Kittiwakes Fulmars Dive and Chase Murres Puffins Sooty and Greater Shearwaters Zooplankton Grab from Surface Storm-Petrels Dive and Chase Greater Shearwaters
5.4.3.3 Seabird Colonies & Important Bird Areas As the Study Area is surrounded by ocean, no seabird breeding colonies occur within its boundaries. The Study Area does encompass the Grand Banks and Funk Island Banks where the avifaunal richness of these areas is demonstrated by the high numbers of seabird colonies on the Avalon Peninsula and the northeast coast of Newfoundland (LGL 2003). Despite the rich zooplankton life along the shelf and banks, there are no Important Bird Areas (IBAs) identified within the Study Area. The closest IBA is about 175 km from the Study Area (Figure 5.43). An IBA is a site that provides essential habitat for one or more species of breeding or non-breeding birds. These sites may contain threatened species, endemic species, species representative of a biome, or highly exceptional concentrations of birds (www.ibacanada.com). It was the exceptional concentrations of nesting seabirds that qualified the sites off the east coast of Newfoundland as IBAs (www.ibacanada.com). The 5.1 million pairs of seabirds nesting at these colonies use the waters off eastern Newfoundland for feeding and the rearing of young (Figure 5.43). These birds plus their young and non-breeding sub-adults use the Grand Banks and/or Funk Island Bank for at least part of the year (LGL 2003). It is thought that migrant seabirds outnumber local breeders on the Grand Banks at all seasons (Lock et al.1994 in LGL 2003). Northern Fulmars, Thick-billed Murres, Dovekies, and Black-legged Kittiwakes along with other seabirds that nest in Labrador, the Canadian Arctic and Greenland, migrate through eastern Newfoundland waters or spend the winter there. In addition millions of marine birds, mostly Greater Shearwaters, migrate from the Southern Hemisphere to spend the summer in eastern Newfoundland waters.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 96 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.43: Locations of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and seabird nesting colonies relative to the Study Area (Source: *http://www.ibacanada.ca & **Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, unpublished data)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 97 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.4 Marine Fish and Shellfish Newfoundland and Labrador waters support 188 resident and migrant marine fish species (Rose 2007 in Templeman 2010). For discussion purposes, marine fish are divided into three groups: demersal (or groundfish), pelagic, and shellfish. Profiles and biology of the species likely to occur within the Study Area are discussed in Section 3.2.3.3 in the Orphan Basin SEA (LGL 2003). Further discussion on the distribution, abundance and reproduction of fish species is discussed in Sections 4.2.5 to 4.2.7 in LGL (2011b). For completeness, a summary of the fish species likely to be found in the Study Area is summarized below.
5.4.4.1 Demersal Species Demersal finfish species are fish that live near the seafloor for the majority of their adult lives. They are commonly referred to as groundfish and historically supported the largest fisheries in the western Atlantic. The nine most common species to be found in the Study Area are: Greenland halibut, witch flounder, skate, roughhead grenadier, American plaice, redfish, Atlantic cod, capelin, roundnose grenadier, and wolffish. A selection of demersal finfish families known to occur in the Study Area are described here, including codfishes (Family Gadidae), flounders (Family Pleuronectidae), wolffishes (Family Erythrinidae), redfishes (Family Scorpaeniudae), and skates (Family Rajidae), sharks (Family Elasmobranches), sculpins (Family Triglidae), grenadiers (Family Macrouridae). Gadoid The codfishes are a family of medium to large-sized demersal fish, which historically have been most abundant and diverse in the cool and deep waters of the Northern Hemisphere (Scott and Scott 1988). Of all the codfishes found in the Atlantic, the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), the longfin hake (Phycis chesteri), the cusk (Brosme brosme), and blue hake (Antimora restrata) are the only cod likely to be found in the Study Area. Table 5.7 describes the habitat and spawning of these species. Table 5.7: Codfish of the Study Area
Species Habitat Spawning Atlantic cod o Contiguous distribution from Greenland to o The spawning times of Atlantic cod on the Grand Grand Banks Banks typically occurs from February to June,
Labrador and eastern Newfoundland Cod peaking in May (Myers et al. 1993). The DFO o stocks found in NAFO Zones 2J3KL research data supported this time frame with the greatest number of spawning females being o Flemish cap and Flemish Pass Cod stocks found in NAFO Zones 3M caught in May and June. Historically, the greatest numbers of spawning females were found in 3L. o Found at surface to water depths of 457 m Spawning occurs primarily in the spring, however o Prefers temperatures of 0 to 15°C Atlantic Cod have been known to have a limited o Variety of benthic habitats spawning throughout the entire year (Pepin and o Seasonal migrations Helbig 1997). o Spawns in inshore water to depths of 182 m Longfin Hake o Found in deep water, most abundant at 300 o Spawning on the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap to 450 m. thought to occur in October, peaking in winter o Temperatures of 3.5 to 6.5°C
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 98 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Species Habitat Spawning Cusk o Distributed from Cape Cod to Labrador, and o Not well known are most concentrated in the Gulf of Maine o Cusk spawn in spring and early summer. Eggs and the western Scotian Shelf (Scott and initially rise to the surface where hatching and Scott 1988) larval development take place. o Likely to be found south of the Study Area, o Thought to spawn in water less than 183 m but might occur near the southern boundary in rare circumstance o Found at depths of 73 to 600 m o Prefers water temperatures of 5 to 12°C o Usually found over rough or rocky bottoms Blue Hake o Found in deep water, most abundant at 800 o Not well known (Kulka et al. 2003) to 1000 m. o Tempertures of 3 to 4.5ºC o Distribution occurs on the Southern slope of Georges Bank and from the Scotian Shelf north to the Labrador Shelf (Cross et al., 1973; Goode and Bean, 1879, 1895; Haedrich and Polloni, 1974; Haedrich et al., 1975; Markle and Musick, 1974; Musick et al., MS 1975; Parsons, 1976; Sedberry and Musick, 1978; Schroeder, 1955; Snelgrove and Haedrich, 1985; Vasquez, 1991: all are referenced in Kulka et al. 2003) o Relative to study area, distribution occurs on the northeast corner of the Grand Banks and around Flemish Cap
Atlantic cod, though common throughout the waters of Newfoundland in the past, has declined to historic lows and continue to decline even in the absence of directed fishing. The Newfoundland and Labrador population is listed as endangered (COSEWIC 2003). Atlantic Cod is discussed in Section 3.2.3.3.6 in LGL (2003) and in Section 4.2.6.2 in LGL (2011a). In addition to the information already presented in Table 5.7, a brief summary of cod stocks, migration and spawning dispersal is summarized is below. There are three main Atlantic cod stocks in the NLSE waters – “Northern” cod, “Grand Banks” cod, and “South Coast” cod – generally distinguishable environmentally and by NAFO area (Templeman 2010). Within the Study Area, Northern cod is predominantly found in two Zones. Zone 2J3KL occupies the water off Labrador and eastern Newfoundland, and Zone 3M encompasses the Flemish Cap/Basin. Since the Orphan Basin SEA (LGL 2003) was finalized, new research presented in LGL (2011a) confirms that length-at-age and weight-at-age have improved since the early 1990s, in particular in NAFO Divisions 3K and 3L (DFO 2010c in LGL 2011a). A fishing moratorium on cod stocks in Division 3M occurred from 1999 to 2009. As a result, recent assessment results indicate a substantial increase in Spawning Stock Biomass, which should continue only if current post-moratorium fishing level is maintained (Gonzàlez- Troncoso and Vázquez 2010 in LGL 2011a). Generally, Atlantic cod occur contiguously in the Northwest Atlantic in both offshore and coastal areas (Templeman 2010). Geographical and seasonal differences in water temperate, food
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 99 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA supply, and possibly spawning grounds affects the seasonal migrations patterns of the northern cod (LGL 2011a). However, historically, many cod overwintered in deep water (300-500 m) on the outer slopes of the shelf and migrated during spring-autumn to feeding areas near the coast or on the plateau of Grand Bank (Scott and Scott 1988 in Templeman 2010). Other populations migrate only short distances and remain in the inshore deep water during the winter (LGL 2003, LGL 2011a). Recognizing the importance of northern cod led to the establishment of two protected areas: the Hawke Channel (off southern Labrador) and the Bonnavista Corridor. Within the Corridor, the Bonavista Cod Box was established. Relative to the Study Area, the Bonnavista Corrider and Cod Box occur within the northwest boundary. The cusk is a listed species under SARA because it was designated as threatened by COSEWIC. This fish species are described in more detail below.
Flounders The following flounder species occur in the Study Area: American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides). American plaice is listed under COSEWIC as threatened. Greenland halibut is discussed in Section 3.2.3.3.1 in LGL (2003), and in Section-4.2.6.1 in LGL (2011a). American plaice is covered in Section 3.2.3.3.2 in LGL (2003) and in Section 4.2.6.2 in LGL (2011a). Lastly, witch flounder is discussed in Section 3.2.3.3.3 in LGL (2003). A summary of habitat and spawning characterizes in described in Table 5.8, and where applicable updated for the Study Area.
Table 5.8: Flounder Species of the Study Area
Species Habitat Spawning American plaice o Widely distributed on both sides of the North o Appears to be spring spawners Atlantic Ocean, from the Barents Sea to the British o Spawns on the Flemish Cap and southern Isles in the east, and from northern Baffin Island to half of Grand Banks Rhode Island in the west. This population occurs from Hudson Strait to the southern limit of the Grand Bank, and westward north of the Laurentian Channel to the southwestern corner of Newfoundland. o A relatively sedentary, non-schooling species, it was likely once the most abundant flatfish in the northwest Atlantic, and the fishery for it in Newfoundland waters was once the largest flatfish fishery in the world. o Found mainly on banks o Primarily inhabits depths of 73 to 274 m; has been found in 35 to 700 m o Cold water species, preferring temperatures of 0 to 1.5°C o Prefers fine mud or sand bottom Witch flounder o Found on banks and in deeper basins o Northwest Atlantic Stock spawns March to
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 100 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Species Habitat Spawning o Found in moderate depths of 45 to 274 m; has September been found in 18 to 1570 m o Southern Labrador-Newfoundland shelf o Prefers temperatures of -1 to 11°C stock spawns March to July; most intensly o Prefers mud bottoms March to May (LGL 2003) o Largest numbers of spawning females were found in April through to July. Greenland halibut o A deepwater species with majority of the adult o Believed to spawn in Davis Strait during the population idistributed in the deep and warm N winter and early spring at depths ranging Atlantic waters (e.g., Davis Strait, between from 650 to 1,000-m (LGL 2003) Greenland and Baffin Island) (Templeman 1973; o They are also thought to spawn in the Bowering 1983; Bowering and Brodie 1995: all Laurentian Channel and the Gulf of St. referenced in LGL 2011a) Lawrence during the winter (2003) o Typically move progressively offshore to the deep o Overall level of uncertainty, some degree of edges of the continental slope with increasing age activity year round and size (Bowering and Brodie 1995 in LGL 2011a) o Usually found in water deeper then 457 m, but can range from 60 to 1600 m o Prefers temperatures of 0 to 4.5°C Yellowtail flounder o Newfoundland distribution from Strait of Belle Is o Spawn at or near the bottom and fertilised through to the Grand Banks. eggs float to the surface o Scattered commercial fishery catches of yellowtail o Greatest concentration of yellowtail flounder were reported in the western and flounder spawning was in the central and southwestern portions of the Study Area (i.e., southern part of the Grand Bank, special Jeanne d’’Arc Basin) (LGL 2011b) areas occur in the Virgin rocks EBSA, and Southeast Shoal and Tail EBSA o Prefers water depth less than 100 m, most o Spawning occurred between May and July frequently found at 60 m o Water temperatures of 3 to 5°C.
It is worth to note that the Atlantic halibut, although found well south of the Study Area, primarily on the south and southwest edge of the Grand Banks, was found near the western boundary line during spring research surveys from 1998 to 2000. Figure 5.44 shows that a small pocket of Atlantic halibut with catch amounts between 2.0 to 7.2 kg/tow in the spring. The population was none existent during fall surveys of the same time period as shown in Figure 5.45.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 101 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.44: Atlantic Halibut Distribution on Spring Research Surveys, 1998 to 2000. (Source: Kulka et al. 2003: Grey shaded area represents surveyed area with no catch)
Figure 5.45: Atlantic Halibut Distribution on Fall Research Surveys, 1998 to 2000. (Source: Kulka et al. 2003, Note: Grey shaded area represents surveyed area with no catch)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 102 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Wolffishes The wolffishes are native to cold waters of the north Atlantic Ocean. They are bottom-feeders, eating hard-shelled invertebrates such as clams, echinoderms and crustaceans, which they crush with strong canine and molar teeth. Three species of wolffish occur on Newfoundland shelves and likely occur in the Study Area: spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor), northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatis) and Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupis). All of these species are considered species at risk and are listed under COSEWIC and SARA. Section 4.6.1.1 of LGL (2011a) and Section 3.2.3.4.4. of LGL (2003) discuss all three species of wolffish in detail. Table 5.9 describes the habitat and spawning of these species.
Table 5.9: Wolffishes of the Study Area
Species Habitat Spawning and Life History Spotted o Sparsely distributed with declining numbers o Spawns in summer by depositing its large eggs in a wolffish along the Northeast Newfoundland and mass on the sea bottom. Labrador shelf and banks, the southwest and o The young remain mostly associated with the bottom, southeast slopes of the Grand Banks, along and do not disperse very far. the Laurentian Channel, and in the Gulf of St. o The adults appear to make only limited, perhaps Lawrence (LGL 2011a) seasonal, migrations. Open continental shelf and slope waters o o Growth rates are slow, and fish do not become between 50 and 600 m deep mature until they are 7 to 10 years of age. o Wide range of bottom substrate types, including mud, sand, pebbles, small rock and hard bottom, with highest concentrations observed over sand and shell hash in the fall, and coarse sand in the spring (Kulka et at. 2008 in LGL 2011a). o Cold waters, below 5C Northern o Sparsely distributed with declining numbers o Spawning occurs late in the year, and the demersal wolffish along the Northeast Newfoundland and (sinking to the bottom of the sea) eggs are extremely Labrador shelf and banks, the southwest and large. southeast slopes of the Grand Banks, and o Females lay approximately 27 000 eggs. along the Laurentian Channel (LGL 2011a) o Wolffish become mature at 5 years of age or older, o Depths varying between the surface to 900 m, and growth rates are slow. but most often at depths greater than 100 m. o The species is non-schooling, non-migratory and o Water temperatures of 1.6 to 4C somewhat territorial, as they make nests and o Wide range of bottom substrate types, generally guard the eggs. including mud, sand, pebbles, small rock and hard bottom, with highest concentrations observed over sand and shell hash in the fall, and coarse sand in the spring (Kulka et at. 2008 in LGL 2011a). Atlantic o Similar to that of the Spotted wolfish with o Spawning times and habits vary greatly across its wolffish additional concentrations on the southern range. Grand Banks and the Gulf of St. Lawrence o Sexually mature fish move inshore to shallow waters (LGL 2011a) in spring and spawn in September. The smaller, o More recently, the area occupied and density juvenile fish remain in deeper water. within the area was considerably reduced in o Egg hatching occurs by mid-December. the northern part of its confirmed range, but o Fish of this species reach maturity when they are has remained relatively constant in the Gulf of around eight to ten years of age and are between 52
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 103 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Species Habitat Spawning and Life History St. Lawrence (LGL 2011a) and 60 centimetres in length. o Maximum water depth of 350 m o Water temperatures as low as 0.4C o It prefers rocky or hard clay bottoms and uses areas with sandy or muddy bottoms only occasionally.
Redfish Redfishes belong to the large family of scorpion fishes. Three species of redfish are found in the NW Atlantic: The Acadian redfish, S. fasciatus and the deepwater redfish, S. mentella, are virtually indistinguishable from each other based on external characteristics (Mayo et al. 2006). Both species are considered as beaked redfish based on the presence of a prominent tubercle on the anterior mandible (Klein-MacPhee and Collette 2002). The third species, the golden redfish, S. norvegicus Ascanius (formerly S. marinus), can be distinguished from the beaked redfishes based on external characteristics, notably a greatly diminished tubercle. Redfish are a deep water demersal species occurring in cold waters along the slopes of banks and deep channels of 100 to 700 m. This species occurs over a variety of bottom substrates, and displays diurnal movement, rising in the water column to feed at night (Scott and Scott 1988). The redfish distribution in the NW Atlantic ranges from the Gulf of Maine, northwards off Nova Scotia and southern Newfoundland banks, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and along the continental slope and deep channels from the southwestern Grand Bank to areas as far north as Baffin Island. Redfish are also present in the area of Flemish Cap and west of Greenland (LGL 2011a). Redfish, unlike most other demersal fish, are ovoviviparous; the eggs hatch within the female, who gives birth to live young between April and July. Larvae are pelagic, distributed fairly widely over the Newfoundland Shelf. The Atlantic population of the deepwater redfish is designated as threatened under COSEWIC and is discussed in that context below.
Skates Skates are cartilaginous fishes, belonging to the taxonomic Class Chondrichthyes. Of the ten skate species that occur in Newfoundland waters, the thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) and the smooth skate (Raja senta) are the most likely to be found in the Study Area, within NAFO Zones 3LN; however, distribution and densities within these areas are diminishing. Section 3.2.3.3.9 of LGL (2003) discusses the thorny skate in detail. A summary of both species in presented in Table 5.10
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 104 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.10: Skate Species in the Study Area
Species Habitat Spawning Thorny skate o Southwest edge of the Grand Banks, south of the o Capable of reproducing year Study Area round o Prefers depths of 18 to 996 m o Eggs contained within a horny o Prefers water temperatures from 2 to 5°C egg case o Found over hard and soft bottoms, primarily with mud, sand or pebble substrates Smooth Skate o Ranges from Gulf of St. Lawrence and Labrador o Capable of reproduction year Shelf round o Lives on soft mud and clay bottoms, in deep troughs and basins. o Depths range from 46 to 457 m, most abundant at 110 m. o Commonly occupies a temperature range of 2.7- 10 deg;C, seldom found in <0 deg;C
Grenadiers Living at depths from 200 to 6,000 metres (660 to 20,000 ft), grenadiers (rattails) are the most common benthic fish of the deep (two genera are known to prefer the midwater). The roughhead grenadier is most common rattail species in the Study Area. It is predominant at depths ranging from 800 to 1,500 m, although they may inhabit depths between 200 and 2,000 m. Catches tend to be highest at water temperatures ranging between 2.0 and 3.5ºC (Scott and Scott 1988). Spawning is thought to occur during the winter and early spring. Little is known about the spawning grounds of this fish off Newfoundland although some believe that some spawning occurs on the southern and southeastern slopes of the Grand Banks (Scott and Scott 1988). The roundnose grenadier is a deepwater, demersal fish found in continental slope areas at depths of 200 to 2,000+ m (Atkinson 1995). This species is thought to undergo seasonal migrations with individuals in northeast Newfoundland waters occupying deeper water in winter and shallower water in late summer. Diurnal vertical migrations also occur that may carry them more than 1,000 m off the bottom (Kulka 2001). Roundnose grenadier spawning grounds are largely unknown and suspected to be in waters deeper than 850 m. The roughhead grenadier is an abundant and widespread species in the northwest Atlantic and around Newfoundland (Scott and Scott 1988). Rattails may be solitary or they may form large schools, as with the roundnose grenadiers. The benthic species are attracted to structural oases, such as hydrothermal vents, cold seeps, and shipwrecks. Rattails are thought to be generalists, feeding on smaller fish, pelagic crustaceans such as shrimp and amphipods, cumaceans and less often cephalopods and lanternfish. As well as being important apex predators in the benthic habitat, some species are also notable as scavengers. As few rattail larvae have been recovered, little is known of their life history. They are known to produce a large number (over 100,000) of tiny (1 to 2 mm in diameter) eggs made buoyant by lipid droplets. The eggs are presumed to float up to the thermocline (the interface between
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 105 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA warmer surface waters and cold, deeper waters) where they develop. The juveniles remain in shallower waters, gradually migrating to greater depths with age. The roughhead grenadier is currently designated as special concern under COSEWIC. The roundnose grenadier is currently designated as endangered under COSEWIC.
5.4.4.2 Pelagic Finfish Pelagic fish are those species that spend the majority of their lives at the surface or in the water column off the seafloor. Within this broad life history classification, there are three sub-divisions: the epipelagic fishes that live from coastal to oceanic waters, but only within the upper 100 m layer of water; the mesopelagic fishes that live between the euphotic zone and approximately 1,000 m; and the bathypelagic species that live in the water column below 1,000 m. Commercial pelagic species found the Study Area includes: swordfish (Xiphias gladius), blue shark (Prionace glauca), capelin (Mallotus villosus), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga). Distribution, habitat and spawning of these species are outlined in Table 5.11. The blue shark is listed as a species of special concern under COSEWIC. Of the five Newfoundland and Labrador river salmon populations, the southern Newfoundland population of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) was designated by COSWEIC as threatened in 2010, but no status under SARA. No other salmon populations are designateded. Threats to the Southern Newfoundland population include recreational and illegal fishing, commercial fishing in St. Pierre et Miquelon, ecological and genetic interactions with escaped farmed salmon and poorly understood marine ecosystem changes on marine survival. All Atlantic salmon populations have the potential to pass through the Study Area during migrations between freshwater and at-sea feeding grounds (LGL 2003, Section 3.2.3.4.5). Table 5.11: Pelagic Fish Species of the Study Area
Reproduction Habitat Species (Compiled from Breeze et al. 2002; Scott (Compiled from Scott and Scott 1988) and Scott 1988)
Atlantic salmon o Migrate in the spring and summer to Labrador to over winter o Spawning and nursery habitats are in South o While at sea, adult salmon occupy much of freshwater Newfoundland the time in the upper water column, and post- population smolt at times dive deep o Circumglobal distribution in tropical to temperate oceanic waters o Known to make long distance migrations in search of rich feeding grounds, attracting them to Canadian waters for part of the year Wide distribution on the continental slope and o Not known to reproduce in the Study Area Swordfish shelf basins from June to October o o Most common in water influenced by the Gulf Stream above 15°C along the Slope o Wide vertical distribution in the water column; known to occur from the surface to depths of over 700 m
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 106 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Reproduction Habitat Species (Compiled from Breeze et al. 2002; Scott (Compiled from Scott and Scott 1988) and Scott 1988) o Circumglobal distribution in tropical to temperate oceanic waters o Migratory o Deepest dwelling of the tuna species, and exhibits diurnal vertical migrations, coming to Bigeye tuna o Not known to reproduce in the Study Area the surface at night and retreating to deeper waters during the day o Prefers water temperatures of 7.8 to 18.4C and, therefore, are found on the edge of the Grand Banks only from June to October o Circumglobal distribution in tropical to temperate oceanic waters o Highly migratory Occurs as far north as 50ºN, thus might be o Not known to reproduce in the Study Area Albacore tuna found in Study Area o o Deep swimming species o Found in temperature ranges between 9.5 to 25.2ºC o Wide-ranging in temperate waters. o Peak occurrence in spring to early summer. o Mating takes place in late spring to early Blue shark o Found from 50º N latitude to 50ºS latitude, winter. thus maybe found in Study Area o Prefers temperatures between 7C and 16C. o During the 90’s center of capelin distribution shifted south to northern 3L and southern 3K o By 1998 distribution was more reminiscent of those observed during the 1980s in Divisions 2J3KL o Found primarily in carpet-like layers near the o Inshore spawning in June and July Capelin bottom in areas with water depths ranging o Spawning generally on beaches or in between 150 and 400-m deeper waters o Prefers water temperatures between 0.5ºC to 8.5ºC o Feeding is most intense in fall and spring; primarily copepods with some amphipods and euphausids.
Atlantic Salmon – Newfoundland Populations While the commercial fishery for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is under moratorium since 1992, this species remains an important recreational fishery species in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fifteen salmon management areas exist (SFAs 1-14B) in Newfoundland and Labrador, of which twelve (SFAs 3-14A) are located in Newfoundland. (DFO 2011a). SFAs 3-8 (Northeast and Eastern Newfoundland) are north and west of the study area.
Capelin Capelin (Mallotus villosus) is a small pelagic species that has a circumpolar distribution in the Northern Hemisphere (DFO 2006a). Although this Arctic-boreal species has evolved to live at the edge of Arctic waters exploiting the feeding opportunities, capelin requires higher
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 107 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA temperatures for successful reproduction (Rose 2005). Distributions in cold water are not free of risk as capelin have been observed to freeze to death off Labrador, presumably when they contact ice crystals in super-cooled water (Rose 2005). They are members of the smelt family (Osmeridae), olive in colour, with an elongated body and exhibit pronounced sexual dimorphism during spawning. Capelin is found along the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador and on the Grand Bank. Migration towards the coast precedes spawning on beaches or in deeper waters (DFO 2006a). Capelin roll on sandy or fine gravel beaches in water temperatures ranging between 6°C to 10°C. Beach spawning is more prevalent at night. During spawning, the thermal range of capelin typically shifts upwards (Rose 2005). Beach spawning occurs at 2°C to 10°C, but deepwater spawning is restricted to about 2°C to 7°C, most likely occurs from 2°C to 5°C (Rose 2005). Capelins are able to spawn at the age of two and males usually die following spawning. Spawning is typically in late June and early July, although it has been typically 2-6 weeks later since the early 1990s (Carscadden et al. 1997, 2001).” Capelin is a major component in the marine ecosystem dynamics as they facilitate the transfer of energy between trophic levels, principally between primary and secondary producers to higher trophic levels (DFO 2006a Capelin prey consists of planktonic organisms comprised of primarily euphausiids and copepods. Capelin feeding is seasonal with intense feeding in early to late fall and in early spring leading up to the spawning cycle when feed ceases. Capelin predators comprise most major fish species including Atlantic cod, haddock, herring, flatfish species, dogfish, turbot and others. Several marine mammal species, including minke whales, fin whales, harp and ringed seals, as well as a variety of seabirds, also prey on capelin. In the 1990s capelin underwent dramatic changes in distribution, size, and maturity at age, and time and duration of spawning (Carscadden et al. 1997). Together, the changes represent biological responses to a colder, less favourable environment. The physical environment cooled throughout the 1980s, reaching a historical minimum in 1991 (Colbourne, 2000). Since 1991, the environment has been warming, returning to near-normal conditions by the mid-1990s with 1996 being one of the warmest years on record. Capelin avoid cold Arctic water in which the copepod fauna is dominated by Calanus hyperboreus and Metridia longa (Anderson et al. 2002). There appears to be a lag in the distributional response of capelin to improved environmental and feeding conditions (Anderson et al. 2002). In general as water temperatures rise, northward shifts in capelin distribution can be expected, with more southerly grounds abandoned (Rose 2005). Thus, changes in capelin distribution may be expected to have a direct impact on the many species that feed on them. During the early 1990s, capelin exhibited large-scale changes in distribution within and outside their normal range that have been linked to colder ocean temperatures (Carscadden et al. 2002). During this period, capelin essentially disappeared from NAFO Unit 2J (at the northern extent of the Study Area), to occupy an area to the south on the northern Grand Banks (found within the Study Area in the southwest) (Carscadden et al. 2001). The primary cause of capelin mortality is associated with predation and as such, variations in capelin abundances are directly linked to natural causes (DFO 2006a). Cohort strength has also
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 108 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA been shown to be set upon emergence (Carscadden et al. 2000). Capelin has a short life span (usually five years or less) and abundances are linked to a few age classes. Management of capelin fisheries tends to be conservative because of the prominent role of capelin in the marine ecosystem.
5.4.4.3 Shellfish Commercially important shellfish of the Study Area include the northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) and snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Northern shrimp LGL 2011a (Section 4.2.6.1) and LGL 2003 (Section 3.2.3.2.2) discusses the northern shrimp in detail. An overview of habitat and distribution is provided here. Northern shrimp distribution is widespread in the northwest Atlantic and occurs from Davis Strait to the Gulf of Maine (LGL 2003). Northern shrimp typically occur in soft muddy substrates in depths up to 600 m, and at a temperature range of 1 ºC to 8 ºC, with larger individuals occurring in deeper waters (DFO 2006). During the day, northern shrimp remain deep in the water column and migrate to shallower waters during the night. Here they feed on zooplankton, pelagic copepods and krill (LGL 2003, DFO 2006a in LGL 2011a). Female shrimp also undergo a seasonal migration to shallow water where spawning occurs (DFO 2006). Spawning occurs once a year, usually in late June or early July (LGL 2003). They are important prey for many species such as Atlantic cod, Greenland and Atlantic halibut, skates, wolffish, snow crab and harp seals. Northern shrimp are known to live for more than eight years in some areas and are thought to begin recruitment to the fishery as early as three years of age (DFO 2008a in LGL 2011a). Some northern populations exhibit slower rates of growth and maturation but greater longevity that result in larger maximum size (DFO 2008a in LGL 2011a).
Snow crab Snow crab is discussed in Section 3.2.3.2.1 in LGL (2003) and in Section 4.2.6.1 in LGL (2011a). An overview of the habitat and distribution is provided here. Snow crab distribution is widespread and continuous in waters off Newfoundland. The species occurs over broad depths (70 to 280 m; Elner 1985), from Greenland to the Gulf of Maine. Snow crab prefers water temperature ranges between -1ºC and 5ºC (Fisheries Resources Conservation Council 2005 (website)). Adults appear to prefer mud or mud/sand bottom while juveniles appear to favour gravel or small rock (Dawe et al. 1997, DFO 2009a). The snow crab’s diet includes clams, polychaete worms, brittle stars and various crustaceans. All female crabs carry their eggs for a period of time before they hatch into pelagic larvae. The larvae for most species remain pelagic from 10 to 20 weeks. Hatching usually occurs in spring or summer; thus, larvae can be expected in the water column during these times and up until late fall (Breeze et al. 2002).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 109 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.5 Marine Mammals Marine mammal species present in the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador belong to the order Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoise) and the order Pinnipedia (seals and walruses). Walruses are not known to be present in the Study Area, as such, pinnipeds will be reported as true seals. This report is not considering marine mammal members of the mustelids (otters, minks, etc.) nor polar bears (Ursus maritimus). At least twenty-three species of marine mammals are known to occur in the Study Area including six species of baleen whales (Mysticetes) and, 12 species of toothed whales (Odontocetes) of which six species are dolphins and porpoises. True seals (Phocids) account for five species found in the Study Area. Most marine mammals use the Study Area seasonally, and the region likely represents important foraging areas for many species, as discussed with the avifauna. The Orphan Basin SEA (LGL 2003, Section 3.2.5.3) provides a summary of marine mammal species and previously available sighting data for the Study Area and adjacent waters. Exploration and drilling EA’s and their amendments for Orphan Basin (LGL 2005, Section 4.8.1; LGL 2009b Section 3.4.1) and Jeanne d’Arc Basin (LGL 2008a, Section 4.5) have provided updated information on marine mammals within the southern extent of the Study Area. Similarly, recently prepared EAs for Chevron and Statoil (LGL 2011a & LGL 2011b, Sections 4.5.1.3 & 4.5.1.4) provide biological backgrounds and overviews of marine mammal species likely to occur within the Study Area.
5.4.5.1 Cetaceans As noted above, at least 18 cetacean species are known or expected to occur in the Study Area (Table 5.12). Several cetaceans are considered at risk by COSEWIC and listed under the SARA.
Table 5.12: Marine Mammals Occurring in the Study and Regional Areas
Habitat and Activity in Species Distribution in Study Area Migration Study Area Mysticetes North-south seasonal North Atlantic Coastal and shelf waters between high latitude feeding right whale Extremely rare Feeding grounds and southern (Eubalaena Seasonal distribution unknown latitude calving and wintering glacialis) grounds Between temperate to high Humpback whale Common Coastal, banks latitude summer feeding (Megaptera Year-round primarily May-Oct. Feeding grounds and low latitude novaeangliae) breeding grounds North-south seasonal Fin whale Common Coastal, banks Calving or breeding ground (B. physalus) Year round, primarily summer Feeding unknown Sei whale Uncommon North-south seasonal Pelagic, offshore (B. borealis) May-Sept. southern calving grounds Between northern feeding Minke whale Common, Coastal, banks, shelf grounds and southern calving (B. acutorostrata) Year-round primarily May-Oct. Feeding grounds
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 110 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.12: Marine Mammals Occurring in the Study and Regional Areas
Habitat and Activity in Species Distribution in Study Area Migration Study Area Blue whale Extremely Rare Coastal and offshore waters Coastal, pelagic (Balaenoptera Year-round primarily spring to from high latitude during Feeding musculus) summer feeding season Odontocetes Females and calves range Sperm whale Uncommon to Common Pelagic, slope, canyons small, males migrate (Physeter Year-round, primarily summer Feeding, between northern latitudes macrocephalus) and tropical/subtropical mating grounds Killer whale Rare Wide distribution Not documented (Orcinus orca) Year-round primarily June-Oct. Long-finned pilot No north-south seasonal whale Common migration Mostly pelagic (Globicephala May-Sept. Some seasonal inshore- melas) offshore migration Northern bottlenose whale Uncommon Pelagic, slope, canyons Unknown (Hyperoodon Seasonal distribution unknown ampullatus) Sowerby’s beaked whale Rare Pelagic, deep slope, Unknown (Mesoplodon Seasonal distribution unknown canyons bidens) Beluga whale Circumpolar – Arctic, Pacific Extremely Rare Coastal, estuaries, bays, (Delphinapterus sub-Arctic, St. Lawrence Summer of lone whale deep offshore leucas) Estuary Dolphins and Porpoises Common bottlenose Uncommon Shelf, coastal, pelagic dolphin Unknown Seasonal distribution unknown (occasionally) (Tursiops truncatus) Atlantic white- sided dolphin Common Shelf, slope Unknown (Lagenorhynchus Year-round primarily June-Oct. acutus) White-beaked Uncommon dolphin Year-round primarily June- Shelf waters Not understood (L. albirostris) Sept. Striped Dolphin Uncommon Offshore convergence (Stenella Unknown Seasonal distribution unknown zones and upwellings coeruleoalba) Harbour porpoise Uncommon Shelf, coastal, pelagic (Phocoena Year round primarily spring to Poorly understood (occasionally) phocoena) fall Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus Uncommon Slope waters Unknown griseus)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 111 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The Trans North American Sightings Survey (TNASS), a large-scale aerial survey of marine megafauna in the northwest Atlantic during the summer of 2007, provides cetacean abundance estimates for two regions; the Labrador Shelf and Grand Banks and; the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Scotia Shelf (Lawson and Gosseling 2009). This is the first systematic effort to provide coverage for much of the eastern Canadian seaboard, and the first in more than two decades to survey the continental shelf along the Labrador and Newfoundland coasts for marine mammals, sea turtles, and other species that intermittently reside near the surface (Lawson and Gosseling 2009). The Labrador and Newfoundland surveys yielded abundance amounts for seven cetacean species (minke whale, fin whale, humpback whale, white-sided dolphin, common dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, and harbour porpoise) as well as a category for unknown dolphin (276 CV=52.8%), all having 20 or more sightings during the survey. The Gulf and Shelf surveys yielded abundance estimates for nine cetacean species (those noted above plus the pilot whale, and beluga whale), as well as categories for unknown large whale (346 CV=21%) and unknown dolphin (34,186 CV=36%), all having 20 or more sightings during the survey. Table 5.13 provides population estimates for cetaceans likely to be found in or near the Study Area. Whenever possible, abundance figures were inputted to reflect the species closest to the Study Area. When these numbers were not available, abundance is shown for the broader region of the Atlantic.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 112 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.13: Population Estimates of Marine Mammals That Occur in the Study Area
Population Size Population Occurring in Study Area Species Estimated Number Estimated Numbers Source of Updated Stock CV=% CV=% Information Mysticetes North Atlantic right 396 W. North Atlantic Unknown SAR (2011) whale W. North Atlantic 2,080 Lawson & Gosselin Humpback whale NF/Labrador 1,427 (CV=20.4) TNASS Regions (2009) 1,352 Lawson & Gosselin Fin whale NF/Labrador 890 (CV=24.5) TNASS Regions (2009) 386 Sei whale Nova Scotia Unknown SAR (2011) Nova Scotia 3,242 Lawson & Gosselin Minke whale NF/Labrador 1,315 (CV=22.5) TNASS Regions (2009) <250 Mature Blue whale North Atlantic Unknown SAR (2011) Atlantic Odontocetes 4,804 Sperm whale North Atlantic Unknown Waring et al. (2009) North Atlantic Killer whale Unknown NF/Labrador 64 Lawson (2007) 6,134 Long-finned pilot Lawson & Gosselin Gulf of SL & Scotian NW Atlantic Unknown whale (2009) Shelf Northern bottlenose 163 Gully (Scotian Shelf) Unknown Waring et al. (2007) whale Scotian Shelf & Davis Strait Sowerby’s beaked Katona et al. (1993) Unknown Unknown Unknown whale in LGL (2008) Eastern High Arctic- Baffin Bay, Southeast Baffin Island-Cumberland Sound, Ungava Bay, Beluga whale Unknown Unknown DFO (2010c) St. Lawrence River, Western Hudson Bay, Eastern Hudson Bay and Beaufort Sea-Arctic Ocean Dolphins and Porpoises Common bottlenose 53,625 Lawson & Gosselin NF/Labrador 576 (CV=31.2) dolphin TNASS Regions (2009) Atlantic white-sided 5,796 Lawson & Gosselin NF/Labrador 1,507 (CV=22.5) dolphin TNASS Regions (2009) White-beaked 1,842 Lawson & Gosselin NF/Labrador 1,842 (CV=22.4) dolphin TNASS Regions (2009) 94,462a (CV= 40) Striped dolphin NW Atlantic Unknown Waring et al. (2007) Atlantic 4,862 Lawson & Gosselin Harbour porpoise NF/Labrador 1,195 (CV=32.2) TNASS Regions (2009) 20,479b (CV=59) Risso’s dolphin US East Coast Unknown Waring et al. (2007) Atlantic a,b Based on surveys from Florida to Bay of Fundy
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 113 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
DFO Cetacean Database - A large database of cetacean sightings in Newfoundland and Labrador waters has been compiled by DFO in St. John’s and has also been made available for the purposes of describing cetacean sightings within the Study Area . These data can be used to indicate what species have occurred in the region, but cannot typically provide fine-scale descriptions or predictions of abundance or distribution. The DFO database also includes marine mammal sightings collected as part of Chevron’s 2004 and 2005 seismic monitoring programs in Orphan Basin. As noted by DFO, a number of caveats should be considered when using the DFO cetacean sighting data, and include: (1) The sighting data have not yet been completely error-checked (this is ongoing at DFO). (2) The quality of some of the sighting data is unknown (e.g., the observer experience, sighting effort, platform limitations, and sea state have not yet been accounted for, if even possible). (3) Most data have been gathered from platforms of opportunity that were vessel-based. The inherent problems with cetacean negative or positive reactions to the approach of such vessels has not been factored into the data. (4) Sighting effort has not been quantified, so these numbers cannot be used to estimate true species density or areal abundance. (5) Numbers sighted have not been verified (especially in light of the significant differences in detectability among species). (6) For completeness, these data represent an amalgamation of sightings from a variety of years (e.g., since 1961) and seasons. Hence they may obscure temporal or areal patterns in distribution.
The summary of sightings below combines the data sources described above as well as historical and new sightings from commercial whaling, fisheries observers, Marine Mammal Observers aboard seismic vessels, and the general public. Within the Study Area, mammal sighting dates ranged from 1961 to 2007 (Figure 5.46) and included baleen whales (Mysticetes) (Figure 5.47), toothed whales (Odontocetes) (Figure 5.48), and dolphins and porpoises (Figure 5.49). Table 5.14 summarizes individual species sightings per month and includes data from 1961 to 2007. A summary of the prey of marine mammals that occur in the Study Area is summarized in Table 4.14 in LGL (2008) and in Table 3.18 in LGL (2003).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 114 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.46: Cetacean sightings within the Study Area (Source: J. Lawson, DFO, February 2012)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 115 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.47: Cetacean sightings – baleen whales within the Study Area (Source: J. Lawson, DFO, February 2012)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 116 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.48: Cetacean sightings – toothed whales within the Study Area (Source: J. Lawson, DFO, February 2012)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 117 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.49: Cetacean sightings – dolphins and porpoises within the Study Area (Source: J. Lawson, DFO, February 2012)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 118 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.14: Individual Cetacean Sightings That Occurred Within the Study Area (1961 to 2007)
Species J F M A M J J A S O N D TOTAL Mysticetes NA right whale 2 2 Humpback whale 18 2 3 12 200 219 280 563 279 74 40 9 1699 Fin whale 1 5 27 66 33 20 9 161 Sei whale 1 6 18 10 15 15 65 Fin/Sei whale 5 13 2 6 26 Minke whale 1 11 17 42 88 102 29 2 15 2 309 Blue whale 1 1 Odonotcetes Sperm whale 4 5 19 33 20 59 31 19 11 93 5 11 310 Killer whale 2 12 58 7 6 11 56 1 153 Long-finned pilot 50 185 3 3 341 399 998 1288 517 573 2 200 4559 whale Northern bottlenose 20 16 11 9 11 16 83 whale Sowerby’s beaked 4 4 whale Beluga whale 1 1 Dolphins and Porpoises Common bottlenose 105 119 240 432 25 921 dolphin Atlantic white-sided 20 36 23 141 46 460 112 838 dolphin White-beaked 21 20 32 13 81 167 dolphin Striped dolphin 15 4 19 Harbour porpoise 5 22 33 62 23 21 255 421 Unidentified Cetaceans Unk Baleen whale 11 14 13 7 6 1 52 Unk Toothed whale 16 3 1 20 Unk Whale 15 18 23 13 55 114 49 263 98 17 15 10 690 Unk Dolphin 29 10 28 110 145 509 336 942 154 129 1 2393 Unk Porpoise 3 12 15 Unk Cetacean 3 22 8 33 Total 117 241 207 186 913 1570 2254 3682 2099 1362 79 232 12942 Blank cell indicates no recorded sightings Source: J. Lawson, DFO, February 2012)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 119 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.5.2 Seals Five species of true seals may be found in the Study Area: The harp (Pagophilus groenlandicus), hooded (Cystophora cristata), grey (Halichoerus grypus), bearded (E. barbatus barbatus), and ringed (Phoca hispida) seal (Table 5.15). During the Offshore Labrador Biological Studies (OLABS) surveys in 1981 and 1982 as reported in LGL (2003), bearded seals were spotted in the Study Area, while the ringed and grey seal were not. In April 2007 COSEWIC uplisted the bearded seal from Not at Risk and placed it in the Data Deficient category. The other species remain Not at Risk. The NE Grand Banks, slope, and Flemish Pass are critical spring feeding grounds for both the harp and hooded seals. The northern portion of the Grand Bank is recognized as a region of mixing between cold water and temperate communities, and the system as a whole shares many species including key trophic and commercially important species such as Atlantic cod, capelin, Greenland halibut and American plaice (Templeman 2010). Satellite telemetry studies have shown that hooded seals spend much of their time along the edges of the Canadian and Greenland continental shelves or sea mounts (e.g., Flemish Cap, Reykjanes Ridge) where they dive to depths of over 1,500 m (Stenson and others, unpublished data in Andersen et al. 2009) and may remain in these areas until May before they start their migration for the moulting ice. Harp seals remain on the shelf and disperse across the Grand Banks where they continue to feed until late February or early March (Sjare et al. 2010). After mating, the adults disperse and continue feeding into May (Sjare et al. 2010). Hammill and Stenson (2000) report that the diet of hooded seals consists primarily of benthic invertebrates such as Greenland halibut, Arctic cod, shrimp, redfish, and squid. For the harp seal, while on the Grand Banks, capelin is the most important prey species; followed by sand lance, Greenland halibut and other flatfish species (Wallace and Lawson 1997; Lawson et al. 1998 in Tempelman 2010). Hammill and Stenson 2008 (in Templeman 2010) conclude that Atlantic Cod were a relatively unimportant prey item, though nearshore seal harps do eat more Atlantic cod relative to offshore individuals. Grey seals, although generally coastal, forage on the continental shelf as will and consume Atlantic cod, herring, sand lance (Lesage and Hammill 2001). Through the use of satellite telemetry, G. Stenson spotted a ring seal (mainly a nearshore species) on the northern part of the Grand Banks when the ice was present in that area in the early 1990s (DFO Research Scientist pers. comm.). As a summary, Stenson concludes that harp and hooded seals utilize the Study Area, while rings and grey are much less likely (pers. comm. 2012). Bearded seals may be possible but he was not aware of any information on how far from shore they travel (G. Stenson, pers. comm.2012).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 120 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.15: True Seal Species Occurring in the Study and Regional Areas
Habitat and Activity in Species Distribution in Study Area Abundance Migration Study Area Ice whelpers, pelagic Migratory and pelagic Whelp off Southern Labrador/NE December to late May/early June on Disperse on Grand Banks/Flemish Cap (late Newfoundland "Front" in Mid to late ice; Autumn) 8.6 – 9.6 million in NW Atlantic March (Hammill, M.O. and Harp seal Common in Study Area Winter to (Hammill, M.O. and Stenson, G.B. Stenson, G.B. 2011) Spring Whelp near NW boundary 2011) (April/May) Sjare, B., and Winter in Study Area
Stenson, G. B. 2010) Retreat to Greenland/Arctic in Summer Ice whelpers in March, Migratory and pelagic, summers in pelagic Remain on ice until early May; Approx. 600,000 NW Atlantic Arc tic and winters in eastern Hooded seal Common in Study Area Use Grand Banks/Flemish (Andersen, J. M. et al. 2009) Canada Cap for feeding while Winter in Study Area migrating north (LGL 2003) Year round; Seasonal with majority breeding Mainly nearshore species Overall, uncommon in Study Area, and and moulting on Sable Island, (known to be offshore on 348,900 All stocks of NW Atlantic Grey seal along the NE coast of Newfoundland south of Nova Scotia, over the Scotian Shelf), pelagic (Thomas et al. 2011) (G. Stenson DFO Research Scientist, winter and spring, respectively Not deep sea divers pers. Comm.) (Thomas et al. 2007 in LGL 2011a) Do not migrate; Use ice year-round, for mating, Very rare (commonly found in Canadian 52,533-73,543 in Western Hudson Ringed seal Unknown birthing and pup rearing, moulting Arctic) Bay (DFO 2011b) and even haul-out resting (IUCN 2009) Rare Does not typically migrate, ice Found in the western Laptev Sea, inhabiting year round Barents Sea and north Atlantic Ocean No current population data Occasional migration on ice in Bearded seal Unknown available. Estimates in the early and as far south as the Gulf of St. spring to Labrador (Folkens et al. 1970s were 300,000 (Burns 1981) Lawrence in the western Atlantic (Burns 2002). It remains in shallow areas 1981) during open-water periods.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 121 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.5.3 Sea Turtles Sea turtles are fairly uncommon in the offshore waters of Newfoundland, however they may be found in summer and fall. Species of turtles that may be found in the area of the Project include the Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). There are no breeding critical habitats for sea turtles in the North Atlantic. Breeding and nesting grounds for sea turtles are located in equatorial latitudes, such as Mexico, Florida, and the Caribbean in the Atlantic. Mating usually occurs offshore of nesting beaches. Sea turtles are a slow growing and long-lived group; sexual maturity is usually not reached until at least 30 years and individuals may live for over half a century (Lutz et al. 2002). Sea turtles live the majority of their lives at sea, however, females must return to land to lay their eggs. Foraging in the north Atlantic is important to this species based on the growing evidence from a variety of monitoring methods (James et al. 2006).
Atlantic Loggerhead The Atlantic loggerhead is the most common sea turtle in North American waters, and is the largest hard-shelled sea turtle in the world (Ernst et al. 1994). They are found in both coastal waters and offshore areas, more than 200 km from shore. They have been reported in the Study Area in waters east of the Flemish Cap (Figure 5.50). The loggerhead was designated as endangered by COSEWIC in April 2010, but has no status under SARA. The population in North America has been declining, estimated to be between 9,000 and 50,000 adults (Ernst et al. 1994). Seventy percent of loggerheads captured accidentally by fishing gear (936 captures) from the Caribbean to Labrador between 1992 and 1995 were captured in waters on and east of the 200-m isobath off the Grand Banks, with captures peaking in September (Witzell 1999). In this area, loggerhead captures correspond closely with fishing effort, as the oceanographic features near the 200-m isobath results in a concentration of loggerhead prey species, such as jellyfish and crustaceans. Loggerheads are known to be primarily benthic feeders of crab, molluscs and gastropods (Plotkin et al. 1995).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 122 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.50: Locations of loggerhead sea turtle captures recorded by at-sea observers on Canadian pelagic longline fishing trips, 1999-2008 (Source: DFO 2009 in COSEWIC 2010)
Leatherback Turtle Leatherbacks can be found in the tropical, temperate and boreal waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. They are also found in the Mediterranean Sea. The northernmost recorded latitude of a leatherback is 71°N and the southernmost is approximately 27°S. In Canada, the leatherback turtle can be found off the coasts of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Sea Turtle distribution in the North Atlantic Ocean is dependent on the location of their prey (Bjorndal 1995). There have also been records of turtles off Baffin Island and near Quebec in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Based on incidental catches by the U.S pelagic longline fleet between 1992 and 1995, Witzell (1999) mapped leatherback and loggerhead observations off Georges and Grand Banks in the summer and fall periods. Maps by Smith (2001) also suggest that leatherbacks and loggerheads are common visitors to areas along the Slope and offshore seaward of the Scotian Shelf between June and October from late summer to mid or late fall, after which they move south, either in coastal or far offshore waters. The worldwide population of leatherbacks turtles was censused at between 26,000 and 43,000 (Dutton et al. 1999). There are no estimates of the population size in Canada; however, adult leatherbacks are thought to be a regular part of the Newfoundland marine fauna in the summer and fall (Goff and Lien 1988; Witzell 1999) during their northerly excursions to feed on jellyfish. The leatherback sea turtle is designated as endangered (Schedule 1) by SAR and by COSEWIC and will be discussed in that context in more depth below.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 123 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Satellite telemetry studies are underway to gain an understanding of their migrations. James et al. (2005) fixed satellite tags on nine turtles to map migration. The plot below in Figure 5.51 shows the track of three mature male leatherback turtles. Relative to this Project, the plot shows their occurrence well to the southeast of the Study Area.
Figure 5.51: Tracks of three leatherback turtles equipped with satellite-linked time–depth recorders (Source: James et al. 2005)
5.4.6 Species at Risk The Species at Risk Act (SARA) was assented to in December 2002 with certain provisions coming into force in June 2003 (e.g., independent assessments of species by COSEWIC) and in June 2004 (e.g., prohibitions against harming or harassing listed endangered or threatened species or damaging or destroying their critical habitat). COSEWIC develops prioritized candidate lists of species needing assessment, manages the production of species status reports, and holds meetings at which species are assessed and assigned to risk categories. COSEWIC uses the best available information relevant to assessing a species' risk of extinction or extirpation, which it may obtain from any credible source of knowledge of the species and its habitat. The evaluation process is independent and transparent, and the results are reported to Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and the public. COSEWIC's Candidate List is a compilation of species in Canada that have yet to be assessed and are suspected of being at some risk for extinction or extirpation thereby indicating those species that have priority for assessment.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 124 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Species are listed under SARA on Schedules 1 to 3 with only those designated as endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 having immediate legal implications. Schedule 1 is the official list of wildlife Species at Risk in Canada. Once a species/population is designated, the measures to protect and recover it are implemented. Schedules 2 and 3 of SARA identify species that were designated at risk by COSEWIC prior to October 1999 and must be reassessed using revised criteria before they can be considered for addition to Schedule 1. Under SARA, a ‘recovery strategy’ and corresponding ‘action plan’ must be prepared for endangered, threatened, and extirpated species. A ‘management plan’ must be prepared for species considered as special concern. Final recovery strategies have been prepared for five species currently designated as either endangered or threatened under Schedule 1 and potentially occurring in the Study Area: leatherback sea turtle (ALTRT 2006), spotted wolffish (Kulka et al. 2007), northern wolffish (Kulka et al. 2007), blue whale – NW Atlantic population (Beauchamp et al. 2009), and North American right whale (Brown et al. 2009).
A proposed recovery strategy has been drafted for the Northern bottlenose whale – Scotian Shelf population (DFO 2009c). A management plan has been prepared for the Atlantic wolffish (Kulka et al. 2007), and for the Ivory Gull (Stenhouse 2004). Species that potentially occur in the Study Area and have status under SARA and/or COSEWIC are listed in Tables 5.16 to 5.19.
5.4.6.1 Marine Fish There are 14 fish species found off the Newfoundland Coast and are found within the Study Area that have designations under SARA and/or COSEWIC. Overfishing and by-catch mortality seem to have been the main reasons for the vulnerability and decline of these species. Reasons for designations are found in Table 5.16.
Table 5.16: Marine Fish Species Found Within the Study Area Having SARA and/or COSEWIC Designations.
Species Status Reason for Designation Cod in this area have declined 97-99% in the past 3 generations and more than 99% since the 1960s. The area of occupancy declined considerably as the stock collapsed in the early 1990s. The main cause of the decline in Atlantic cod SARA – No Status abundance was overfishing, and there has been a large reduction in the (Gadus morhua) fishing rate since 1992. However, the population has remained at a very
low level with little sign of substantive recovery. The most recent surveys Newfoundland and COSEWIC – indicate an increase in abundance over the past 3 years, however this Endangered Labrador Population change in abundance is very small compared to the measured decline over 2GH, 2J3KL and 3NO (April 2010) the past 3 generations. The extremely low level of abundance and contracted spatial distribution makes the population vulnerable to catastrophic events, such as abnormal oceanographic conditions. Threats from fishing, predation, and ecosystem changes persist. There is no limit
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 125 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.16: Marine Fish Species Found Within the Study Area Having SARA and/or COSEWIC Designations.
Species Status Reason for Designation reference point (LRP) for the 2J3KL management unit but the population in this area is considered to be well below any reasonable LRP value. The offshore 2J3KL fishery is under moratorium and there is an inshore stewardship fishery with no formal total allowable catch (TAC). The fishery in the 3NO management unit is also under moratorium. There is a LRP for this management unit and the population is well below this value. SARA –Schedule 1, Special Concern Populations have been declining over the past 20 years, with the population (2002) in Newfoundland waters declining about 91% since 1978 (87% for Atlantic Wolffish populations of Canada). Numbers, mean size and the number of locations
(Anarhichas lupus) where Atlantic wolffish are found have also declined. COSEWIC – Special Threats to this species include by-catch mortality, and habitat alteration by Concern bottom trawling. (Nov 2000) SARA – Schedule 1, Northern Wolffish Threatened Numbers of this fish have declined over 90% in three generations, and the (Anarhichas (2002) number of places this fish is found has also decreased. The species is still denticulatus) relatively widespread, and therefore exists in considerable numbers, and COSEWIC – therefore has the ‘threatened’ designation. Threatened By-catch mortality and habitat alteration due to bottom trawling are major Spotted Wolffish (May 2001) threats for this species. Dispersal is limited. (Anarhichas minor)
SARA – No status Has declined over 90% over 3 generations, and has occurs in fewer and Cusk fewer survey trawls. Fishing, although now capped, was unrestricted until (Brosme brosme) COSEWIC – Threatened 1999 and still remains a source of mortality. (May 2003) Over a 47 year time series, (about 3 generations) abundance has declined approximately 96%. Overfishing is a major cause of the decline, but an apparent increase in natural mortality in the 1990s, when the largest part of American plaice SARA – No status the decline occurred, may also have contributed. The decline now appears (Hippoglossoides to have ceased, but numbers remain below a precautionary threshold platessoides) estimated for this stock. The directed fishery is under moratorium but some COSEWIC – Threatened significant and poorly regulated bycatches are negatively influencing Newfoundland and recovery. In addition, fishing gear is size selective, cropping large Labrador population (April 2009) individuals, and reducing population reproductive potential. There is evidence that natural mortality has increased which reduces the ability of the population to withstand fishing mortality. Survey data indices of adult numbers show declines of 98% from 1978 to 1994 with a further decline from 1995 to 2003. Although much of the Roundnose grenadier SARA – No status population lives at depths greater than those surveyed, adding uncertainty (Coryphaenoides to the assessment, this constitutes the best available information to assess rupestris) COSEWIC – species status. The species is long-lived (60 yr) and matures late (around Endangered 10 yr) which makes it susceptible to human-caused mortality. Commercial Atlantic population (Nov 2008) catches were high in the 1960s and 1970s but have since declined, although harvest still occurs. Canadian survey index decline rates over 15 years (< one generation) of > SARA – No status Roughhead grenadier 90% occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s, but the surveys only covered (Macrourus berglax) depths to 1000 m. This decline is probably due to a combination of COSEWIC – Special distributional change and abundance decline: there is evidence for
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 126 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.16: Marine Fish Species Found Within the Study Area Having SARA and/or COSEWIC Designations.
Species Status Reason for Designation Concern movement of fish into deeper water as a result of the cooling of the shelf in (April 2007) the 1980s, and reduction in population size due to fishing pressure is also a possible factor. The species is caught primarily as bycatch in the Greenland halibut fishery, which has experienced reduced Total Allowable Catch and greater restrictions on areas of operation since 2000. However there are no catch limits or management plans for the species in Canadian waters, and catch reporting of foreign vessels is often unreliable. Survey indices (Canadian and European Union) for adults have been stable over the past decade. The species is of concern because of late maturation, lack of evidence of return of adults to shallower depths with return to environmental conditions prevailing prior to the 1980s, a probable decline in abundance in the 1980s and 1990s, and the lack of a management plan for directed and incidental harvest. Blue shark populations are susceptible to increased mortality from all sources, including human activities. There is evidence of a decline in mean SARA - No status length in longline fisheries in Canadian waters from 1986-2003. Pending public The primary threat is bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries; although the Blue shark consultation in 2007 threat is understood and is reversible, it is not being effectively reduced (Prionace glauca) through management. Assessing the impact of bycatch on the population
would benefit from better information on proportion of individuals discarded Atlantic population COSEWIC – Special Concern which survive. It appears that recent fishery removals from the North (April 2006) Atlantic have been several tens of thousands of tons annually. Estimated Canadian removals, a small proportion of the total, have been declining since the early 1990s and recently have averaged around 600 t/yr. SARA – Schedule 1, Canada is considered to be the northern limit of this top predator. There Endangered have been only 32 records of this species over 132 years for all of Atlantic White shark (April 2006) Canada, and no abundance trend information exists. It is estimated that the (Carcharodon population has decline around 80% over 14 years in the North West carcharias) Atlantic, outside Canadian waters. Vulnerability of this species is perhaps Atlantic population COSEWIC – due to its long generation time (~23 years), low reproductive rates Endangered (gestation is 14 months, and average fecundity is 7 live-born young). (April 2006) By-catch in the pelagic longline fishery is the primary threat to this species. There does not appear to be any reason to assume that the Canadian SARA – No Status Atlantic "population" is demographically or genetically independent from the larger Atlantic population, so the status of the species in Atlantic Canada Shortfin Mako should reflect the status throughout the North Atlantic. Two analyses (Isurus oxyrinchus) suggest recent declines in North America as a whole (40% - 1986-2001; Atlantic population COSEWIC – Threatened 50% - 1971-2003). This large shark (maximum length 4.2 m) is late (April 2006) maturing (7-8 years). Vulnerable to mortality from by-catch in longline and other fisheries. This species, which attains a maximum length of over 15 m (the second- largest living fish) is highly vulnerable to human-caused mortality because of its extremely low productivity. Females mature at 16 to 20 years old, SARA- No Status gestate for 2.6 to 3.5 years (the longest known gestation period of any vertebrate), and produce litters of about 6 offspring. Based on recent Basking Shark tagging information, individuals in Canada are considered to be part of an (Cetorhinus maximus) COSEWIC – Special Atlantic population shared with the USA, Europe, the Caribbean and Atlantic population Concern northern South America. Population estimates in Canadian waters have (Nov 2009) large uncertainties and may number between 4918-10125 individuals. Population estimates outside Canadian waters are not available. Information from surveys along the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to Florida indicates no decline over the past two decades. However, available
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 127 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.16: Marine Fish Species Found Within the Study Area Having SARA and/or COSEWIC Designations.
Species Status Reason for Designation information suggests substantial population declines in the northeast Atlantic. The species is caught incidentally in trawl, longline, and gillnet fisheries in Atlantic Canada. Removals in fisheries with observer coverage have decreased since the 1980s consistent with a reduction in fishing effort, but information on bycatch from other fisheries is not available. There is no evidence of recovery following declines associated with fisheries in other parts of the range. Ship collisions are an additional threat. Highly vulnerable to mortality from human activities. Recruitment is episodic, with strong year-classes only occurring every 5-12 years. Abundance of mature individuals has declined 99% in areas of highest SARA - No status historical abundance over about two generations. However, since the Deepwater redfish 1990’s, there has been no long-term trend in one area, and trends have
(Sebastes fasciatus( been stable or increasing in other areas where large declines have been COSEWIC – previously observed. Directed fishing and incidental harvest in fisheries for Threatened Atlantic population other species (bycatch) are the main known threats. Fisheries in parts of (April 2010) the range of this designatable unit (DU) are currently closed, but remain open in other areas. Bycatch in shrimp fisheries has been substantially reduced since the 1990s by use of separator grates in trawls, but could still be frequent enough to affect population recovery. The numbers of small (one-sea-winter) and large (multi-sea-winter) salmon have both declined over the last 3 generations, about 37% and 26%, respectively, for a net decline of all mature individuals of about 36%. This decline has occurred despite the fact that mortality from commercial SARA – No Status fisheries in coastal areas has greatly declined since 1992; this may be due Atlantic salmon to poor marine survival related to substantial but incompletely understood South Newfoundland COSEWIC – changes in marine ecosystems. Illegal fishing is a threat in some rivers. The population Threatened presence of salmon aquaculture in a small section of this area brings some (November 2010) risk of negative effects from interbreeding or adverse ecological interactions with escaped domestic salmon. Genetic heterogeneity among the many small rivers in this area is unusually pronounced, suggesting that rescue among river breeding populations may be somewhat less likely than in other areas. Notes: COSEWIC and SARA accessed February 2012, Date denotes last examination of species
Significant habitat for several at-risk species of Marine fish within the Study Area have been identified in several Valuable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs), of which have also been classified as Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) for conservation in the Placentia Bay- grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area by DFO. The most southwest boundary of the Study Area encounters the northern edge of the Southeast Shoal EBSA. The Southeast Shoal contains habitat for a large diversity of organisms, including important habitat throughout several life stages of forage species, and habitat for many at-risk as well as commercially valuable species (CPAWS 2009). It is a unique shallow, sandy offshore habitat and provides a shallow spawning area and nursery habitat for Atlantic cod, American plaice, and other species (CPAWS 2009). Wolffish and roughhead grenadier, amongst other species are known to use this EBSA and it is an important area for the reproduction and survival of striped wolffish (CPAWS 2009).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 128 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The Virgin Rocks EBSA provides important spawning habitat for Atlantic cod, American plaice, and other species (CPAWES 2009). This EBSA exists within the Study Area near its southwest boundary. The Northeast Shelf and Slope EBSA exhibits relatively high concentrations of the threatened spotted wolffish in spring and, has been identified as an important area to this species’ short- and long-term sustainability (CPAWS 2009). This EBSA is found on the Northern Grand Banks, well within the confines of the Study Area.
Atlantic Cod In 2005, three populations of Atlantic Cod (Newfoundland and Labrador, Laurentian North, Maritimes) were recommended by the Minister of the Environment, on the advice of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to not be listed on Schedule 1 of SARA for several reasons, including complexities associated with the differing biological status, socio-economic and management implications of each individual cod stock. Atlantic Cod is found all across Atlantic Canada and Quebec and some stocks within the COSEWIC-defined populations are recovered, while others are not. For the Newfoundland and Labrador and Laurentian North populations there are potential unacceptable socio-economic impacts on Canadians and coastal communities of Atlantic Canada. There are also international management considerations. In April 6 2006, the Governor General approved this recommendation. Atlantic cod have not been included in Schedule 1 of SARA as it has been determined that the best way to manage the recovery of the stocks is through a comprehensive, integrated, Atlantic-wide management approach. Newfoundland and Labrador Population: Cod in this population combine the stocks identified for the management purposes by DFO as (NAFO Division 2GH), (NAFO Division 2J3KL) and (NAFO Division 3NO). These stokes are located in the inshore and offshore waters of Labrador and eastern Newfoundland, and the Grand Banks. Between 97 to 99% of the cod have declined in this area in the past three generations, and more than 99% since the 1960s. The most recent surveys indicate an increase in abundance over the past 3 years, however this change in abundance is very small compared to the measured decline over the past 3 generations
Cusk Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, pursuant to subsections 27(1.1) and (1.2) of the Species at Risk Act, decided on April 6, 2006 refers the assessment cusk (Brosme brosme) back to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) for further information and consideration based on several factors including lack of clarity regarding speciation or definition of the designable unit, incomplete use of available abundance and distributional information and questions regarding the suitable incorporation of abundance and distributional information. The assessment placed significant emphasis on trawl survey data that may have exaggerated the decline in abundance of cusk.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 129 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
For cusk, DFO will focus on a commitment to increase scientific research regarding these species, which will allow for tracking of the status of these species. Current and proposed research includes efforts to define biological status, evaluation of survival upon release from fishing gear, and potential benefits from modifications to fishing gear or practices.
5.4.6.2 Marine Mammals Nine species of marine mammals, which have designations under SAR and/or COSEWIC, are known to occur in the Study and Regional Areas (Table 5.17). The main reason for the original decline of most marine mammal species includes commercial whaling mortality, and life history characteristics have been preventing full recovery.
Table 5.17: Marine Mammal Species found within the Study Area having SAR and/or COSEWIC Designations
Species Risk Category Reason for Designation (COSEWIC) Whaling is the main reason for the original decline in the population of SARA – this species. It is thought that less than 250 mature adults exist, and Blue Whale Endangered there have been indications of low calving rate, and low recruitment to (Balenoptera Schedule 1 the adult population. Current threats to the population include ship musculus) COSEWIC – strikes, disturbance from whale watching activities, fish gear Atlantic population Endangered entanglement, and pollution. Climate change may make this species (May 2002) even more vulnerable, due to a probable decline in prey (i.e., zooplankton). SARA – Special Fin whale Concern, Schedule Whaling is the main reason for the original decline in the population of (Balenoptera 1 this species. Sightings of this whale remain common, and no hunting has occurred since 1971. Threats to the species include ship strikes, physalus) COSEWIC – Special entanglement by fishing gear, although there are none that are to Atlantic population Concern seriously threaten the species population. (May 2005) This species is seen off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. However, Sei whale SARA – No Status data are lacking to determine the degree of depletion caused by (Balaenoptera COSEWIC – Data whaling, or to assess current population size, or to determine whether the population has recovered in any way since whaling ended. The borealis) Deficient effects of current threats, especially oil and gas exploration and Atlantic population (May 2003) development, are unknown. There is also uncertainty regarding possible population substructure. SARA - The species, found only in the North Atlantic, was heavily reduced by Endangered, whaling. The total population currently numbers about 322 animals North Atlantic right Schedule 1 (about 220-240 mature animals), has been decreasing during the last whale decade, and is experiencing high mortality from ship strikes and
(Eubalaena entanglement in fishing gear. A sophisticated demographic model COSEWIC- glacialis) gives an estimated mean time to extinction of 208 years. Endangered Critical areas for the North Atlantic right whale include the Roseway (May 2003) Basin and part of the Bay of Fundy.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 130 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Species Risk Category Reason for Designation (COSEWIC) SARA – Special Humpback whale Before protection of Humpback Whales was instituted in 1960, Concern, Schedule overexploitation had greatly reduced their numbers. Ongoing (Megaptera 3 novaeangliae) exploitation of the Humpbacks' prey is also having negative impacts on the species; the depletion of the capelin stocks is of particular concern.
COSEWIC – Not at Since large trawlers became a part of commercial fishing operations in Western North Atlantic Risk the 1970s, Humpbacks have been dying in fishing nets. Oil pollution is population also a threat to this species. (May 2003) Endemic to North Atlantic waters, it is found mostly in the deep SARA – Special offshore in temperate to subarctic waters. There is little known about Sowerby’s beaked Concern Schedule 1 its biology, distribution or abundance. It is thought that acute exposure to intense sounds, such as military sonar or seismic sonar can lead to whale COSEWIC – Special serious injury and mortality of this species, and therefore is very (Mesoplodon bidens) Concern vulnerable. There is no direct evidence that such sound sources have (Nov 2006) affected this species, but there is evidence for lethal effects of sonar on individuals of related species. Killer Whale It is estimated that there are less than 1000 mature individuals. SARA – No status (Orcinus orca) Hunting in Greenland is still a threat to this species. Acoustical, COSEWIC – Special physical disturbance (i.e., increased shipping traffic) and contamination Northwest Concern are also a threat to the species population. The life history and the Atlantic/Arctic (Nov 2008) social attributes of this species contribute to its designation as “special population concern”. Northern bottlenose SARA – Special The population is of Special Concern for the following reasons: (1) whale numbers were likely reduced by whaling in the late 1960s and early Concern Schedule 1 (Hyperoodon 1970s when 818 whales were taken; (2) trends in population size since ampullatus) then are uncertain but survey sighting rates have been low; and (3) threats from fishery interactions are documented and ongoing. There is COSEWIC – Special Concern no abundance estimate. Entanglement in fishing gear is the primary Davis Straight known threat but noise and contaminants are also of concern. The (May 2011 – in a population whales in the Baffin Bay-Davis Strait-Labrador Sea region have been higher category) genetically linked to the population off Iceland so rescue is possible. SARA – Threatened Widely distributed, and estimated to be more than 100,000 during the Harbour Porpoise Schedule 2 1990’s in areas of the Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine and Gulf of St. (Phocoena phocoena) Lawrence. A major source of mortality for Harbour Porpoises includes COSEWIC – Special by-catch from fishing gear (especially gillnets). Acoustic harassment Northwest Atlantic Concern population devices that are commonly used in aquaculture may also exclude (April 2006) Harbour Porpoises from their habitat. Notes: COSEWIC and SARA accessed February 2012, Date denotes last examination of species The Grand Banks has been identified as critical habitat for the many marine mammals, including those which as classified as at-risk. DFO has identified several key ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSAs) on the banks, of which the Northeast Shelf and Slope EBSA, Lilly Canyon – Carson Canyon EBSA, Virgin Rocks EBSA and Southeast Shoal EBSA are found within or near the Study Area. These EBSAs have been specifically identified as important feeding habitat for many cetacean and pinniped species (CPAWS 2009). At-risk marine mammals in the Grand Banks include the blue, North Atlantic right, fin, sei, humpback, killer, and northern bottlenose whales and harbour porpoise (CPAWS 2009). The Northeast Shelf and Slope EBSA has been identified as important feeding habitat for marine mammals, while Lily Canyon – Carson Canyon EBSA has been noted to have cetaceans and pinnipeds aggregate in the area throughout the year to feed and over-winter
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 131 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
(CPAWS 2009). Localized concentrations of food in the Southeast Shoal EBSA signify important feeding and aggregation habitat for marine mammals and it is estimated that 15 to 30% of the population of Northwest Atlantic humpback whales feed in the Southeast Shoal (CPAWS 2009). The North Atlantic right whale is also believed to use the Southeast Shoal (CPAWS 2009).
Blue Whale The blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) is found globally and occurs in most of the world’s oceans (COSEWIC 2002). The Atlantic population of blue whales frequent waters off eastern Canada. During spring, summer, and fall, these whales occur along the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off eastern Nova Scotia and in summer are also observed off the southern coast of Newfoundland and in the Davis Strait, between Baffin Island and Greenland (COSEWIC 2002; Beauchamp et al. 2009). The blue whale typically migrates south in winter, but some may remain in the St. Lawrence during years with little ice cover. Between 20 and 105 individuals are observed annually in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in photo identification studies, though the actual size of the Atlantic population is not known, it is unlikely that the number of mature animals in the population exceeds 250 individuals according to expert’s estimates (Beauchamp et al. 2009). Historically, commercial whaling carried out in the Atlantic reduced the population by about 70% (Beauchamp et al. 2009). Because of the small size of the population, activities affecting even a small number of individual whales can have a significant impact on the species’ survival in the Atlantic. Among the threats described in the recovery plan, those that represent a high risk include anthropogenic noise which causes a degraded underwater acoustic environment and alters behaviour, and food availability. Medium risk threats include persistent marine contaminants, collisions with ships and disturbance caused by whale- watching activities (Beauchamp et al. 2009). Sightings within the Study Area are limited to one blue whale being observed in April 1992. Most sightings are made in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and off the southwest and south coasts of Newfoundland. It should be noted, however that the distribution maps in the recovery strategy for the population, indicate an area of known occurrence on the east coast of Newfoundland, which overlaps with the Study Area (Sears and Calambokidis 2002 as cited in Beauchamp et al. 2009).
Fin Whale The fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) is found in all oceans of the world and generally makes seasonal migrations from low-latitude wintering areas to high-latitude summer feeding grounds. The locations of the wintering grounds are poorly known. Summer concentrations in the western North Atlantic are in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the Scotian Shelf, in the Bay of Fundy, and in the nearshore and offshore waters of Newfoundland and Labrador (COSEWIC 2005). Here, the species is generally associated with low surface temperatures and oceanic fronts with high concentrations of prey, and can be found from close inshore to well beyond the shelf break.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 132 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The defining characteristics of preferred breeding grounds for fin whales are less known (COSEWIC 2005). Efforts to estimate the size of the population have been confounded by the extensive range of this species and the potential confusion with sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis). The expense associated with large-scale surveys is a significant limiting factor, particularly in the more remote, offshore waters off Newfoundland and Labrador. During the summer of 2007, Lawson & Gosselin (2009) surveyed the waters of two regions: the Labrador Shelf and Grand Banks and, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Scotia Shelf during The Trans North American Sightings Survey (TNASS). Current abundance estimates are now updated and available for these two regions of the Atlantic Ocean (890 CV=24.5% and 462 CV=28.0%). The primary limiting factors and threats to the population include population depletion due to past whaling activities, entrapment in ice, collisions with shipping traffic, displacement from anthropogenic noise, pollution and climate change (COSEWIC 2005). Fin whales may occur within the Study Area year-round, but higher frequency of summer sightings of this species in nearshore areas suggests that fin whales are more likely to occur closer to the coast (COSEWIC 2005).
North Atlantic Right Whale The North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is a large (up to 17 m) whale, generally black in colour with occasional white belly patches and no dorsal fin (COSEWIC 2003). Right whales were once common in temperate waters of the Western Atlantic but were seriously depleted by whaling (COSEWIC 2003). In 2011, the population of right whales was estimated at about 322 animals (COSEWIC 2003), while more recent estimates suggest the current population numbers about 396 animals (SAR 2011). Since whaling ended, the most obvious threats to the current population are vessel strikes and entanglements in fixed fishing gear (Brown et al., 2009). The potential for Eubalaena glacialis to be present in the Study Area is very low. Sightings within the Study Area are limited. Only two right whales were observed within DFO’s data set (1961 to 2007), both occurring in June 2003. Distribution maps identify the Study Area as a “rare right whale sighting location”.
Harbour Porpoise On April 6 2006, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, pursuant to subsections 27(1.1) and (1.2) of the Species at Risk Act referred the assessment for the Northwest Atlantic population of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) back to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) for further information and consideration; rather than include in Schedule 1. For harbour porpoise, the assessment has combined three subpopulations of harbour porpoise although it is acknowledged that there is insufficient information to estimate the abundance of two of the subpopulations. COSEWIC was asked to review and respond as to whether appropriate and clear speciation and definition of designation units used for harbour porpoise,
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 133 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA whether there has been appropriate use of available abundance data and distributional information for harbour porpoise. Consultations on whether or not to list harbour porpoise (Northwest Atlantic population) under SARA were conducted in 2004 and 2005. DFO was to focus on a commitment to increase scientific research regarding these species, which will allow for tracking of the status of this species. Scientific research was to continue in the area of reduced gear entanglement. As well, the species will continue to be protected under the Marine Mammal Regulations of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit their harvest. While there remains some bycatch of harbour porpoise (Northwest Atlantic population), steps have been taken to reduce this catch through measures such as time and area closures. While bycatch of harbour porpoise exists in herring weir and groundfish gillnet fisheries, approximately 93% of these marine mammals that are captured in the Bay of Fundy herring weir fishery are released alive. Other future measures to conserve harbour porpoise could involve the use of acoustic deterrents or modified gear by the fishing industry.
5.4.7 Sea Turtles Both the Leatherback and Loggerhead sea turtles are considered a Species at Risk by SARA and/or COSEWIC. Table 5.18 provides their status and reason for designation from COSEWIC.
Table 5.18: Marine Turtle Species Found Within The Study Area Having SARA and/or COSEWIC Designations Species Risk Category Reason for Designation (COSEWIC) This species is declining globally and there are well documented, ongoing declines in the Northwest Atlantic population from which SARA – No Status juveniles routinely enter and forage in Atlantic Canadian waters. The Loggerhead COSEWIC – Canadian population is threatened directly by commercial fishing, (Caretta caretta) Endangered particularly bycatch in the pelagic longline fleet, and by loss and degradation of nesting beaches in the southeastern USA and the (April 2010) Caribbean. Other threats include bycatch from bottom and midwater trawls, dredging, gillnets, marine debris, chemical pollution and illegal harvest of eggs and nesting females. SARA – Endangered The leatherback seaturtle is undergoing a severe global decline (> Leatherback Schedule 1 70% in 15 years). In Canadian waters, incidental capture in fishing (Dermochelys COSEWIC – gear is a major cause of mortality. A long lifespan, very high rates of coriacea) Endangered egg and hatchling mortality, and a late age of maturity makes this species unusually vulnerable to even small increases in rates of (May 2001) mortality of adults and older juveniles. Notes: COSEWIC and SARA accessed February 2012, Date denotes last examination of species
Leatherback turtles complete extensive seasonal migrations northward to forage and southward to nest thereby having a distribution more widespread than any other marine turtle species (ALTRT 2006). The Southeast Shoal EBSA has been identified as a possible important feeding and aggregation habitat for the leatherback turtle (CPAWS 2009). In relation to the Study Area, the Southeast Shoal’s northern boundary is found near the Study Area’s southwestern boundary.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 134 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Leatherback Turtle Leatherback turtles complete extensive seasonal migrations northward to forage and southward to nest thereby having a distribution more widespread than any other marine turtle species (ALTRT 2006). Adult turtles occur annually in Atlantic Canadian waters to forage, with the majority of turtles present between June and November. Peak occurrences in Canadian waters occur during August-September but there are records for most months of the year (McAlpine et al. 2004 as cited in ALTRT 2006). Leatherbacks have been recorded off the coasts of Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, including within the Study Area (ALTRT 2006). Leatherbacks were designated endangered by COSEWIC, and Schedule 1 endangered by SARA in April 1981. A status re-examination and confirmation of the designation last occurred in May 2001 (ALTRT 2006).
5.4.7.1 Marine and Migratory Birds Ivory Gull The Ivory gull is the only Species at Risk bird that might be present within the Study Area. The gull was initially designated as special concern by COSEWIC in April 1979, and was re- examined and confirmed in April 1996 and in November 2001. In April 2006, the gull was reassessed and was unlisted to endangered (COSEWIC 2006). The gull a medium-sized, long- lived and rare species that is associated with polar pack ice at all times of year (Gilchrist and Mallory 2004), which is unusual for a gull species (Stenhouse 2004). The Ivory Gull is designated as endangered by both SARA and COSEWIC, and has a status of vulnerable by the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Endangered Species Act (2002). It is also protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) and Migratory Bird Regulations (COSEWIC 2006). It has a circumpolar breeding distribution and disperse south during winter, but remains along the edges of pack ice (Renaud and McLaren 1982). Currently, the Canadian breeding population is estimated at 500 to 600 individuals (COSEWIC 2006). Sightings of Ivory Gull are rare in the Study and Regional Areas in the winter. Table 5.19 summarizes this information.
Table 5.19: Marine & Migratory Species Found Within The Study Area Having SAR and/or COSEWIC Designations
Species Risk Category Reason for Designation (COSEWIC) This species is declining globally and there are well documented, ongoing declines in the Northwest Atlantic population from which SARA – Endangered juveniles routinely enter and forage in Atlantic Canadian waters. The Ivory gull COSEWIC – Canadian population is threatened directly by commercial fishing, (Pagophila Endangered particularly bycatch in the pelagic longline fleet, and by loss and eburnean) (April 2006) degradation of nesting beaches in the southeastern USA and the
NL Gov’t - Vulnerable Caribbean. Other threats include bycatch from bottom and midwater trawls, dredging, gillnets, marine debris, chemical pollution and illegal harvest of eggs and nesting females. Notes: COSEWIC and SARA accessed February 2012, Date denotes last examination of species
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 135 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.8 Sensitive Areas Potential sensitive areas are described in the following section and include descriptions of ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSAs) and the Bonavista Cod Box. It should be noted that the Oceans Act provides the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with a leadership role for coordinating the development and implementation of a federal network of MPAs, which can include areas within and outside of the Integrated Management (IM) area that have yet to be developed within the Region. Therefore, there remains potential for further identification of EBSAs, AOI, MPAs and other sensitive areas within the Study Area.
5.4.8.1 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area (EBSA) DFO (NL Region) identified 11 EBSAs within the Placentia Bay Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area (PBGB LOMA) as potential areas of interest (AOIs) for Marine Protected Area (MPA) designation (DFO 2007c). Such areas may require some level of protection, which may be achieved by implementing a Fisheries Act closure, a MPA, or perhaps may be addressed through some other avenues such as a National Marine Conservation Area, or a Marine Wildlife Area. As outlined by DFO, identifying EBSAs is not a general strategy for protecting all habitats and marine communities that have some ecological significance. Four EBSAs overlap the Study Area as shown in Figure 5.52 The northern extent of the Southeast Shoal and Tail end of the Banks EBSA (area east of 51°W and south of 45°N, extending to the edge of Grand Bank) connects with the Study Area’s southwestern boundary. The Northeast Shelf and Slope EBSA overlaps the south-central end of the Study Area and includes an edge of the Shelf and Slope (northeastern Grand Bank, starting at the Nose of the Bank, from 48ºW to 50 ºW, and from the edge of the shelf to the 1000 m isobath). The Lily Canyon-Carson EBSA (area from 44.8ºN to 45.6ºN along the 200 m isobath of the southeast slope of Grand Bank) is within the Study Areas southwestern extent. The Virgin Rocks EBSA (from 46ºN to 46.8ºN and from 50ºW to 51ºW) is at the southern end. For the exception of the SE Shoal EBSA which has an overall ‘high priority’ rating, the other EBSAs have an overall ‘low priority’ rating relative to other EBSAs within the PBGB LOMA. Aspects of these EBSA’s, relative to other areas within the same LOMA, considered during its assessment include the following (DFO 2007c): Uniqueness (rarity) – the EBSA may be deemed significant to some species, based on function, but has no apparent uniqueness otherwise; Aggregation (density/concentration) – (1) the greatest proportion of spotted wolffish are aggregated in this EBSA in the spring; and (2) the highest concentration of Greenland halibut is aggregated in this EBSA in the spring; Fitness Consequences (importance to reproduction/survival) – (1) important to the short- and long-term sustainability of the spotted wolfish; and (2) potentially important feeding area for marine mammals; and Sensitivity (resilience to disturbance) – not particularly sensitive compared to other slope areas in the region.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 136 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The common conservation objectives for the PBGA LOMA identified within the Study Area is to ensure that the features listed below are not altered and/or disrupted by human activities to the point they can no longer be considered a unique feature and/or fulfill the ecological function that initially triggered their identification as significant in the area (DFO 2007c). Table 5.20 identifies specific measures for conservation, depleted species, and top 10 Trophic and Structural Ecologically Significant Species (ESSs).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 137 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.52: Locations of the PBGB LOMA EBSAs and Bonavista Cod Box relative to the Study Area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 138 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 5.20: Conservation Measures, Depleted Species, and Top 10 Trophic and Structural Ecologically Significant Species (ESSs) Identified Top 10 Identified Features for Identified Depleted EBSA Trophic and Conservation Species ESS’s o Are of highest overall benthic o Atlantic cod o Atlantic cod biomass on the Grand Banks o American Plaice o Capelin (3NO) o Unique offshore capelin spawning o Capelin (3NO) o Seabirds o Unique yellowtail nursery o Leatherback sea o Benthos o Unique shallow, sandy habitat with turtle glacial history Southeast Shoal and Tail o Cetacean aggregation and feeding end of the Grand Banks o Seabird aggregation and feeding o American plaice (nursery habitat) o Atlantic cod spawning o Reproduction and survival of striped wolfish o Unique relict populations of blue mussels and wedge clams o Spotted wolfish and Greenland o Northern wolfish o Harp seals halibut aggregations o Spotted wolfish o Cetacean aggregation at Sackville Spur (esp. pilot whale) Northeast Shelf and Slope o Pinniped (harp and hooded) aggregation at Sackville Spur o Coral concentrations north of Tobin’s Point and Funk Island Spur o Iceland scallop concentration o None o Corals o Reproduction and survival of Iceland o Harp Seals scallops Lilly Canyon-Carson Cetacean aggregation and Canyon o refuge/overwintering o Pinniped aggregation and refuge/overwintering o Unique geological feature/habitat o Atlantic cod o Atlantic cod o Atlantic cod spawning o American Plaice o American plaice spawning Virgin Rocks o Yellowtail flounder spawning o Congregation for capelin o Seabird feeding o Common eider overwintering Source: DFO 2007c
5.4.8.2 Southeast Shoal and Tail The Southeast Shoal and Tail have been identified by DFO as one of the top three priority EBSAs in the PBGB LOMA (CPAWS 2009). It is located in the Grand Banks ecoregion of Park’s Canada’s National Marine Conservation Areas System. Shipping, fishing and oil production (with respect to bird interaction from spills) has been identified as threats to marine ecosystems in this EBSA (CPAWS 2009). The Study Area is adjacent to this EBSA.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 139 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.8.3 Lilly and Carson Canyons These canyons are located in the Grand Banks ecoregion of Park’s Canada’s National Marine Conservation Areas System. The main perceived threat is to seabirds from oil spills from the production platforms (CPAWS 2009). The Study Area boundary overlays half of this EBSA.
5.4.8.4 Northeast Shelf and Slope The Northeast Shelf and Slope DFO’s EBSA is located in the Grand Banks ecoregion of Park’s Canada’s National Marine Conservation Areas System. It is a potential Area of Interest and a potential candidate for Marine Protected Area designation. However, it is considered eighth in priority rating relative to other 11 EBSAs within the PBGB LOMA (DFO 2007). Threats to this EBSA originates from intensive commercial fishing (CPAWS 2009).
5.4.8.5 Virgin Rocks Virgin Rocks is located in the Grand Banks ecoregion of Park’s Canada’s National Marine Conservation Areas System. Threats to this area is primarily from commercial fishing. CPAWS also has concern regarding oil production and potential spills effects on the seabird population. The Study Area occurs over half of this EBSA.
5.4.8.6 Bonavista Cod Box In March 2003, as protection for the northern cod, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) recommended the establishment of an experimental ‘cod box’ in the Bonavista Corridor. The Corridor has been identified as an area important for cod spawning and juvenile cod. The FRCC recommended that this area be protected from all forms of commercial fishery (excluding snow crab trapping) and other invasive activity such as seismic exploration (see www.frcc.ccrh.ca). In April 2003, DFO announced that special conservation measures were required for the Bonavista Corridor, including the Bonavista Cod Box. Figure 5.52 shows that the Bonavista Cod Box is within the Study Area.
5.4.8.7 Corals and Sponges Corals and sponges form complex, three-dimensional biogenic structures that provide habitat for many species and influence the occurrence and/or abundance of associated fish and invertebrate species and serve several functions in marine ecosystems (DFO 2010a). Activities associated with the exploration for, and the development and production of, offshore petroleum resources have the potential to affect corals and sponges (Campbell and Simms. 2009). Physical damage or dislodgement of organisms and hard substrate, and/or crushing of corals and sponges can result from: anchoring and/or mooring of floating vessels; seabed placement of drilling units and production facilities; and production pipelines (DFO 2008a in Campbell et at. 2009). Given the nature of seismic surveys, survey equipment is not expected to come in contact with the seafloor and deep-water corals and sponges. In 2008 and 2009, the NAFO Scientific Council identified several areas of significant coral and sponge concentrations within the NAFO Regulatory Area. Based on these identifications, areas for closure to fishing with bottom contact gear were delineated. Figure 5.53 shows the locations
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 140 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA of 11 of these areas that occur either within or close to the Study Area. Implementation date of the closures started on January 1, 2010 and will remain in place until December 31, 2012 (NAFO 2011). Four areas in the vicinity of the Flemish Cap, and all within the Study Area, emerged as key locations where significant concentrations of corals occur (Campbell and Simms 2009). Buffer zones were delineated for added protection for these coral concentrations.
Figure 5.53: NAFO Divisions and Coral/Sponge Closure Areas relative to the Study Area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 141 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.4.8.8 NAFO Fishing Closures Beyond the fishing closures identified above, several fishing bans occur in NAFO Regions within the Study Area. These areas are in the southern extent of the Study Area and include the following: Cod in Divisions 3LNO Redfish in Divisions 3LN American plaice in Divisions 3LNOM Witch flounder in Divisions 3LNO Capelin in Divisions 3NO Shrimp in Divisions 3NO
In addition, five seamount areas have been identified as a Valuable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) (Figure 5.54). The Orphan Knoll, Newfoundland Seamounts, Corner Seamounts, New England Seamounts were first identified in a response to the 2004 request by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) for states and regional fisheries organizations to address significant adverse impacts of fishing on VMEs (Campbell and Simms 2009). On January 1, 2009, seamount mitigative measures were extended to include the Fogo Seamounts off Newfoundland (NAFO 2008a in Campbell and Simms 2009). Of the five identified seamounts, the Orphan Knoll seamount exists in the Study Area. As of January 1, 2007, and until December 31, 2014, the seamounts shall be closed to all bottom fishing activities (NAFO 2011). Since January 1, 2008, 20% of the fishable area of each seamount has remained open to small scale and restricted exploratory fisheries to gather data for NAFO scientists (Campbell and Simms 2009). Given the nature of seismic surveys, survey equipment and procedures are not expected to further increase stress on these fish species or the seamounts.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 142 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.54: NAFO Seamount Closure Areas relative to the Study Area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 143 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.5 Ocean Resource Users
5.5.1 Commercial Fisheries
5.5.1.1 Study Area Domestic Fisheries This section provides data and maps for the 2005 to 2010 DFO ZIF database that are georeferenced by latitude and longitude and are categorized by NAFO Unit Area (UA) designation. Georeferencing provides mapping of harvesting locations. It is important to note that the geographic data associated with the catch do not necessarily represent the location of catch, but may represent an average location, a start point or an end point. Also, not all data are linked to geographic coordinates. However, this database does provide a reliable representation of the commercial fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador. DFO maintains two main databases on fishery success: catch-and-effort and landing systems. Similar data are maintained for all species in similar ways, regardless of management regimes. All catch-and effort statistics are grouped by NAFO divisions and unit areas. The locations are not weighted by quantity of harvest but show fishing effort. The Study Area lies within portions of five NAFO Unit Areas: 3K, 3L, 3M, 3N, and 2J (Figure 5.55). The catch data used to characterize the fisheries in this section are quantities of harvest rather than harvest values since quantities are directly comparable from year to year, while values (for the same quantity of harvest) may vary annually with negotiated prices, changes in exchange rates and fluctuating market conditions. Although some species vary greatly in landed value (e.g. snow crab vs. cod), in terms of potential interaction with fisheries the level of fishing effort and gear utilized (better represented by quantities of harvest) is the better indicator.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 144 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.55: NAFO Unit Areas
The following Table 5.21 shows the annual Canadian-landed harvest by species, 2005 to 2010, from within the Study Area in May to November period, based on the georeferenced DFO datasets. As the data show, the domestic harvest in the Study Area has been dominated by northern shrimp at 63.3% of the catch averaged of the period, and snow crab at 26.3% of the
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 145 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
catch throughout this period. Greenland halibut (turbot) is another key fisheries in the Study Area but at much lower landings by weight at 6.1%.
Table 5.21: Annual Study Area Harvest (t), by Species, May to November, 2005-2010 % Total in Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total Study Area Pandalus Borealis Shrimp 32970 36991 27813 28070 19303 14130 159278 63.3% Queen-Snow Crab 12792 11828 11136 10947 8011 11403 66117 26.3% Turbot-Greenland Flounder 2581 2193 1910 1759 3934 3029 15406 6.1% Yellowtail Flounder 1952 0 11 1977 488 1076 5504 2.2% Cockles 971 45 350 0 18 106 1490 0.6% Stimpsons Surf Clams 726 16 67 0 4 19 831 0.3% American Plaice 296 7 4 238 71 184 799 0.3% Redfish 51 144 17 11 33 162 416 0.2% Icelandic Scallops 27 284 0 0 0 0 312 0.1% Roughhead Grenadier 116 64 28 3 11 31 253 0.1% Mackerel 0 153 0 0 27 14 195 0.1% Greysole-Witch Flounder 8 16 6 0 43 94 166 0.1% Cod 7 5 31 34 13 16 106 0.0% Skate 16 15 2 2 1 4 41 0.0% Herring 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 0.0% Stimpsons Clams 23 0 2 0 1 2 29 0.0% Swordfish 10 0 8 0 0 0 18 0.0% Capelin 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 0.0% Propellor Clams 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0.0% Bigeye Tuna 7 0 2 0 0 0 9 0.0% Atlantic Halibut 1 0 1 2 0 0 6 0.0% Albacore Tuna 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.0% Mako Shark 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0% Roundnose Grenadier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% White Hake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% White Marlin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Mahi Mahi (Dolphinfish) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Yellowfin Tuna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
The following graph indicates the changes in the total catch recorded annually within the Study Area for the 2005 to 2010 period (Figure 5.56). The total quantity of the harvest has decreased about 10,000 tonnes every two years, from over 50,000 tonnes in 2005 to about 30,000 tonnes in 2010, primarily due to the reduced shrimp catches.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 146 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.56: Study Area Harvest by Year, 2005 – 2010, All Species, May-Nov
5.5.1.2 Harvesting Locations The following map shows DFO dataset fishing locations in relation to the Study Area for the period May to November, for 2005 to 2010. Much of the effort is focused along the shelf break (Figure 5.57).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 147 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.57: All Species Harvesting Locations, May to November, 2005 – 2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 148 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figures in the following sections map the annual harvest for the key species using aggregated (2005 – 2010) harvesting locations for these species. As Figure 5.58 to 5.60 illustrate, most of the domestic fish harvesting in the general area is concentrated along distinct areas: the shelf break for shellfish and halibut. The harvesting locations tend to be quite consistent from year to year.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 149 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.58: Harvesting Locations Shrimp, May-Nov, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 150 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.59: Harvesting Locations Snow Crab, May-Nov, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 151 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.60: Harvesting Locations Turbot, May-Nov, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 152 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.5.1.3 Harvest Season The times that commercial species are harvested may change, depending on seasons and regulations set by DFO, the harvesting strategies of fishers, or on the availability of the resource itself. The following graph shows the 2005 to 2010 catch by month for all species. As the graph indicates, May through to September were the most productive months over the year (between 2005 and 2010). May accounts for 14% of the catch, June for 20%, July for 22%, August for 18% and September for 7%, averaged (Figure 5.61). This catch seasonality is dominated by the shrimp fishery.
Figure 5.61: Harvest by Month, All Species, 2005-2010
The following maps show the monthly reported domestic harvesting locations for key species for May to November 2005 to 2010 (Figures 5.62 to 5.68).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 153 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.62: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, May, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 154 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.63: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, June, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 155 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.64: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, July, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 156 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.65: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, August, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 157 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.66: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, September, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 158 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.67: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, October, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 159 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.68: Harvest of shrimp, snow crab and turbot, November, 2005-2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 160 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.5.1.4 Key Fisheries As noted above, the domestic harvest within the Study Area is two thirds, northern shrimp and one third, snow crab, with a minor component of Greenland halibut / turbot. Together, these three species have typically made up about 96% of the Study Area harvest in recent years. This section describes these three fisheries in more detail. Location and changes in landings for the primary fish species caught in the Study Area are described in this section.
Northern Shrimp The inshore fishery normally operates from the spring to fall. The offshore vessels harvest all year in the Atlantic. Canada’s shrimp harvesters employ otter trawls with a minimum mesh size of 40 mm. Northern shrimp is the most significant species harvested within the Study Area in terms of quantity accounting for 63.3% of the total harvest between May and November between 2005 and 2010. The following graph in Figure 5.69 shows the northern shrimp harvest by month from the Study Area, for the period 2005 to 2010.
Figure 5.69: Monthly northern shrimp harvesting from 2005 to 2010 (combined)
The Study Area overlaps with parts of Shrimp Fishing Areas (SFAs) 6 and 7 (Figure 5.70). SFA 7 within 3L and 3M are managed through NAFO, while SFA 6 (consisting of Division 3K plus the Hawke Channel portion of 2J) is managed by Canada’s DFO.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 161 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.70: Northern shrimp fishing areas
The decrease in overall TAC quota in 2010 is attributed to the reduction from 85,725 t down to 61,632 t in SFA6 in the 2010/11 management period due to operational and market conditions (Table 5.22). The TAC quota was not taken in 2008 or 2009 (DFO 2011). The TAC quotas have remained relatively consistent with minor increases in 2008/2009 to 2009/2010 management years. However, concerns for overfishing have reduced the quotas in the last two years
Table 5.22: Annual total Allowable Catch (t) Quote for Northern Shrimp, 2005-2012
SFA 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 7 10,833 10,833 18,315 20,824 24,990 24,990 15,991 10,000 6 77,932 77,932 77,932 79,932 85,725 85,725 61,632 52,387
The following graph shows the quantity of the northern shrimp harvest taken from the Study Area over the past six years (Figure 5.71). The increase has been largely the result of increasing quotas. However, because of increasing science concerns about the status of the
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 162 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA resource, catch allowances have been cut in all three areas since 2009/10 so this trend is expected to change, potentially for the next several years. As discussed above, the overall quota for SFA 7 has been reduced by almost a third for 2012 to 10,000t. The 2011 quota for SFA 7 is 15,991 t. The TAC in Division 3L for 2011 was set by NAFO at 19,200 t, down from 30,000 t in 2010. All shrimp fishing in 3M has been banned.
Figure 5.71: Annual landings of northern shrimp in the Study Area, 2005-2010
Snow Crab Snow crab is of high importance in the Study Area’s fisheries, averaging 11,019 tonnes from May to November, between 2005 and 2010; accounting for about 26.3% of the total harvest. Figure 5.72 shows the regulatory fishing areas for snow crab. The Study Area overlaps with portions of Crab Fishing Areas (CFA) 3Lex (from 170 miles to 200 miles from shore), 3N, MSex (midshore extended), 4 (offshore 3K), 8B (southern Avalon) and 3L200 (beyond 200 nautical miles).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 163 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.72: Snow crab management areas
The resource is assessed separately for offshore and inshore areas of each division, where appropriate (Div. 3KLPs4R; there is no distinction between inshore and offshore areas in Div. 2HJ. Division 3LNO is assessed as a unit because the offshore fishery is managed at that spatial scale; and data for Division 3NO, an entirely offshore area, are inadequate to assess those divisions separately. More data are available in most divisions for offshore than for inshore areas. The season is defined each year but typically runs in 2J south from May 1 to July 15; in 3K from April to end of June or mid July, depending on the DFO subunit, and in 3LN from April 4 to July 31 (Figure 5.73). The fishery may extend into August to fill the quota. Because the fishery uses fixed gear (crab pots), the fishery poses a potential for seismic / fishing gear conflicts in those areas where the two marine activities might overlap. The Study Area overlaps with portions of snow crab fishing areas in 2J, 3L, 3N and 3K.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 164 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.73: Monthly harvest of snow crab in the Study Area, 2005-2010 combined
The most recent DFO snow crab science advisory report (DFO 2010/020) notes that “ landings in Div. 2H declined by 53% from 190 t in 2007 to 90 t in 2009, the effect of removal in 2010 is unknown. In Div 2J landings increased by 60% from 2005-2008 and unchanged in 2009 but effort increased by 27%. In Div 3K offshore, landings decreased to 6,000 t in 2005, but doubled to 13,000 t in 2009. Landings returned to pre-2005 levels. Table 5.23 shows the TAC quota for snow crab in the Study Area NAFO divisions.
Table 5.23: TAC (mt) Quota for Snow Crab Between 2005 and 2012
NAFO 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2J 1,425 1,425 1,570 2,466 2,446 2,227 2,197 1,952 3K 12,860 10,430 11,750 15,075 16,475 14,440 12,053 9,438 3LNO 29,748 29,798 29,808 31,181 28,979 32,284 33,222 33,908
This is the second consecutive year that the Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab quota has been cut. The overall TAC increased from 54,110 metric tons in 2009 to 56,087 metric tons in 2010. Previously, it was set at 54,338 metric tons in 2008 and 47,663 metric tons in 2007. The following graph (Figure 5.74) shows snow crab landings in the Study Area.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 165 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.74: Annual harvest of snow crab in the Study Area, May to November, 2005-2010
Greenland Halibut/Turbot
Greenland halibut (often called turbot) represents about 6% of the Study Area catch by quantity, an average of just over 3,081 mt between May and November between 2005 and 2010. Most (about 99%) of this harvest in the Study Area is taken using fixed gear gillnets. Figure 5.75 shows the monthly harvest in the Study Area over the year (2005-2010 data combined).
Figure 5.75: Monthly harvest of snow crab in the Study Area, 2005-2010 combined
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 166 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
NAFO manages Greenland halibut in subarea 2 and Divisions 3KLMNO. Table 5.24 provided the quotas for 2006 to 2012 in the Study Area. The quotas for 2 and 3K are combined by NAFO.
Table 5.24: NAFO Quota (mt) in Turbot Management Areas 2+3K and 3LMNO
NAFO Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2+3K 4,990 4,018 4,657 4,011 2,199 4,203 4,203 3LMNO 1778 1778 1778 1778 1341 1910 1814 Sources: http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapports/Halibut_Turbot_2007_eng.htm. http://www.nafo.int/about/media/press/quota10.pdf.
Figure 5.76 shows the annual landings of Greenland halibut between 2005 and 2010, and an almost doubling of catch in 2009 compared to previous years.
Figure 5.76: Annual harvest of Greenland halibut in the Study Area, May - November
DFO RV and Joint Industry Surveys The DFO multispecies bottom trawl surveys or in the spring in 3LNOPS (April to July) and in the fall in 2HJ3KLMNO (September/October to December). Primarily, these surveys are used as fisheries independent tools to estimate stock abundance (the magnitude of the marine populations) and recruitment (the abundance of juveniles) over time for a number of fish and invertebrate species. This information is then used along with fisheries catch data to assess the status of commercial species. An annual survey review document is produced to summarize the results of the survey and is provided to Fisheries Management to assist them in deciding which stocks require a more complete assessment.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 167 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Industry-DFO Collaborative Post-season Trap Surveys for Snow Crab in the fall (Division 2HJ3KLNO) bottom trawl surveys provide data that are used to predict changes in biomass and recruitment for the upcoming fishery in the following year (Division 2HJ3KLNO). The sampling locations are depicted in Figure 5.77 and occur within the Survey Area. These surveys, based on a stratified random sampling scheme, provide an index of the exploitable biomass (older- shelled adults of legal size) that is expected to be available for the upcoming fishery. This index, based on offshore survey strata, is used together with an exploitable biomass index (all legal-sized crabs) from the CPS trap survey in offshore areas to evaluate trends in the exploitable biomass. The inshore CPS trap survey exploitable biomass index is compared with commercial CPUE and catch rates from inshore DFO trap surveys, where available (Division 3KL).
Figure 5.77: Post-season snow crab trap survey stations (Source FFAW website)
The inshore sentinel survey is a fisheries science program in which inshore fish harvesters work in collaboration with DFO Scientists to collect data on cod. The survey takes place of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Since 1995, and containing to the present, fish harvesters from around the province (3Pn, 4R and 2J3KL, 3Ps) have been participating in the cod sentinel surveys. Fish harvesters fish under systematic, well-defined and rigorous scientific protocols. The primary objective of the program is to gather information on stock abundance trends, but information is also collected that contributes to the study of the distribution, migration, condition and age of fish.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 168 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
5.5.2 Marine Traffic
5.5.2.1 Commercial Marine Traffic The Study Area lies amongst the Great Circle Routes for Canada and Europe, and North America and Europe (Figure 5.78). The port of St. John’s is heavily utilized in the former of these two routes. The heaviest extent of commercial marine traffic occurs along the southwest coast of Newfoundland, mainly through Port Aux Basques and through the entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These heavily utilized areas are well southwest of the Study Area (Figure 5.79). Local commercial ship traffic includes Oceanex cargo shipping from St. John’s to Montreal and between Corner Brook and St. John’s. Overall, the expected density of commercial traffic in the southern extent of the Study Area is light to moderate, and light to very light in the northern extent.
Figure 5.78: Major shipping routes: great circle routes (Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada – ECAREG (2007d))
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 169 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.79: Major Shipping Routes: Traffic Density (Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada – ECAREG (2007d)) Commercial cruise lines increasingly frequent ports such as Newfoundland and Labrador, Corner Brook, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Charlottetown, and Prince Edward Island also have the potential to transit through the Study Area. There is also potential for oil tanker traffic destined for central Canada refineries transiting through the Study Area. Fishing vessels will be the most common vessel within the Study Area.
5.5.3 Submarine Cables The submarine cable industry has been around for approximately 150 years. In that time, many cables have been laid on the sea floor – there are copper telegraph cables, telephone and now fiber-optic cables. The Canadian Hydrographic Service, in conjunction with International Telecom has attempted to inventory and compile information about these cables and pipelines into a coherent picture for the East Coast of Canada. Submarine cables of the East Coast of Canada are presented in Figure 5.80. Several abandoned submarine cables are within the Study Area boundaries. Currently, the only active submarine cables in the vicinity of the Study Area are found in deep water off the south and southeast portion of the Grand Bank. Hibernia Atlantic operates a modern fiber-optic cable that runs from the UK and Ireland to the United States, and Teleglobe Canada operates a cable that runs from Pennant Point, Nova Scotia to Iceland (pers. comm. Andrew Smith, Canadian Hydrographic Service in DFO 2007d). Given that there is no bottom-founded activity associated with seismic surveying and the proximity to active cables, the Project will neither impact cable operations, or be impacted by
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 170 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA submarine cables. There are no new cables to be installed between 2012 and 2017 in the Study Area, therefore this interaction is not considered further.
Figure 5.80: Submarine Cables (Source: DFO 2007d)
5.5.4 Military Ocean Disposal The Warfare Agent Disposal (WAD) project was initiated by the Department of National Defence (DND) in the early 1990s to address the ocean dumping and burial of weapons and chemicals that occurred after the Second World War (DND 2005 in DFO 2007d). DND stated “the main objective of the WAD project is to identify and assess all warfare agent disposal sites across Canada and in Canadian waters and to prioritize these sites according to the risks they may pose to human health and the environment.” Figure 5.81 presents the location of a potential warfare location site. In relation to the Study Area, this site lies in the southwestern extent.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 171 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.81: Potential warfare agent disposal site (Source: DFO 2007d)
Given that there is no bottom founded activity associated with seismic surveying there is no interaction with the potential WAD site and this interaction is not considered further.
5.5.5 Petroleum Industry During the Project’s six year (2012-2017) operating season of May 1 through November 30, other exploration drilling and seismic surveys are currently underway or are subject to C-NLOPB approval (Figure 5.82). Described below are project descriptions, and temporal and spatial boundaries associated with each undertaking.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 172 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 5.82: Study areas of proposed / current projects within the MKI Study Area
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 173 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
WesternGeco Canada WesternGeco Canada (WesternGeco), a division of Schlumberger Canada Limited, is proposing to conduct 2D and/or 3D seismic surveys offshore Newfoundland in the region known as Jeanne d’Arc Basin (EA source: LGL 2011c). The official name of the project is the Jeanne d’Arc Basin Seismic Program 2012 – 2015. The operator is proposing to conduct one or more seismic programs between May 1 and November 30, from 2012 - 2015, starting as early as May 2012, anywhere within its proposed project area. The duration of a seismic survey is estimated at 40 to >150 days in a given year. In 2012, the seismic survey is anticipated to require at least 60-150 days. The coordinates of the extents of the study area are as follow: North: 49.850°N; East: 45.196°W; South: 45.579°N; and West: 49.748°W.
Husky Energy Husky Energy is proposing to conduct seismic surveys offshore Newfoundland in the region of the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass. Husky may conduct 2-D, 3-D or 4-D seismic surveys, well site geohazard surveys, and vertical seismic profiling (VSP) surveys in one or more years within a 2012-2020 timeframe. The official name of the project is the Jeanne d’Arc Basin/Flemish Pass Regional Seismic Program, 2012-2020 (EA source: LGL 2011d). In 2012, the operator is proposing to conduct one or more 2-D and/or 3D seismic surveys during the late- winter through fall months, starting as early as 1 March and concluding as late as 30 November. Any potential seismic surveys conducted during subsequent seasons in 2013-2020 will also occur during the same temporal window of 1 March to 30 November. Husky is also planning to conduct at least three well site geohazard surveys, with the possibility of two to four more between 1 March and 30 November, 2012. Any potential geohazard surveys conducted during subsequent seasons in 2013-2020 will also occur during the same temporal window of 1 March to 30 November. VSP surveys may potentially be conducted year-round, 2012-2020. There is also the possibility that Husky will conduct a 4-D survey during 2012, or sometime during the period 2013 to 2020. The duration of the 2012 seismic surveying will be 20 to 60 days of data acquisition. The total duration of geohazard surveying in 2012 will range from about 21 to 49 days, depending on the number of blocks surveyed.
Statoil Canada Ltd. Statoil ASA through its subsidiary Statoil Canada Ltd. proposed to undertake geophysical survey programs including seismic, electromagnetic, and localized geohazard surveys in the Jeanne d’Arc and Flemish Pass basins from 2011 through 2019. Statoil is carrying out 3D, 2D profiles including geohazard and electromagnetic surveys, for the duration of the project. The official name of the project is the Statoil Canada Ltd. Geophysical Program for the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Central Ridge/Flemish Pass Basin, 2011-2019 (EA source: LGL 2011b). Generally located on the northeastern Grand Banks and off the Banks to the northeast, seismic surveys could be conducted on any current or future land holdings Statoil may acquire in this area from
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 174 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
2011 through 2019. Seismic surveys will occur between 1 April and 31 October of any given year. The typical duration of a 2D or 3D survey, depending on the area to be surveyed could vary from 40 to >100 days within that temporal scope. The duration of a geohazard survey in support of a drilling program is about four to five days and could occur over a 9 to 11 day period including transit and weather down time. The coordinates of the project area (latitude and longitude in decimal degrees, NAD83) starting in the SW corner, proceeding in a clockwise direction, are as follows: Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)
1 46.0000000 -49.5000000 2 48.0000000 -49.5000000 3 48.0000000 -47.2488764 4 48.9998187 -47.2488646 5 48.9998138 -46.8738558 6 49.5000000 -46.8738484 7 49.5000000 -45.7500000 8 47.5000000 -45.7500000 9 47.5000000 -47.0000000 10 46.0000000 -47.0000000
Statoil Canada Ltd. StatoilHydro Canada Ltd (StatoilHydro) and partners proposed to undertake a program of exploration and appraisal/delineation well drilling at various locations in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Flemish Pass area over the period of 2008 through 2016. The official name of the project is the StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Exploration and Appraisal/Delineation Drilling Program for Offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016 (EA source: LGL 2008b). During this time StatoilHydro plans to evaluate up to 27 oil and gas targets with a combination of vertical/slightly deviated and deviated (twin) wells in the project area, including as many as nine targets in the Flemish Pass Basin. It is generally located on the northeastern Grand Banks and in deeper waters immediately to the east. Exploration and/or appraisal/delineation wells could be drilled on any current or future StatoilHydro land holdings in this area from 2008 through 2016. The corner coordinates of the project area are:
49°N, 49.5°W; 49°N, 45.5°W; 46°N, 45.5°W; and 46°N, 49.5°W.
Chevron Canada Ltd Chevron Canada Ltd. (CCL) proposed to conduct 2-D and/or 3-D seismic surveys and geohazard surveys from 2012 to 2017, with operations occurring between May and November in any given year. The official name of the project is the North Grand Banks Regional Seismic Program, 2011–2017 (EA source: LGL 2011a). It is currently uncertain how many and in which
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 175 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA years CCL will undertake seismic and geohazard surveys in the north Grand Banks region during 2012 to 2017, as future surveys will depend on results of the initial surveys and other factors. The geographic scope of the project extends from the northern Grand Banks to the Orphan Knoll. From 2012 to 2017, it is estimated that seismic surveys may occur for 30 to 120 days and that geohazard survey data may be collected during a two-week period.
Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd. Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd. (HMDC), and the associated offshore land licence owners continue to develop the Hibernia Project through the Hibernia Drill Centre(s) Construction and Operations Program (EA Source: Jacques Whitford 2009). The six subsea developments and associated glory holes may be located at any point within Production Licence Areas (PLs) 1001 and 1005, Exploration Licence Areas (ELs) 1092 and 1093, and Significant Discovery Licence Areas (SDLs) 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005 and 1041 at any point in time over the life of the field which could be extended as new reserves. Subsea Equipment Installation is expected to commence in the summer of 2012 and be completed in the fall of the same year. Drilling is expected to commence between summer 2012 and fall 2014. Production operations are expected to commence in the fall of 2012 and has a current depletion estimate in 2036. The Hibernia platform is located approximately 315 km east- southeast of St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, near the northeast corner of the Grand Banks in approximately 80 m of water. It is located approximately 35 km northwest of the Terra Nova oilfield and approximately 50 km west-northwest of the White Rose oilfield.
Exxon Mobil Canada Properties – Hebron Project The Hebron Field is located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin (centered at approximately 46º33'N, 48º30'W), 340 kilometres (km) offshore of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately 9 km north of the Terra Nova Field, 32 km southeast of the Hibernia development and 46 km from the White Rose project. The water depth ranges from 88 to 102 metres. The Hebron Unit contains three discovered fields: the Hebron Field; the West Ben Nevis Field; and the Ben Nevis Field. The Hebron Project development schedule is set to achieve first oil from the Hebron Project area before the end of 2017. The Hebron field will be developed using a stand-alone concrete gravity-base system. The Hebron Unit currently contains three discovered fields (the Hebron Field; the West Ben Nevis Field and the Ben Nevis Field) and incorporates four Significant Discovery Licenses (SDLs) (SDL 1006, SDL 1007, SDL 1009 and SDL 1010) with ownership varying in each SDL.
Chevron Canada Ltd Chevron Canada Ltd. (CCL) proposed to conduct 2-D and/or 3-D seismic surveys and geohazard surveys from 2012 to 2017, with operations occurring between May and November in any given year. The official name of the project is the North Grand Banks Regional Seismic Program, 2011–2017 (EA source: LGL 2011a). It is currently uncertain how many and in which years CCL will undertake seismic and geohazard surveys in the north Grand Banks region during 2012 to 2017, as future surveys will depend on results of the initial surveys and other
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 176 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA factors. The geographic scope of the project extends from the northern Grand Banks to the Orphan Knoll. From 2012 to 2017, it is estimated that seismic surveys may occur for 30 to 120 days and that geohazard survey data may be collected during a two-week period.
Husky Energy Husky Oil Operations Limited proposed to undertake a program of exploration and delineation well drilling at various locations in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin area over nine years (2008 to 2017). The official name of the project is the Husky Exploration and Delineation Drilling Program for the Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area, 2008-2017 (EA source: LGL 2007). The purpose of the project is to explore likely oil and gas targets identified from interpretation of seismic survey data and to conduct any delineation drilling with respect to currently known oil and gas resources or those that may arise from exploration drilling. The area in and around the Jeanne d’Arc Basin to be explored is approximately 260 km east of St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador and encompasses water depths from 80 to 230 metres. The dimensions of the project area are 200 km west to east and 230 km north to south. Drilling operations were scheduled to commence in 2008 and will continue through 2017 depending on the maturity of the drilling proposals, drill rig availability and regulatory approval. Approximately 18 single vertical and/or dual side-track wells are contemplated over the period 2008 to 2017. Drilling operations commenced in early 2008. Each well will require approximately 40 days to be drilled. Testing, if conducted, can be expected to take about 20 days per well. In general, the scheduling window for drilling will be year round for semi-submersible MODUs and drillships, and from July to December for jack-up rigs when ice will not hinder their operations. All completed wells will either be suspended or abandoned. In 2011, Husky Energy proposed the construction of up to five glory holes during a construction phase that will continue through 2015. Construction will also include installation or drilling templates and other subsea equipment in the glory holes to support eventual production operations. In addition, subsea flow lines will also be installed to connect new glory holes with existing ones that connect to the SeaRose FPSO.
Petro Canada Petro-Canada, proposed to undertake a program of exploration well drilling at various locations in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin over the period of 2009 through 2017. The official name of the project is the Petro-Canada Jeanne d’Arc Basin Exploration Drilling Program, 2009-2017 (EA source: LGL 2008). It is anticipated that a maximum of 18 single and/or dual side-track wells could be drilled during the nine-year period. The purpose of this project is to drill likely oil and gas targets identified from interpretation of existing and new seismic survey data. The project area is generally located on the northeastern Grand Banks and in deeper waters immediately to the east of Hibernia. The corner coordinates of the project area are: 48°N 49.5°W; 48°N, 47°W; 46°N, 47°W; and 46°N, 49.5°W.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 177 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The western boundary of the area to be explored is approximately 250 km east of St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador and encompasses water depths ranging from <100 m to 1,000 to 2,000 m. The approximate dimensions of the project area are 200 km east to west and 240 km north to south. The project area is defined to include four Exploration Licences (ELs), forty-three Significant Discovery Licences (SDLs), and eight Production Licences (PLs) in which Petro- Canada holds interest. The most likely first drilling prospect, perhaps in 2009, is EL 1092 which is located east- northeast of Hibernia. Petro-Canada is the current Operator of EL 1092 (50% share).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 178 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
6.1 Marine and Migratory Birds Marine and migratory birds are protected by legislation (Migratory Birds Convention Act 1994) and the Species at Risk Act and thus, are a regulatory concern.
6.1.1 Boundaries With respect to temporal boundaries, the potential interactions of concern are those related to the seismic activities that could occur in May to November for surveys during a six-year (2012 to 2017) time period. The ecological spatial boundary for marine bird species includes the offshore foraging habitats.
6.1.2 Potential Issues There are no data suggesting that seismic surveys have adverse impacts on birds (MMS 2004). Potential impact mechanisms are noise impacts from seismic surveys and disturbance from vessels. Noise produced from these geophysical surveys might only impacts Alcidae (auks) offshore bird species that spend considerable amount of time underwater, swimming or plunge diving for food. Noise from the surveys could adversely affect surface-feeding and diving seabirds near the air source arrays. A possible mechanism for indirect effects is alteration of prey concentration and displacement from foraging areas. However persistent, widespread alterations in abundance of fishes are not expected. Regulators have expressed concern on effects from attraction of birds to vessel lighting and to vessels through the discard of organic waste. Issues and concerns related to potential interactions between marine avifauna and seismic exploration surveys include: direct and indirect disturbances due to seismic noise; disturbance of vessel traffic noise, lighting or organic waste; and oiling of birds due to vessel discharge or accidental equipment failure.
6.1.3 Significance Criteria A significant adverse effect on coastal and marine and migratory birds is one likely to cause: A death or life-threatening injury of one or more individual of a listed species; and or Death or life-threatening injury or non-listed species in sufficient numbers to affect the population adversely; and/or Long-term or permanent displacement of any species from preferred feeding, breeding or nursery habitats; and or Destruction or adverse effects of critical habitat for any listed species.
An adverse, but not significant effect on marine birds and migratory is one that is likely to cause:
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 179 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Death or life-threatening injury of individuals in small numbers that would not adversely affect the population; and or Short-term displacement of any species form preferred feeding, breeding, nursery grounds or migratory routes
6.1.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation
6.1.4.1 Vessel Presence
6.1.4.1.1 Physical Displacement Seismic survey vessel traffic will be limited to routes to the Project Area. Avifauna species that occupy the Study Area will likely not be disturbed by vessel activity due to its transitory nature and in keeping with marine traffic experienced in the region. The area of interest for seismic surveys is well offshore and, therefore, is not expected to adversely affect coastal breeding colonies.
6.1.4.1.2 Attraction to Organic Waste Organic wastes attract gull species which may in turn lead to increased predation on a number of smaller bird species. The discard of inorganic wastes, such as plastics, can result in harmful effects through ingestion or entanglement. The vessels will have a waste management plan as outlined in Section 3.0 and they will adhere to that document.
6.1.4.1.3 Attraction to Lights Birds are attracted to vessel lighting at night, and birds such as storm-petrels, may fly into vessel lights and other equipment. There is one extreme case of bird attraction where lights on a fishing vessel attracted 1.5 tonnes (6,000 birds) of crested auklets. The presence of the seismic vessel is a negligible addition of night lighting compared to fishing vessels and commercial traffic which transit through in the Study Area year round. Collisions of migrating seabirds (e.g., shearwaters, dovekies, murres and Leach’s storm-petrel) is more of an issue with erect structures such as lighthouses, broadcast and communication towers, illuminated office buildings, and offshore platform and light-induced fisheries (Gauthreaux and Belser 2006, Montevecchi 2006). Lighting is required for nighttime vessel activities; therefore, navigation, deck lights and interior lights must be left on for safety and legislated by international convention. The 'range' of lights, that is, the distance from which they can be seen, varies. As an example, the masthead light of a big oceangoing vessel may have a range of about 10 km. However, an effort will be made to minimize high-intensity work lights in the evening. Lighting may be turned off in inclement weather (low cloud cover, overcast skies, fog and drizzle conditions), if not required. Under foggy conditions, coastal lighting is more of an influence as birds fly closer to land (Chaffey 2003, Weir 1976, Blomqvist and Peterz 1984). Routine checks for stranded birds will be recorded and reported and a release program of birds affected by light will be implemented.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 180 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
MKI will follow the Leach’s Storm Petrel Mitigation Program developed by Williams and Chardine (1999) (Appendix B) for stranded birds. An Environmental Observer will be assigned on the vessel during seismic surveys and responsible for this activity. All marine observations will be recorded and information will be given to appropriate organizations such as CWS to provide valuable information on the distribution of marine birds off the south coast of Newfoundland. The literature indicates there is no measurable effect on marine birds. No mitigation specific to seabirds is required under the Statement of Canadian Practice with Respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment. However, as some seabirds are attracted to vessels opportunistically, seismic operations will not be delayed until they depart the area before ramping up. Such practice would hamper the entire program considering the attraction birds have for vessels.
6.1.4.2 Noise Emissions Many species of marine birds utilize habitats within the Study Area; however, little information on the effects of seismic exploration surveys on these species exists in the scientific literature. Davis et al. (1998) suggested the lack of data regarding seabirds and seismic-related surveys reflects the minimal evidence that any effects occur. Research on disturbance due to seismic exploration surveys has revealed negligible results. Lacroix et al. (2003) studied moulting Long-tailed Ducks (Clangula hyemalis) in the Beaufort Sea and found no adverse effects of seismic activity on movement or diving behaviour, although detecting subtle disturbance effects was limited. Stemp (1985) found no evidence of seismic effects on marine bird mortality or distributional effects in Davis Strait, and Parsons (in Stemp 1985) reported shearwaters did not respond to seismic sources when in close proximity (30 m) to high frequency sounds. Additionally, Turnpenny and Nedwell (1994) found no ill effects of air source seismic surveys on guillemots, fulmars, and kittiwakes. Research in the Irish Sea also indicated no evidence seabirds were attracted or repelled by seismic activity (Evans et al. 1993). There have been few studies on the effects of air source-based seismic surveys on birds. However, there are no data showing that impacts exist. Offshore observers record seabird sightings relative to the vessel, yet they have not reported any mortalities or injuries associated with the surveys. Shearwaters have been observed within 30 m of seismic array with their heads underwater and demonstrating no response (Stemp 1985). Because seismic pulses are directed downward and highly attenuated at the surface, near surface feeding and diving marine birds would not likely be exposed to sound levels that would result in significant adverse effects on hearing or be life threatening. Above the water, the sound is reduced to a muffled shot that should have little or no effect on birds that have their heads above water or are in flight. It is possible birds on the water at close range would be startled by the sound, however, the presence of the vessel and associated gear dragging in the water should have already warned the bird of unnatural visual and auditory stimuli. The only seabirds that may be affected at greater depths is the Alcidae family (Common Murre, Thick-billed Murre, Razorbill, Dovekie, Black Guillemot, Atlantic Puffin). These species dive from a resting position on the water in search of small fish and invertebrates and are capable of reaching great depths (20 to 60 m)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 181 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA and spending considerable time (25 to 40 seconds) underwater (Gaston and Jones 1998). The effects of underwater sound on Alcidae are not well known, but sound is probably not important to Alcidae in securing food. Temporary threshold shift (TTS) can last from minutes or hours to days. The magnitude of TTS depends on the duration and level of noise exposure (Davis et al. 1998). No studies have tested the level of sound necessary to cause TTS to marine birds, although TTS can occur in birds exposed to sound in air (Saunders and Dooling 1974). Seismic sounds are not continuous and the effects of intermittent pulse are not known. Corwin and Cotanche (1988) have shown that the auditory system of birds is able to recover from exposure to sounds. Stemp (1985) found no evidence that a seismic program in the Davis Strait area had resulted in distributional effects on marine birds. Evans et al. (1993) noted that there was no evidence to suggest that seabirds were either attracted to or repelled by seismic testing in the Irish Sea. Turnpenny and Nedwell (1994) refer to data in which trained observers reported no behavioural effects on guillemot, fulmar and kittiwake species that were monitored during air source seismic surveys.
6.1.4.3 Vessel Discharge and Accidental Events Accidental surface releases of hydrocarbons can expose birds to oil by breathing contaminated air, through skin contact, through eating contaminated prey items (Davies and Bell 1984), or by ingesting contaminants while preening contaminated plumage (Stout 1993). Exposure to hydrocarbons may result in a loss of waterproofing, thermoregulatory capability (hypothermia), and buoyancy (drowning) due to the matting of feathers (Wiese 1999; MMS 2004). Oil ingestion, even in small amounts, may result in lethal and sub-lethal effects, including starvation due to increased energy needs to compensate for heat loss (MMS 2004). MKI will be using a solid streamer, therefore there will be no release of hydrocarbon in the event of hydrophone cable damage. Potential impacts are expected to be limited due to the high volatility and relatively small volume of spilled diesel or lubricant. If a spill occurred and marine birds were impacted, the Williams and Chardine protocol (entitled “The Leach’s Storm Petrel: General Information and Handling Instruction”) or protocols recommended by the C-NLOPB for handling oiled or standard birds would be followed. No significant adverse effects are likely to occur as a result of an accidental event associated with this Project. The impacts of oil on birds have been well documented (e.g., Hartung 1995); however, no oil from seismic vessel discharge is expected to occur and thus, should not have any severe adverse effects of avifauna. Coastal and marine birds could also be affected by a spill from any vessel (fishing, commercial and DFO research) at sea. The single seismic vessel does not increase the risk to coastal and seabird populations. Discharge from vessels will be standard for any marine vessel and MKI’s vessel will follow the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (OWTG) (NEB et al. 2010). Potential oil spillage may occur from ballast and bilge water discharge, however, if oil is suspected to be in the water, it will be tested and if necessary, treated using an oil/water separator to ensure that oil concentrations in the discharge do not exceed 15 mg/L as required by the MARPOL 73/78 (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1972, and the Protocol of 1978 related thereto), International Maritime
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 182 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Organization and OWTG. There will be limited amounts of marine fuel and lube oil onboard that could potentially be spilled into the ocean. The potential for an oil pollution incident is low for this Project. The vessel is required to carry a "Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan” pursuant to MARPOL 73/78, containing a description of procedures and checklists which govern operations involving hydrocarbons. Adherence to this plan should prevent unintended operational releases. Effects due to accidental spills associated with the proposed operation therefore are considered, overall, to be detectable if they occur, negligible, but neither significant nor likely.
6.1.4.4 Monitoring and Follow-up An Environmental Observer will be onboard to record marine bird (and marine mammals) sightings during the program. The protocol will follow CWS’s Standardized Protocols For Pelagic Seabirds Surveys From Moving and Stationary Platforms for the Hydrocarbon Industry: Interim Protocol – June 2006 (Appendix C). MKI will ensure that CWS is provided field data collection with respect to marine birds. Marine bird data reports will be provided following this survey and any other subsequent seismic surveys.
6.1.4.5 Residual Effects Summary Table 6.1 provides a summary of the potential for interaction, impact analysis, mitigations and cumulative and residual effects for marine and migratory birds.
Table 6.1: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Marine and Migratory Birds Interactions and Issues Direct physical effects associated with seismic noise (e.g., auditory damage) Indirect effect through decline in prey availability Attraction to organic waste Disturbance from vessel noise and lights Accidental surface spills causing oiling of birds Impact Analysis There are no documented adverse effects directly on seabirds as reported by offshore observers. Effects associated with vessel presence and lights will be similar to what marine bird are exposed to now with the considerable commercial and fishing vessel traffic and offshore oil production platforms and FPSOs. The seismic vessel is in transit covering about 100 km per day, therefore it is not in one area from long to allow seabirds to acclimate and depend upon it. Ivory Gulls are rare to occur with the Study Area, their interaction will be the same as other gulls behaviour around vessels. Mitigation A dedicated observer will be on board the seismic vessel to record marine birds and incidents of collisions, oiling and stranding. Vessel compliant with audit prior to survey. Maintenance of equipment and responsible management of such equipment. Compliance with OWTG (NEB et al. 2010) and MARPOL for all discharges.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 183 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Ecological/Socio-Cultural Project Activity and Economic Content Magnitude Magnitude Geographic Frequency Duration Reversibility Vessel Presence/Lights 1 3 3 1 R 1 Organic Waste 0 1 2 1 R 1 2-D programme Noise Emission 0 1 2 1 R 1 Accidental Spill 1 3 1 1 R 1 Significance of Residual Effects Not adversely significant Confidence High level of confidence based on previous seismic surveys, monitoring observations and research. Magnitude Geographic Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility 0=neglible 1= 10s of metres 1=days 1= isolated R=reversible 1=low 2= <500 m 2=two weeks 2= intermittent I=Irreversible 2=medium 3= 1-10 km 3=30 days 3 = continuous 3=high 4= 10-50 km 4= 60 days 5= >50 km Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context 1 Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2 Evidence of existing adverse effects
6.2 Marine Finfish and Shellfish Marine fish are an important component of the marine ecosystem and play a significant role in the stability of commercial fisheries. Environmental effects on the marine fish community may affect commercial fisheries and other ecosystem components that rely on several species of marine fish as a food source or conversely, be affected by predation. This analysis considers Project interactions with commercial pelagic and demersal finfish, and invertebrates, including egg, larval, juvenile and adult life stages. Fish spawning is of critical importance as survivability of fish at early life stages may be a major limiting factor on adult populations.
6.2.1 Boundaries The spatial boundaries of interaction between marine finfish and shellfish and the Project are primarily related to the predicted zone of influence of noise attenuation from the seismic array. In the vertical orientation, the sound level will exceed background to the seafloor in the Study Areas because the seismic energy is directed at the seafloor. In the horizontal plane, the sound levels will exceed typical background levels (90 to 120 db re 1 µPa) at 50 to 100 km from the source. Ecological boundaries vary depending on the distribution, spawning and migration patterns of the adult fish, and the presence of fish eggs and larvae. With respect to temporal boundaries, the potential interactions of concern are those related to the seismic activities that could occur in May to November in 2012 until 2017. Although exact timing of future surveys post-2012 is not known at this time, fishing interests will be considered in the planning of future surveys. Consultation conducted in 2012 resulted in a discussion on timing. MKI representatives offered to avoid crab and shrimp fishing area in waters of 200 m of
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 184 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA less until after the harvest season due to the recent concerns expressed by Newfoundland fishers on their observation of harvest results following seismic programs in 2011. With regard to administrative boundaries, DFO manages the fisheries resources in the area and is primarily responsible for scientific surveys within the area. The Study Area are included in five NAFO Unit Areas, 3L, 3M, 3N, 3K and 2J, a Regional Area for this Project. The technical boundaries and the information available for this study rely on existing information with regard to marine finfish/shellfish distribution, migration and spawning areas. There is a lack of precise spatial information on spawning grounds, particularly as related to non-commercial species. Other uncertainties surround some demersal fish species, which continue to decline despite moratoriums and controls on fishing effort. There are also few specific studies on the physical effects of seismic studies on fish spawning specific to the Study and Regional Areas.
6.2.2 Potential Issues Potential interactions between the Project and marine finfish and shellfish relate primarily to direct physical injury and detrimental behavioural effects as a result of noise from seismic activities. Physical injury may include failure to reach the next development stage, hearing injury and death to: fish eggs and larvae; juvenile and adult finfish; and invertebrates.
Behavioural effects may include: avoidance behaviour; increased swimming speeds; disruption of migration patterns; and disruption of reproductive behaviour and success.
Acoustic behaviour and uses of sound by fish are less documented than the physiology of sound detection by fishes. The effects of intense and potential harmful sound on fish hearing and behaviour are poorly understood. Such noise may disturb fish and may produce temporary or permanent hearing impairment in some individuals, but is unlikely to cause death or life- threatening injury.
6.2.3 Significance Criteria A significant adverse environmental effect is one that is likely to cause one or more of the following: mortality or life-threatening injury to individuals of a species at risk; the abundance of one or more non-listed species is reduced to a level from which recovery of the population is uncertain; long-term or permanent displacement of any species from spawning habitat; or destruction or adverse changes to critical or essential fish habitats.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 185 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
To be considered statistically significant, Project-related mortality would exceed the range of natural mortality by two standard deviations. A non-significant adverse environmental effect is one that is likely to cause on or more of the following: mortality or life-threatening injury of individuals (other than listed species) in small numbers that would not adversely affect the population or the ecological functioning of the fish community; and or short term displacement of individuals from preferred feeding, spawning, nursery grounds or migratory routes (including critical habitat for listed species and essential fish habitat)
6.2.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation
6.2.4.1 Vessel Presence The presence of the seismic vessel used for the 2-D survey is not expected to be any different than the daily and frequent marine traffic in the area. Vessels are not expected to invoke an adverse effect upon marine fish and shellfish or their critical life stages (spawning areas, overwintering, juvenile distribution, migration) or their habitats.
6.2.4.2 Noise Emission Most studies on the biological effects of seismic sound energy have concentrated on marine mammals and fish, groups which have sensitive hearing organs and which, in many cases, incorporate sound as part of social behaviour. Therefore, this section will discuss effects on fish hearing; physical and anatomical effects; auditory masking and behavioural effects as they may affect spawning fish; and eggs and larvae.
6.2.4.2.1 Finfish Hearing There are some data available on the hearing sensitivities of finfish (Mitson 1995, Popper and Carlson 1998; Fay and Popper, 2000, Popper et al. 2003, Ladich and Popper 2004 for reviews) (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2: Hearing Ranges in Some Finfish Species
Species Frequency Sensitivity Threshold Reference Cod, salmon, plaice, 80-200HZ 80-100dB re1μPa Mitson 1995 herring Fish sounds 50-3,000 Hz Engen and Folstad 1999, Hawkins and Amorin 2000 shads and menhaden above 180 kHz Mann et al. 1997, 1998, 2001 Most fish below 1,500 Hz Popper and Fay 2010
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 186 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
More than 50 fish families have sound-producing species. Fish use sound for communication, navigation and sensing of prey and predators. Sound transmission is thought to play an important role in cod and haddock mating (Engen and Folstad 1999, Hawkins and Amorin 2000). Seismic signals are typically in the range of 10 to 200 Hz (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994) and will therefore overlap slightly with signals produced by fish. However, detecting a signal does not mean the fish will have any measurable reaction to the noise. The hearing ability of fish varies considerably by species, as will the effects of seismic exploration. Variability in effect may also vary within a species because seismic signals have a more pronounced effect on larger fish than of smaller fish of the same species (Engås et al. 1996). The frequency of seismic pulses does fall within this range, but responses to these sounds vary according to species. Gadoids have been shown to leave the area during seismic surveys (Skalski et al. 1992, Lǿkkeborg and Soldal 1993, Engås et al. 1996, Slotte et al. 2004, Parry and Gason 2006), and species such as cod, rockfish and whiting (Merlangius merlangus) have been reported to change depth in response to seismic pulses (Pearson et al. 1992; Wardle et al. 2001). In contrast, Wardle et al. (2001) report that neither finfish nor invertebrates showed signs of moving away from a reef on the west coast of Scotland after four days of seismic airgun firing. Several studies have shown that exposure to noise such as that produced by seismic airguns can result in temporary hearing loss and physical damage to the ear (Enger 1981; Hastings et al. 1996; Amoser and Ladich 2003; McCauley et al. 2003; Popper et al. 2005). There are, however, substantial differences in the effects of airguns on the hearing thresholds of different species. Popper et al. (2005) showed that fish with poorer hearing, such as pike (Esox lucius), showed little hearing loss in response to seismic airgun activity, while fish with good hearing, such as lake chub (Couesius plumbeus), showed the most hearing loss. Periods of hearing loss may affect survival due to the compromised ability to hear biologically relevant sounds. Mortality of fish, fish eggs, and larvae has been observed only within a few metres of airguns (Dalen and Knutsen 1987; Parry and Gason 2006). While the effects of airguns on fish have been studied for several species, there is much diversity in the structure of the auditory systems of different species (Popper and Carlson 1998; Popper et al. 2003). It is necessary to examine the effects of airguns on all types of hearing specializations. In addition, most studies to date have concentrated on short-term effects. Studies on long-term survival and sublethal effects are needed (Payne 2004).
6.2.4.2.2 Shellfish and Cephalopod Sound Sensory Invertebrates, on the other hand, have been little studied in terms of bioacoustics and there is a paucity of information relating to the effects on them of seismic sound waves. Some crustacean species generate low frequency sounds which presumably serve a communicatory function, for example, the spiny lobsters (Palinuridae) and the snapping shrimps (Alpheidae) (Table 6.3).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 187 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 6.3: Detected Sound Frequencies of Shellfish and Cephalopds
Species Frequency Level Observation Reference Various octopus 1–100 Hz Packard et al. (1990), Rawizza (1995), Squid 1–500 Hz Komak et al. (2005) Cuttlefish 20–8,000 Hz Mooney et al. (2010) squid Sepiotheutis lessoniana 400–1,500 Hz Hu et al. (2009) octopus Octopus vulgari 400–1,000 Hz Planktonic coral larvae Can detect and Vermeij et al. 2010 invertebrate phylum Cnidaria respond to sound Barnacles, amphipods, Capable of producing Au and Banks 1998; shrimps, crabs, and lobsters sound Tolstoganova 2002; Pye and Watson III 2004; Henninger and Watson III 2005; Buscaino et al. 2011 Norway lobster 20 to 180 Hz postural responses Goodall et al. 1990 (Nephrops norvegicus) crustaceans <1000 Hz Budelmann 1992 Popper et al. 2001
Because invertebrates lack air-filled cavities, it is almost certain that they would respond to the particle motion component of sound rather than to sound pressure, and as a consequence their sensitivity to sound is likely to be inferior to that of fish. Crustaceans have a variety of hair-like sense organs that are potentially capable of responding to mechanical stimuli, including sound, but similar structures have not been identified in bivalve and gastropod molluscs. These mollusc groups are therefore unlikely to change their behaviour in response to seismic sound waves, although they could show physiological reactions and anatomical damage. The highly mobile predatory cephalopod molluscs (squid, octopus) are thought to be insensitive to sound. The subject of acoustic detection in decapod crustaceans has been previously investigated over the past few decades to estimate invertebrate response to sound and vibration (Popper et al. 2001). A number of physiological studies of statocysts of marine crabs suggest that some of these species are potentially capable of sound detection (Popper et al. 2001). Decopods have surface hair-like cells that serve as chemoreceptors and mechanoreceptors to detect water flow and vibrational stimuli and they respond to frequencies up to 100 Hz with a single spike per cycle. Chorodontal organs, associated with flexible body appendages, signal joint position, movement and stress and they respond to low-frequency waterborne vibrations. Statocysts are located on the basal segment of each antennule in crabs and other body areas in other crustaceans are involved in maintaining equilibrium. They are unlikely to respond to acoustic stimulation. In the field the response was due to particle displacement and not pressure. Responses were analogous to fish lateral line which response to water motions produced within a fish-length of the detecting animal (Popper et al. 2001).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 188 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.2.4.2.3 Auditory Masking The potential effect that seismic activities may have on masking communications by fishes is not well documented. There have been no published reports on the effects of hearing impairment or excessive masking on the acoustic communication behaviour of any fish species. There is overlap in the frequency of seismic signals and the sounds emitted by fish, so there is potential for sound reception and production in fish to be reduced (Myrberg 1980). Acoustic communication is important during cod spawning. Sound recordings at the major spawning ground off the Lofoten Islands, Norway revealed a hushed hubbub of sound, at approximately 40 to 500 Hz during the spawning period. Recent experiments on goldfish indicate that fish are capable of “auditory scene analysis”, meaning that a sound stream of interest can be “heard out” and analyzed for its informational content independently of simultaneous, potentially interfering sounds (Fay 1998, in MMS 2004). These studies were carried out using repetitive impulses or clicks as signals and as potentially interfering sounds. These results suggest that the presence of intermittent, audible air sleeve source points would not necessarily impair fishes in receiving and appropriately interpreting other biologically relevant sounds from the environment (MMS 2004). Studies have shown that exposure to intense sound can affect the auditory thresholds of fish resulting in temporary threshold shifts (TTS) under certain conditions (i.e. Amoser and Ladich 2003; Smith et al. 2004). However, these studies focused on captive fish that were exposed to loud (158 dB re 1 µPa) noise for periods of 10 minutes for 12 or 24 hours. TTS may seldom (or never) occur in the wild unless fish are prevented from fleeing the irritant (LGL Limited 2005). Threshold shifts affect the fish’s ability to hear its natural full range of sound.
6.2.4.2.4 Behavioural Effects Seismic activity can have a greater spatial effect on the behaviour of fish than on the physiology of fish. Some studies indicate that such behavioural changes are very temporary while others imply that marine animals might not resume pre-seismic behaviours or distributions for several days (Engås et al. 1996, Løkkeborg 1991, Skalski et al. 1992). Most available literature (Blaxter et al. 1981, Dalen and Raknes 1985, Pearson et al. 1992, McCauley et al. 2000a, 2000b, Davis et al. 1998) seems to indicate that the effects of noise on fish are brief and if the effects are short-lived and outside a critical period, they are expected not to translate into biological or physical effects. It appears that behavioural effects on finfish as a result of exposure to sound from a seismic source should result in negligible effects on individuals and populations in most cases. These behaviours include startle responses to predators, courtship and mate choice, maintenance of schooling and aggregation, aggressive competition for mates and other resources, and overhearing or intercepting potential predators, prey, and competitors. The potential for interactions during particularly sensitive periods, such as spawning or migration, are a concern. There are well documented observations of fish and invertebrates exhibiting behaviours that appeared to be in response to exposure to seismic activity like a startle response, a change in swimming direction and speed, or a change in vertical distribution (Hassel et al. 2003, Wardle et al. 2001, McCauley et al. 2000a, 2000b, Pearson et al. 1992, Schwarz and Greer 1984, Blaxter
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 189 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA et al. 1981) although the significance of these behaviours is unclear. The effects of nearby air sleeve operations on fish as determined from several studies, are summarized in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Summary of Behavioural Effects of Fish and Invertebrates from Nearby Air Sleeve Operations Species Level Observation Reference
156-161 Common ‘alarm’ behaviour of forming ‘huddle’ on cage bottom centre, McCauley et al. various fishes (dB re 1 µPa noticeable increase in alarm (2000a,b) (rms) behaviours begins at lower level 149 rockfish Subtle behavioural changes Pearson et al. (dB re 1 µPa (Sebastes spp.) commence (1992) (rms) 168(dB re 1 µPa Pearson et al. rockfish Alarm response significant (rms) (1992) >171(dB re 1 Rapid increase in hearing stimulus McCauley et al. fish ear model µPa (rms) begins (2000a,b) fish (P. 182-195(dB re 1 McCauley et al. Persistent C-turn startle sexlineatus) µPa (rms) (2000a,b) selected 100-205(dB re 1 Pearson et al. C-turn startle response elicited rockfish species µPa (rms) (1992) various wild 183-207(dB re 1 C-turn startle responses Wardle et al. (2001) finfish µPa (rms) 146-195(dB re 1 No significant physiological stress McCauley et al. various finfish µPa (rms) increase (2000a,b) Source SPL 223 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m 0-p, an overall downward shift in fish rockfish Skalski et al. (1992) received SPLs distribution ranged from 186 to 191 dB re 1 μPa0-p The approach of the seismic vessel appeared to cause an increase in tail- beat frequency although the sandeels source SPL of still appeared to swim calmly. During 256 dB re 1 μPa seismic airgun discharge, many fish captive lesser at 1 m exhibited startle responses, followed by flight from the immediate area. The sandeel, (unspecified Hassel et al. (2003, frequency of occurrence of startle Ammodytes measure type). 2004) response seemed to increase as the marinus. Received SPLs operating seismic array moved closer were not to the fish. The sandeels stopped measured. exhibiting the startle response once the airgun discharge ceased. The sandeel tended to remain higher in the water column during the airgun
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 190 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Species Level Observation Reference discharge, and none of them were observed burying themselves in the soft substrate no strong evidence of short-term horizontal distributional effects. With source SPL of respect to vertical distribution, blue 222.6 dB re 1 whiting and mesopelagics were herring, blue μPa at 1 mp-p distributed deeper (20 to 50 m) during whiting and the seismic survey compared to pre- Slotte et al. (2004) mesopelagic exposure. The average densities of species SPLs received fish aggregations were lower within the by the fish were seismic survey area, and fish not measured abundances appeared to increase in accordance with increasing distance from the seismic survey area. peak SPL was 205 to 209 dB re fish behavioural characteristics were 1 μPa per generally unchanged by the exposure discharge, to airgun sound. The tracked fish did Arctic riverine Jorgenson and not exhibit herding behaviour in front of fishes mean received Gyselman (2009) SEL was 176 to the mobile airgun array and, therefore, 180 dB re 1 were not exposed to sustained high μPa2 · s per sound levels. discharge rainbow trout Thomsen (2002) (Oncorhynchus shots appeared to evoke behavioural mykiss) reactions by the salmonids, but overall Received SPLs impacts were minimal. Atlantic salmon were 142 to 186 Cod dB re 1 μPap-p. no significant effects on cod and Haddock haddock catch rates, and the behavioural effects were hard to differentiate from normal behaviour school changed direction with a Blaxter et al. (1981) sudden noise level and when ramping herring 144 dB re 1 μPa up occurred, they reacted to a noise level around 5 dB higher. air source Turnpenny and signals ranging Nedwell (1994) avoidance behaviour from 160 to 186 dB re 1 μPa 160 and 171 dB Lokkeborg and Soldal avoidance behaviour re 1 μPa (1993)
Snow crab Christian et al. (2003) Received SPL Exposed to 200 discharges over a 33 ~191 dB re 1 minute period . None of the tagged μPa0-p animals left the immediate area after exposure to the seismic survey sound. SEL <130 dB re Five animals were captured in the 1 μPa2 s, snow crab commercial fishery the YOLO Environmental Inc. following year, one at the release location, one 35 km from the release Page 191 location, and three at intermediate MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Species Level Observation Reference distances from the release location.
Received SPL Exposed to 200 discharges over a 33 ~202 dB re 1 minute period. μPa0-p
They did not exhibit any overt startle SEL 150 dB re 1 response during the exposure period μPa2 · s Squid McCauley et al. (Sepioteuthis 174(dB re 1 µPa Startle (ink sac fire) and avoidance to (rms) startup nearby (2000a,b) australis) 156-161(dB re 1 Noticeable increase in alarm McCauley et al. Squid µPa (rms) behaviours (2000a,b) Significant alteration in swimming 166(dB re 1 µPa McCauley et al. Squid speed patterns, possible use of sound (rms) shadow near water surface (2000a,b) juvenile responses included body pattern between 0.01 cuttlefish Sepia changing, movement, burrowing, Komak et al. (2005) and 1,000 Hz. officinalis reorientation, and swimming. levels 120 dB re octopus 1 μPa rms, The respiratory activity of the octopus changed when exposed to sound in Kaifu et al. (2008) Octopus 50, 100, 150, the 50–150 Hz range but not for sound ocellatus 200 and 1,000 at 200–1,000 Hz. Hz zebra mussels means of preventing settling/fouling Donskoy and Dreissena Ludyanskiy 1995 polymorpha Low-frequency balanoid sound (<200 Hz) Branscomb and barnacles Rittschof (1984) Balanus sp blue mussels 10 kHz pure Mytilus edulis tone continuous closed their valves upon exposure Price (2007) sound. Source: adapted from McCauley et al. 2000a; 2000b. a - converted from mean peak to rms using -12 dB correction from 7,712 records from Bolt 600B air-sleeve. b - correction of -12dB applied (peak to rms).
Fish startle by sudden changes in noise levels, but seem to acclimate to “ambient noise”. Noise generated by seismic activity may cause some species to avoid the zone of influence around the seismic vessel. Studies note that many species of fish dive to avoid intense sound (Protasov 1966, Schwartz and Greer 1984, Knudsen et al. 1992)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 192 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The expected distance for fish to react to a typical peak source level of 250 to 255 dB re 1 μPa0- p is from 3 to 10 km (Engås et al. 1996). A reaction may simply mean a change in swimming direction. The spatial range of response in fish will vary greatly with changes in the physical environment in which the sounds are emitted. In one environment, fish distribution has been shown to change in an area of 40 x 40 nautical miles and 250 to 280 m deep for more than five days after recording ended, with fish larger than 60 cm being affected to a greater extent than smaller fish (Engås et al. 1996). Payne et al. (2008) in their review on seismic effects on fish that “Regarding cod, Engås et al. (1996) provided strong evidence for effects but the results have been critiqued by Gausland (2003) who noted that the catch rates were not statistically different than normal variation in catch rates. For the purpose of this review, two senior scientists with expertise in cod science reviewed the original work and the critique. They agreed that the study of Engås et al. (1996) was of note but Gausland’s critique was also of merit. Granting the difficulty in carrying out such studies, the scientists noted the lack of a control(s) for the study of Engås et al. (1996). Concern was also expressed that a number of replicates would generally be required for statistical validity. Confounding factors between control and test groups in any such experiments could also include such factors as locale, fish size, school size, nature of prey on which fish might be feeding at the time (e.g. capelin which are sensitive to sound and may move away from the area versus shrimp which are indicated not to be sensitive to sound), whether the fish were “migrating”, and whether other ship traffic might be traversing the area at the time.” DNV Energy (2007) state that scare effects have been demonstrated in a radius of more than 30 km from the sound source. McCauley et al. (2000 a, b) describes a more intense “generic” fish alarm startle response of seeking shelter in tight schools and moving near the bottom. The level that will induce this response varies with fish species and the physical environment at the time but was observed at 156 to 168 dB re 1 μParms. The Science Review Working Group (CNSOPB 2002), which evaluated two proposed seismic surveys near Cape Breton, agreed that although the duration of behavioural effects of seismic activity on marine fish are uncertain, indications exists, as described in above studies, that displacement of marine finfish is short-term. If a seismic survey overlaps with the presence of migrating fish species (such as redfish and cod), startle responses and temporary changes in swimming direction and speed could be expected, but schooling behaviour is not expected to be affected (Blaxter et al. 1981). Any temporary change in behaviour is not expected to interrupt the natural migration instinct to a spawning or feeding area. Behavioural effects of exposure of caged cephalopods (50 squid and two cuttlefish) to sound from a single 20-inch airgun with SPL >200 dB re 1µPa0-p have been reported (McCauley et al. 2000a). The behavioural responses included squid firing their ink sacs and moving away from the airgun, startle responses and increased swimming speeds. No squid or cuttlefish mortalities were reported from exposures to this airgun sources. Increased stress as a response to external factors is generally difficult to measure in invertebrates. However, changes in relative movement when exposed to a sound field may be a good indicator of stress. Christian et al. (2004) discuss the startle responses observed by
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 193 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA snow crabs held in a DFO tank and exposed to sounds produced by the clanging of metal bars. Snow crabs were observed immediately drawing in their legs and proceeding to escape the region of the imposing sound. When exposed to a 200 in3 array located at a distance of 50 m, caged as well as tagged snow crab demonstrated little to no movement; they did not draw in their legs, and they remained in their original position (Christian et al. 2004). Thus, seismic sound fields are not anticipated to cause adverse effects by increasing stress on snow crabs. Statistical analysis of seismic survey data and commercial catch rate data (from Victoria, Australia from 1978 to 2004), was used to determine the effects of seismic activity on rock lobster. Correlations show that there is no evidence to indicate that catch rates were affected by seismic activity (Parry and Gason 2006). Short term changes in catch rates in the study area coincided with changes in adjacent areas not subject to seismic activity (Parry and Gason 2006). The ramping up procedure in these surveys will give fish an opportunity to temporarily leave the areas while noise levels are above ambient. DFO (2004a) concluded that some finfish exposed to seismic sounds are likely to exhibit a startle response, a change in swimming pattern and/or a change in vertical distribution. However, these effects are expected to be short term and of low ecological significance except where fish reproductive activity may be affected (DFO 2004a). Although there is no evidence of an adverse impact of seismic activity on the spawning success of fish, there is sufficient concern to suggest that a precautionary approach to the use of seismic equipment during spawning is adopted. Noise levels will attenuate to ambient levels to 50 to 100 km from the survey vessel. To minimise sudden changes in noise levels, MKI will implement a ramp-up procedure. Nedwell et al. (2003) considered this effective mitigation for finfish.
6.2.4.2.5 Physical and Anatomical Effects No mass fish kills associated with the operation of airguns have been recorded (Payne 2004). Since fish are likely to move away from an active seismic source driven away by approaching seismic shots, mortality of adult fish is not expected (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994). Depending on source noise level, water depth and distance of the fish relative to the source, injuries (such as eyes and internal organs) would only occur within a few tens of metres (Figure 6.1), with lesser symptoms such as hearing damage possible out to several hundred metres (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994). Kosheleva (1992) reports no obvious physiological effects beyond 1 m from a source of 220 to 240 dB re 1 Pa. Hastings (1990) reports the lethal threshold for fish beginning at 229 dB and a stunning effect in the 192 to 198 dB range. Turnpenny and Nedwell (1994) deduce that blindness can be caused in fish exposed to air sleeve blasts approximately 214 dB. Auditory damage starts at 180 dB, transient stunning at 192 dB and internal injuries at 220 dB.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 194 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figure 6.1: Sound pressure threshold for the onset of fish injuries (dB) Source: adapted from Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994. Note: Dotted line indicates an assumed sound level rather than an estimated one.
Invertebrates lack swim bladders and hearing organs, two anatomical features where physical damage most likely occurs in aquatic organisms. The Royal Society of Canada (2004) suggests that seismic surveys will have no effect on the marine benthos provided the water depth is much greater than 20 m. Benthic invertebrates are less likely to be affected by seismic activity because few invertebrates have gas-filled spaces and benthic species are usually more than 20 m away from the seismic source. The resilience of various invertebrates has been tested by exposing them at a short distance to an active airgun (Table 6.5).
Table 6.5: Observation from Exposures of Marine Macro-invertebrates to Air Sleeves at Close Range
Exposure Distance Estimated Organism from Air Sleeve Exposure Level Observed Response Reference (m) (dB re 1 µ Pa) Iceland Shell split in 1 of 3 2 217 Matishov 1992 Scallop tested 15 percent of spines fell Sea Urchin 2 217 Matishov 1992 off No detectable effect Mussel 0.5 229 Kosheleva 1992 within 30 days No detectable effect Periwinkle 0.5 229 Kosheleva 1992 within 30 days No detectable effect Crustacean 0.5 229 Kosheleva1992 within 30 days Webb and Kempf Brown Shrimp 1 190 No mortality 1998
The subject of acoustic detection in decapod (crabs, lobster) crustaceans has been previously investigated over the past few decades to estimate invertebrate response to sound and vibration (Popper et al. 2001). Lobsters are thought to be resilient to seismic activity because decapods
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 195 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA lack the gas-filled voids that would make them sensitive to changes in pressure. Decopods have surface hair-like cells that serve as chemoreceptors and mechanoreceptors to detect water flow and vibrational stimuli and they respond to frequencies up to 100 Hz with a single spike per cycle. Chorodontal organs, associated with flexible body appendages, signal joint position, movement and stress and they respond to low-frequency waterborne vibrations. Statocysts are located on the basal segment of each antennule in crabs and other body areas in other crustaceans are involved in maintaining equilibrium. They are unlikely to respond to acoustic stimulation. Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) showed postural responses to sound frequencies of 20 to 180 Hz in the lab (Goodall et al. 1990). In the field the response was due to particle displacement and not pressure. Responses were analogous to fish lateral line which response to water motions produced within a fish-length of the detecting animal (Popper et al. 2001). A scientific study was conducted in December 2003 with indigenous mature female snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) caged in an area off western Cape Breton Island (N.S.) to determine the potential effects of a seismic survey operation. A review of the results from this study concluded that the seismic survey did not result in mortality of snow crab, or the embryos they were carrying (DFO 2004b). As a result of this initiative, a series of scientific papers was presented at the Gulf Fisheries Centre, Moncton (N.B.) in January 2007 (proceedings in Boudreau et al., 2009). Courtenay et al. (2009) conducted a review on the re-evaluation of the earlier 2003 data results, only to conclude that some questions remain due to confounding factors such as differing environmental condition and handling/caging procedures that may account for the differences observed between snow crab that were caged in close proximity to a seismic survey and snow crab that were caged at a “control” location. The findings of the Boudreau et al. (2009) and Courtney et al. (2009) reviews follows: Despite the distance between sites (23 km), snow crab caged outside of the seismic survey area (i.e., controls) were still exposed to some degree of seismic sound pressure received was
118 dB re μPa rms, compared with 178 dB re μPa rms within the seismic area). No changes in snow crab abundance or distribution due to the seismic survey could be resolved through analysis of current stock assessment data. However, current stock assessment methodologies do not have the resolution to show statistically significant changes in the levels of snow crab distribution or abundance from the seismic survey operations above that of natural variation. Independent, blind, verification by an external histopathologist confirmed the presence of abnormalities in the hepatopancreas (liver equivalent) and ovary of female snow crab caged during the December 2003 experiment. However, these abnormalities did not appear to have been caused by exposure to seismic energy. Analyses of the data by a statistician indicated that abnormalities were no more common at the seismic site than reference site, and in most cases were actually less common. The fact that abnormalities were more prevalent in crab caged for 5 months than 12 days suggested that they might be related to stress of handling and aging. Similar abnormalities observed in crab caught off western Cape Breton Island one year after the seismic survey suggest that this may have been a pre-existing condition in female snow crab of this population.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 196 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
It does not appear that exposure to seismic energy resulted in leg loss initially reported by DFO-NFLD scientists after the December 2003 caging experiment. While snow crab sent to DFO-NFLD showed a higher rate of leg loss among the seismic-exposed than reference group, this was not observed in snow crab from the same field study sent to DFO-NB. Furthermore, a subsequent experiment at DFO-NFLD failed to produce leg loss in snow crab exposed to dB levels as high as 220 dB. Instead, it was suggested that rough handling of the box containing the Exposure to seismic energy did not kill snow crab embryos (87% survival in the seismic group including black eggs, pre-zoea and zoea compared to 89% in controls). Larvae carried by crab caged at the seismic site were less heavy and less developed (smaller proportion of zoea larvae, a larger proportion of pre-zoea and unhatched eggs) than larvae carried by crab caged at the control site, which can have important consequences upon long-term survival. However, temperature differences are known to have occurred at these two sites, and slower development may have resulted from lower incubation temperatures during caging at the seismic site than the control site. The 2003 caging study provided some definitive findings on the potential effects of seismic energy on snow crab (e.g., no immediate mortality). Nevertheless, subsequent studies and analysis have been unable to separate the influence of these confounding factors from the potential impacts resulting from exposure to seismic noise. Study design limitations (e.g., stress from capture and caging animals) suggest that further analysis of DFO’s experimental results obtained to date is unlikely to provide additional information or insight.
In response to concerns for seismic surveys in shallow water on the west coast of Newfoundland, Payne et al. (2007) conducted laboratory and field experimentations on lobsters subject to seismic sources at levels of 202 dB re1 µPap-p and 227 dB re 1 µPap-p. The endpoints measurements were lobster survival, food consumption, turnover rate, serum protein, serum enzymes, serum calcium and a histopathology examination. Over a period of days to several months, there were no effects of delayed mortality or damage to mechanosensory systems associated with animal equilibrium and posture. There was no evidence of leg loss or other appendages. Sublethal effects were observed with feeding (minor) and serum biochemistry and organ stress was apparent in the hepatopancreas. No significant adverse effects of seismic noise on the behaviour, physiology or catch rates of snow crabs or lobsters are anticipated from the 2-D seismic surveys. The mortality rate of plankton during seismic surveys has been estimated from several studies. Up to one percent of the ichthyoplankton in the top 50 m of the water column could be killed during 3-D seismic survey off Nova Scotia (Davis et al. 1998). An estimated 0.45 percent of planktonic organisms in the top 10 m of water in a Study Area off Norway could be killed (Sætre and Ona 1996). Kenchington et al. (2001) estimated a plankton mortality rate of six percent if they were concentrated in the upper 10 m. Given that seismic-related mortality in fish has not been reported beyond 5 m during field and laboratory studies, these estimates are considered conservative and may apply more to phytoplankton and zooplankton than to planktonic life stages of fish and shellfish. Kostyuchenko (1973) reported more than 75 percent survival of fish eggs at 0.5 m from the source (SPLs of 215 to 233 dB re1µPa0-p) and more than 90 percent survival at 10 m from the source (Table 6.6).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 197 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 6.6: Observations of Exposures of Fish and Shellfish Planktonic Life Stages to Seismic Airguns at Close Range
Exposure Estimated Distance from Observed Organism Life Stage Exposure Level Reference Air Sleeve Response (dB re 1 µPa ) (m) 0-p Some delayed Pollock Egg 0.75 242 Booman et al. 1996 mortality Dalen and Knutsen Eggs 1 to 10 202 to 220 No signs of injury 1987 Larvae 5 220 Immediate mortality Booman et al. 1996 Cod 5-day-old Delimitation of 1 250 Matishov 1992 larvae retina Fry 1.3 234 Immediate mortality Booman et al. 1996 High mortality Eggs and 1 220 Kosheleva 1992 Plaice (unspecified) larvae 2 214 No effect Kosheleva 1992 Holiday et al. in 8.2 percent Eggs Unknown 223 Turnpenny and mortality Nedwell 1994 Anchovy Holiday et al. in 2-day-old Swimbladder 3 238 Turnpenny and larvae rupture Nedwell 1994 1 230 7.8 percent injured Kostyuchenko 1973 Red Mullet Eggs 10 210 No injuries Kostyuchenko 1973 17 percent dead in 0.5 236 Kostyuchenko 1973 Fish (various 24 hours Eggs species) 2.1 percent dead in 10 210 Kostyuchenko 1973 24 hours No observed effect Dungeness Larvae 1 231 on time to molt or Pearson et al. 1994 Crab long-term survival
Mortality and development rates of Stage II Dungeness crab larvae exposed to single discharges from a seismic array were compared with those of unexposed larvae. No statistically significant differences between the exposed and unexposed larvae were observed with respect to immediate and long-term survival and time to molt, even for those exposed larvae within 1 m of the seismic source (Pearson et al. 1994). Early life stages of invertebrates are generally the most sensitive to disturbance and other external factors potentially causing harmful effects. Effects on embryonic growth may result in loss of overall fitness of the snow crab population by delaying development and hatching out of normal phase, increasing susceptibility of predation, increasing mortality, etc. Most scientific evidence, however, is limited to fish and other vertebrate species. Christian et al. (2004) performed experiments on fertilized eggs exposing them to sound pressure levels of 191 to 221
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 198 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
2 db re 1µPa0-p and sound exposure level of 130 to 187 dB re 1µPa s, which indicated statistically significant differences in egg development rate which could be an important endpoint in future studies. Mortality was demonstrated to be 1.6% higher in 2,000+ eggs when compared with controls. However, the exposure distance remained constant at 2m, and Christian et al. (2004) discuss the limitations involved in using one pool of control eggs and one pool of exposed eggs. The authors caution that their study was a preliminary investigation and further research may be needed to confirm a safe exposure distance. Payne et al. (2009) conducted laboratory studies on monkfish larvae and unfertilized capelin eggs. Monkfish eggs occur at surface in large extruded sheets or veils (Scott and Scott 1988). A portion of veils, near hatching stage, were collected that had become entangled in fishing gear. The veil portions were transported to the laboratory and maintained until airgun exposures were carried out on free swimming larvae. Seven separate trials (6 with 10 airgun discharges and 1 with 30) were carried out in which the sound pressure levels ~0.5 m below the surface container holding the larvae were at about 205 dB re 1µPap-p. No significant differences were observed between control and exposed larvae examined 48 to 72 hours post exposure. Although artificial fertilization was poor, the results of the pilot study on capelin eggs showed no significant differences in mortality were observed between control and capelin eggs exposed to seismic energy and examined 3 days post exposure to 20 airgun discharges. In this case, the sound pressure levels about 0.5 m below the container in which the slides were held were at about 199 to 205 dB re 1µPap-p. Other trials were carried out on capelin eggs exposed 1 to 3 days after fertilization and held for 9 to 10 days post exposure. Five separate trials were carried out and conditions were the same as for the monkfish larvae. Egg clumping precluded accurate counting of control and exposed eggs. However, live embryos could be resolved and were found to be present 9 to 10 days after exposure in all 5 trials and on all slides—experimental as well as control. Modeled pressure levels were markedly below levels measured at about 0.5 m under the monkfish larvae and capelin eggs in this study with no apparent mortality. The modeled levels were also orders of magnitude below levels reported in other studies to affect mortality in eggs and larvae. Taking into consideration: (a) the results obtained on larval and egg exposures in this study, (b) modeled estimates of pressure levels at the water surface, and (c) literature on levels reported to effect mortality in eggs and larvae, Payne et al. (2009) report that it is unlikely that seismic surveys pose any real risk to either monkfish eggs or near hatch larvae that may float in veils on the sea surface during monkfish spawning or affect populations of capelin.
It is assumed that a sound pressure level of 220 dB re 1 μPa0-P is required for egg/larval damage (Figure 6.1). A ‘worst-case scenario’ mathematical model was applied to investigate the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae and concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic were so low compared to natural mortality, the environmental effect of seismic activity on recruitment to a fish stock would be not significant (Sætre and Ona 1996). In addition, mortality of phytoplankton and zooplankton near the seismic vessel should be sufficiently localized as to negligibly affect food availability for fish, shellfish, birds and mammals.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 199 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The abundance or distribution of any population (including larvae and eggs) will not likely be affected by seismic activity (Sætre and Ona 1996 in Dalen et al. 2007, Dalen et al. 1996 in Dalen et al. 2007). Modelling has indicated that a typical seismic survey results in a 0.45% mortality of the larvae population (Sætre and Ona 1996, in Dalen et al. 2007). Compared to the natural mortality of cod, herring and capelin larvae or 5 to 15 percent per day, seismic-induced mortality in these species is so low as to have no effect at the population level (Dalen et al. 1996, in Dalen et al. 2007). A review of the current scientific literature (Table 5.2) indicate that egg and larval mortality is limited to within a few metres of the seismic array, physical injury to fish is limited to tens of metres and auditory damage is potentially limited to hundreds of metres (Kostyuchenko 1973, Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994, Sætre and Ona 1996, Kenchington et al. 2001). Christian et al. (2004) used a variety of chemical and biochemical indicators in the haemolymph and serum of crustaceans to detect stress or dysfunction when exposed to air gun arrays. When exposed to a 40 in3 sleeve gun at 2 m, a 200 in3 array at 4 m, and a 200 in3 seven gun array at 2 m, they found no significant differences to crustacean physiology between control and experimental groups. Furthermore, Christian et al. (2004) did not find any discernible signs of external damage (i.e., carapace, appendages, statocysts) as a result of exposure to the guns and arrays. DFO (2004b) conducted a field survey, in winter 2003 and spring 2004, on potential impact of low-level seismic energy on the reproductive biology of female snow crab. The survey used caged animals off the western coast of Cape Breton, as well as laboratory experiments. As with other studies, mortality did not occur in any crabs during experimental conditions (Kosheleva 1992, Christian et al. 2004, DFO 2004b); survival of the embryos and locomotion of the resulting larvae after hatch were unaffected; and gills, antennae and statocysts were soiled in the test group, but were found free of sediment five months later. Less definitive results were significant differences between test and control groups related to bruising of the hepatopancreas; bruising of ovaries; dilated oocytes with detached chorions; one test group had delayed embryo hatch and larvae were slightly smaller; and orientation as a function of being turned over (DFO 2004b). Payne et al. (2008) reviewed studies on seismic-related studies on crustaceans and found that “regarding broad scale surveys over a number of years in which population level effects were questioned, Parry and Gason (2006) found no effects on overall lobster catches, but cautioned that seismic induced mortality rates would have to be relatively high before seismic impacts could be resolved from other factors. Snow crab catches were also found not to be affected after a seismic survey off Cape Breton, but again, although the weight of evidence from studies on effects at the individual level might suggest no impacts, a considerable population level impact would likely be required in order to resolve any seismic impacts from other factors. There was no evidence for delayed mortality, egg loss or reduction in feeding in snow crab exposed under the conditions of an actual seismic program in deep waters off Cape Breton and subsequently maintained in the laboratory for several months. There was also no evidence for effects on egg hatch with eggs of test groups hatching a few days later in animals held in Moncton yet a few days earlier in animals held in Newfoundland. There was indication of some slight histological differences between the control and test animals from the Cape Breton study but these can reasonably be attributed to different oceanographic and habitat conditions at the
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 200 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA locations where the control and test animals were collected and held. This was supported in subsequent studies carried out in Newfoundland.” A typical well site survey could have a peak pressure output of 230 dB re 1 µPa @ 1 m (Davis et al. 1998), with a single streamer array. Data on the impacts of seismic surveys on macroinvertebrates is sparse, but what little research data that exists suggest that mortality through physical harm is unlikely below sound levels of 220 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m (Royal Society of Canada 2004). The U.S. Minerals Management Service’s (2004) environmental assessment of geophysical exploration in the Gulf of Mexico supports the conclusion that there is no documented evidence of a measurable impact to benthic communities from streamer surveys. Mitigation measures to minimize the impact of seismic operations on fish spawning include: To minimize sudden changes in noise levels, a ramp up procedure will be implemented; All discharges will comply with Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines; A Spill Prevention Program will be implemented; and An Emergency Spill Response Plan will be developed and implemented when required.
No significant adverse effects on fish, lobsters, snow crab or eggs and larvae are anticipated as a result of MKI’s 2-D seismic surveys.
6.2.5 Malfunctions and Accidental Events Oil or fuel spills may affect water quality, which in turn may affect the health and survival of plankton, fish eggs, and larvae, juvenile and adult fish in the immediate vicinity of the vessel. While risk to adult fish and shellfish is low, pelagic fish eggs and larvae may be affected to different degrees by an accidental spill of hydrocarbons in the water. According to a literature review by Thomson et al. 2000, the sensitivity of fish larvae to an oil spill varies depending on the type of oil (e.g., crude, light condensate, etc.) as well as the yolk sac stage and feeding conditions. Spill investigations have focused on dramatic events from vessels or offshore platforms. The Argo Merchant spill of 7.7 million gallons of No. 6 fuel in December 1976 on Nantucket Shoals off Massachusetts affected some fish eggs. Some of the eggs collapsed or had malformed shells, while others had oil spots on the outer membrane. Eggs and larvae exposed to oil generally exhibit morphological malformations, genetic damage and reduced growth (Thomson et al. 2000). However, these effects are short lived since these changes are not observed in subsequent years at the same location. No conclusive evidence in the literature exists to suggest that these oiled sites posed a long-term hazard to fish embryo or larval survival. The Regional Environmental Emergencies Team (REET) report on the Uniacke G-72 gas and condensate blowout concluded that there were no observed signs of long-term impacts on renewable resources or the marine environment around Sable Island from the blowout (Riley 1984). Although oil spills and blowouts can result in fish kills, neither event has been found to result in a decrease in fish stocks (Environment Canada 1984, Martec Limited 1984, Armstrong et al. 1995).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 201 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The nature and degree of such an interaction depends on the severity, timing, and location of the spill. The risk of such vessel accidents is low, and the volumes potentially released would be limited. Therefore, incidents involving survey vessels are not likely to result in significant effects on fish.
6.2.6 Monitoring and Follow-up Follow-up and monitoring are not recommended for fish and shellfish for routine seismic activities.
6.2.7 Summary Table 6.7 provides a summary of the potential for interaction, impact analysis, mitigations and cumulative and residual effects for marine fish and shellfish.
Table 6.7: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Marine Fish and Shellfish Interactions and Issues Behavioural changes Physiological changes Masking of sound Hearing impairment Mortality Impact Analysis Noise levels from geophysical activities and vessel traffic for this Project are predicted to be less than the limits that cause physical effects on fish. Turnpenny and Nedwell (1994) summarized the following physical effects of noise on fish (worse case within 10 m of a 255 db re 1 µPa source): transient stunning of marine fish occurs at noise levels above 192 dB re 1µPa; internal injuries at 200 dB re 1µPa; egg/larval damage due to noise occurs at 220 dB re 1 Pa; and fish mortality at 230-240 db re 1µPa. McCauley et al. (2000) conducted trials with captive fish and found that increases in swimming behaviour occurred when seismic sound levels reached 156 dB re 1 μPa rms. In the survey proposed by MKI, sound is estimated to attenuate to 156 dB re 1 μPa rms at a distance of 500 m horizontal from array and attenuate to161 to 171 dB re 1 μPa rms to the seafloor in the Study Area. Noise levels should attenuate to ambient levels 50 to 100 km from the survey vessel. The various components and activities associated with the proposed Project are not predicted to result in significant environmental effects on fish and shellfish because the effects are reversible, of limited duration, magnitude, and geographic extent. Although there are few studies on the effects of seismic surveys on specific fish species in Newfoundland waters, research studies show that mortality or serious injury is unlikely beyond a distance of approximately 2 m from the sound source. Effects of the Project on marine fish and shellfish in the Study Area are predicted to be non-significant. Mitigation Adherence to the Statement of Canadian Practice on the Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment, to the extent reasonably practical. To minimize sudden changes in noise levels, a 20 to 40 minute ramp up procedure will be implemented. Compliance with OWTG (NEB et al. 2010) for all discharges.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 202 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Ecological/Socio- Project Activity Cultural and Economic Content Magnitude Magnitude Geographic Frequency Duration Reversibility Vessel Presence/Lights 1 0 3 1 R 1 2-D programme Noise Emission 1 2-3 2 1 R 2 Accidental Spill 0 1 1 1 R 1 Significance of Residual Effects Not adversely significant Confidence Limited peer-reviewed literature specifically addressing impairment to the auditory system following intense sound exposure. Regulators are highly confidence on range of effects. No masking data for intermittent, impulsive air gun source points. Understanding the use of sound by fishes is very poor with few relevant published papers. Lack of specific knowledge about critical fish areas in Newfoundland waters other than for a few species. Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility 0=negligible 1= 10s of metres 1= isolated 1=days R=reversible 1=low 2= <500 m 2= intermittent 2=two weeks I=Irreversible 2=medium 3= 1-10 km 3 = continuous 3= 30 days 3=high 4= 10-50 km 4=60 days 5= >50 km Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context 1= Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity; 2=Evidence of existing adverse effects
6.3 Marine Mammals Marine mammals are considered a VEC due to their significant role in the offshore ecosystem, and because of regulatory protection, and scientific and public concern. While the understanding of the effects of noise on marine mammals is increasing, it is still unclear whether or how noise and other anthropogenic factors affect species at population levels (Nowacek et al. 2007). This analysis considers cetaceans and pinnipeds that may live and/or migrate through the Study Area.
6.3.1 Boundaries The spatial boundary of interaction is primarily the zone of influence of both the presence of the seismic vessel and generated noise. The spatial distribution of individual species of marine mammals in the Northwest Atlantic is not well known, however, as data continues to be gathered, the diversity and seasonalities of many marine mammals is becoming better known. Temporal boundaries for this analysis are defined by the Project schedule (May to November). Temporal ecological boundaries for cetaceans and pinnipeds vary according to species. Most cetaceans are migratory and occur in the Study and Regional Areas predominantly during the summer and fall months. Pinnipeds will occur year round. Canada does not currently have established received-level standards for potential effects of noise on marine mammals but, typically uses criteria developed by the US National Marine
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 203 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Some values of root mean square (rms) sound pressure levels have been estimated and proposed as impact criteria. Impact criteria for potential damage or disturbance to marine mammals have been developed for peak-to-peak and energy flux density values (Southall et al. 2007). Knowledge gaps are related to information on potential effects of seismic noise, which remain an area of uncertainty. DFO reviewed literature on laboratory and field studies on the effects of sound on marine organisms (DFO 2004a) and concluded that due to the lack of direct studies on marine mammals, it is unknown if exposure to seismic sound could reduce communication, reduce echolocation, hamper prey detection, hamper predator detection and or hamper parental care. Existing scientific information has been reviewed and applied where appropriate to the proposed Project.
6.3.2 Potential Issues Pulsed sound from seismic exploration has the potential to affect marine mammals. The highest energy output is at relatively low frequencies of 10 to 200 Hz. These frequencies overlap with the low frequency sound produced by baleen whales (12 to 500 Hz). The airgun arrays can still produce high frequency sound energy (up to 22 kHz) within a few kilometres of the source. These frequencies overlap with sound frequencies to which small odontocete (toothed whales) species use and are sensitive to in the 0.5 to 20 kHz range (Weir and Dolman 2007). Therefore, both odontocete and mysticete species may potentially be adversely affected by airgun noise.
There is a considerable amount of literature on potential impacts of seismic surveys on marine mammals; however, almost all the impacts have been inferred or assumed by implication rather than observed (MMS 2004). There have been no documented instances of deaths, physical injuries or auditory effects on marine mammals from seismic surveys (MMS 2004). Behavioural responses have been documented; the importance of this has yet to be determined. Potential interactions between the Project and marine mammals relate primarily to noise disturbance and direct physical effects associated with the vessel and air source operations. These disturbances may lead to the following effects: communication masking (e.g., interception of vocalizations); behavioural effects associated with seismic noise (e.g., avoidance, changes in migration, reproductive and feeding behaviours); and direct physical effects associated with seismic noise from air gun during 3D programs, well site surveys and VSPs (e.g. auditory damage, mortality).
Potential interactions between the seismic vessel and individual animals (e.g. collisions) are also considered.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 204 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.3.3 Significance Criteria A significant adverse environmental effect on marine mammals occurs when: a population or portion thereof is affected in such a way as to cause a decline or change in abundance and/or distribution of the population over one or more generations (may be due to loss of an individual(s) in the case of an endangered species); and/or the displacement of any species at risk from critical habitat; and/or long term avoidance of the area; and/or a disturbance of behavioural patterns adversely affects the ecological functioning of the species population.
A non-significant adverse environmental effect on marine mammals occurs when: mortality or serious injury to marine mammals occurs, but does not affect the stock or species at risk; or short term displacement from preferred habitat; or limited disturbance that does not affect the ecological functioning of the species or stock.
6.3.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation
6.3.4.1 Vessel Presence The potential effects from vessels on marine mammals include strikes, temporary behavioural (aversion or attraction) effects, and effects from vessel noise. The physical presence of the vessel during seismic surveys does not typically result in significant adverse effects such as collisions. Marine species, in particular marine mammals, are expected to easily avoid the vessel during seismic surveys due to exhibited avoidance behaviour to noise and the slow speed of the ship. The survey vessel will likely travel at an average speed of 4.5 knots when the survey gear is deployed and will increase to about 10 knots while in transit. These speeds are within operational activities of fishing and commercial marine traffic. While the potential for collision exists, collision events are predicted to be unlikely. Collision with an endangered species would be considered significant; however, since there are no records of collision between the listed species at risk and seismic vessels, the probability of occurrence is low. Bow wave-riding delphinids is considered an attraction behaviour response and unavoidable, and is not considered an adverse effect. Based on anecdotal evidence, pinnipeds appear to show little reaction to vessels in open water (Richardson and Malme, 1993). However, few studies describe the responses of pinnipeds in the water to vessel traffic. Seismic vessels activity is a minor component of total marine transportation in comparison with the hundreds of commercial tankers and cargo ships, a few research vessels, and many fishing vessels within the Study Area. The additional vessel activity from the survey is negligible compared to the other vessels and cumulative impacts on species at risk are not significant.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 205 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.3.4.2 Noise Emissions
6.3.4.2.1 Hearing Abilities and Sound Production Table 6.8 provides a range in hearing frequencies for some marine mammals. The calls of a blue whale have been recorded for 600 km (Stafford et al. 1998). A sperm whale call can be as loud as 232 dB re 1μParms (Møhl et al. 2003).
Table 6.8: Hearing Sensitivity in Marine Mammals
Species Hearing Range Reference odontocetes whales 150 Hz-16kHz Southall et al. 2006 Gervais beaked whale 5-80 kHz Cook et al. 2006 Gervais beaked whale 80-90 kHz upper limit Finneran 2009 porpoises 200Hz-180kHz Southall et al. 2007 baleen whales >1 kHz Richardson et al. 1995 Ketten 2000 baleen whales ≤ 8 kHz Au et al. 2006 humpback >24 kHz humpback and minke whales >22 kHz Berta et al. 2009 Baleen whales 7Hz-22 kHz Southall et al. 2007 pinnipeds 75 Hz-75kHz Southall et al. 2007
Figure 6.2 shows noise frequencies levels generated from ships, aircraft and sonar relative to hearing sensitivities of marine life. Most pinnipeds produce sounds with dominant frequencies between 0.1 and 3 kHz (Richardson and Malme 1993). The individual calls of harp seals range from less than 0.1 second to greater than 1 second in duration (Watkins and Schevill 1979). The frequencies contained in seismic and sub-bottom profiler pulses do overlap with some frequencies used by pinnipeds, but the discontinuous, short duration nature of the pulses is expected to result in limited masking of pinniped calls. Side-scan sonar and echo-sounder signals do not overlap with the predominant frequencies of pinniped calls, which avoid measurable masking. Data on underwater hearing sensitivities are available for three species of phocoenid seals, two species of monachid seals, two species of otariids and the walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) (Richardson and Malme 1993, Kastak and Schusterman 1998, Kastak et al. 1999, Kastelein et al. 2002). The hearing sensitivity of most pinniped species that have been tested ranges between 60 and 85 dB re 1 μPa from 1 kHz to 30 to 50 kHz. In the harbour seal, thresholds deteriorate gradually below 1 kHz to approximately 97 dB re 1 μPa at 100 Hz (Kastak and Schusterman 1998). Based on these data, it is likely that airgun pulses are readily audible to pinnipeds. Pinnipeds exposed to 2,500 Hz at 80 and 95 dB for 22, 25 and 50 minutes experienced TTS ranging from 2.9 to 12.2 minutes, but recovered fully within 24 hours of noise exposure (Kastak et al. 2005).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 206 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.3.4.2.2 Communication Responses The response of cetaceans during seismic surveys in their calling varies widely in research observations, including: continued calling, decreased, cessation, increased, and continued calling by moving away.
Some whales, dolphins and porpoises are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, which are typically 20 milliseconds in duration and occur every 11 second. Their calls can be heard between seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986, McDonald et al. 1995,
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 207 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Figu re 6.2: Anthropogenic noise frequencies in relation to marine mammal hearing (Mitson, R.B. 1995)
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 208 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Greene and McLennan 2000, Madsen et al. 2002a, Jochens and Biggs 2003, Smultea et al. 2004, Nieukirk et al. 2004, Holst et al. 2005, 2006; Jochens et al. 2008, Dunn and Hernandez 2009). Although there was reports that sperm whales and fin whales ceased calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al. 1994, Clark and Gagnon 2006). Toothed whales, and probably other marine mammals as well, have additional capabilities besides directional hearing that can facilitate detection of sounds in the presence of background sound. There is evidence that some toothed whales can shift the dominant frequencies of their echolocation signals from a frequency range with much ambient sound toward frequencies with less sound (Au et al. 1974, 1985, Moore and Pawloski 1990, Thomas and Turl 1990, Romanenko and Kitain 1992, Lesage et al. 1999). A few marine mammal species are known to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of elevated sound levels (Dahlheim 1987, Au 1993, Lesage et al. 1999, Terhune 1999, Hanser et al. 2009; Dilorio and Clark 2009). Castellote et al. (2010) and Blackwell et al. (2010) reported on fin whales and bowhead whales, respectively moving away during seismic surveys. There are reports of whales altering vocalization patterns when exposed to industrial and seismic noise and there are reports of no alteration in vocalization during seismic exposure (DFO 2004a). Whether there is a consequence to any change in vocalization pattern is difficult to determine, but there is potential for reduced ability to communicate information about feeding, breeding, parental care, predator avoidance or maintenance of social grouping. DFO (2004b) has therefore determined it is presently unknown, whether mammal exposure to seismic sound results in reduced communication efficiency. It is also unknown, since there have been no direct studies, of the potential for seismic sound to reduce the efficiency of echolocation in cetaceans (including species at risk), or the potential to hamper passive acoustic detection of prey or predators by marine mammals (DFO 2004a). There is a concern however, that whales exposed to seismic sounds can have a reduced ability to avoid anthropogenic threats such as ship strikes and fishing net entanglements, but the threat has not been demonstrated (DFO 2004a).
6.3.4.2.3 Masking Effects When anthropogenic noise from ships, seismic and sonar are layered on natural ambient sounds, the level of noise underwater can be quite loud in some areas. The anthropogenic noise is undetectable for marine mammals once it falls below ambient noise level or the hearing threshold of the animal. Given this and the fact that mammal response will vary by species and between individuals, the zone of potential influence of noise on marine mammals is highly variable. Although masking is a natural phenomenon to which marine mammals must be adapted, introduction of strong sounds into the sea at frequencies important to marine mammals will inevitably increase the severity and the frequency of occurrence of masking. For example, if a baleen whale is exposed to continuous low-frequency sound from an industrial source, this will reduce the size of the area around that whale within which it will be able to hear the calls of another whale. In general, little is known about the importance to marine mammals of detecting sounds from con-specifics, predators, prey, or other natural sources. In the absence of much
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 209 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA information about the importance of detecting these natural sounds, it is not possible to predict the impacts if mammals are unable to hear these sounds as often, or from as far away, because of masking by industrial sound (Richardson et al. 1995). In general, masking effects are expected to be less severe when sounds are transient than when they are continuous. Although some degree of masking is inevitable when high levels of man-made broadband sounds are introduced into the sea, marine mammals have evolved systems and behaviour that function to reduce the impacts of masking. Structured signals such as echolocation click sequences of small toothed whales may be readily detected even in the presence of strong background sound because their frequency content and temporal features usually differ strongly from those of the background sound (Au and Moore 1988, 1990). It is primarily the components of background sound that are similar in frequency to the sound signal in question that determine the degree of masking of that signal. Low-frequency industrial sound has little or no masking effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds. Masking effects of seismic survey sound on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited. Whale species at risk are highly dependent on sound for communicating, detecting predators, locating prey, and in toothed whales, echolocation (Lawson et al. 2000). Natural ambient noise created by wind, waves, ice and precipitation alone can cause masking or interfere with an animal’s ability to detect a sound. Whales themselves also contribute to the level of natural ambient noise. Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the smaller odontocete cetaceans, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses and the fact that sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies than air gun sounds. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by air source arrays is at low frequencies, with the strongest spectrum levels below 200 Hz, and considerably lower spectrum levels above 1,000 Hz. These frequencies are mainly used by baleen whales, but not by toothed whales or true seals. Furthermore, the discontinuous nature of seismic pulses makes significant masking effects unlikely even for baleen whales.
6.3.4.2.4 Physical Effects There are no documented cases of marine mammal mortality from exposure to seismic sounds and DFO (2004a) considers it unlikely that marine mammal mortality would be caused by seismic sound exposure.
For pulsed sounds, a broadband received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 µPa rms or greater was proposed as an indication of potential concern about temporary and/or permanent hearing impairment (Level A Harassment in the USA) to cetaceans (NMFS 2003; Madsen 2005). Level A Harassment is defined as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild” (NRC 2003b). The criterion proposed for Level A Harassment to pinnipeds from pulsive sounds is exposure to received levels of 190 dB re 1 µPa rms or greater. Extended periods of moderate noise levels under water can cause a temporary threshold shift (TTS) in some marine mammals, resulting in a reduction in hearing sensitivity and a small degree of permanent loss (Kastak et al. 2005). At TTS exposure levels, hearing sensitivity is
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 210 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA generally restored quickly after the sound dissipates. Noises of greater intensity may result in a permanent threshold shift (PTS), in which hearing loss is not recovered (Finneran et al. 2002). A PTS may be a symptom of physical damage and may alter the functional hearing sensitivity at some or all frequencies. Although there are no data to quantify sound levels required to cause a PTS, it is believed that a source level would have to far exceed the level required for a TTS, the exposure would have to be prolonged, or the rise level would be extremely short (LGL Limited 2009). Richardson et al. (1995) hypothesized that permanent hearing impairment of marine mammals would not likely occur unless prolonged exposure to continuous anthropogenic sounds exceeding 200 dB re 1 µPa-m was experienced. Research has shown that marine mammals exposed to intense sounds may exhibit decreased hearing sensitivities (TTS) following cessation of the sound (Au et al. 1999; Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000). TTS have been observed in captive marine mammals exposed to pulsed sounds in experimental conditions (Finneran et al. 2002), but the likelihood of these effects occurring have not been evaluated under field operating conditions. There is currently no agreement as to what level of TTS and time to recovery would present unacceptable risk to a marine mammal. NMFS policy is under review and currently states that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsive sounds exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa rms, respectively (NMFS 2000). The review by Southall et al. (2007) provides further research findings that proposes revised noise exposure criteria for marine mammals, but the criteria values have not been formally accepted by the NMFS for use in regulatory mitigation for seismic surveys. DFO uses a safe zone for mitigation instead of sound emission criteria. Criteria can be established for zones of influence based on ambient sound levels, absolute hearing thresholds of the species of interest, slight changes in behavior of the species of interest (including habituation), stronger disturbance effects (e.g., avoidance), temporary hearing impairment and permanent hearing or other physical damage, as illustrated in Figure 6.3 (Lawson et al. 2000, LGL Limited 2009).
Figure 6.3: Schematic representation of zones of potential effects associated with anthropogenic sounds on marine mammals
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 211 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Exposure to high-intensity pulsed sound such as explosions can cause other, non-auditory physical effects such as stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects and other types of organ or tissue damage (NRC 2003b; LGL Limited 2009). Little is known about the potential for the sounds produced during geophysical surveys to cause auditory threshold shifts or other effects in marine mammals. However, data suggest that if these effects do occur, they would only occur in close proximity to the sound sources. Thus, species that show behavioural avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some toothed whales and some pinnipeds, would not likely experience threshold shifts or other physical effects (LGL Limited 2009). Physical harm is expected to be mitigated by using ramp-up or soft-start procedures which will encourage whales to move from the area prior to physical effects occurring. As well, a survey of the area for mammals is conducted prior to starting ramp-up.
6.3.4.2.5 Behavioural Responses Anthropogenic sounds have the potential to disturb behaviour and/or interfere with important functions (Richardson and Malme 1993, NRC 2003b). A broadband-received sound pressure level of 160 dB re 1 µPa rms or greater is currently the best estimate available to cause disruption of behavioural patterns (Level B Harassment) to marine mammals (NRC 2003b). Level B Harassment is defined as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioural patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild” (NRC 2003b). Nowacek et al. (2007) and Richardson et al. (1995) provide good reviews of the knowledge of anthropogenic noise effects on marine mammals. Behavioural responses of marine mammals to noise are highly variable and dependent on a suite of internal and external factors (NRC 2003b). Internal factors include: individual hearing sensitivity, activity pattern and motivational and behavioural state at time of exposure; past exposure of the animal to the noise, which may have led to habituation or sensitization; individual noise tolerance; and demographic factors such as age, sex and presence of dependent offspring.
External factors include: non-acoustic characteristics of the sound source, such as whether it is stationary or moving; environmental factors that influence sound transmission; habitat characteristics, such as being in a confined area; and location, such as proximity to a shoreline.
Behavioural changes in whales resulting from seismic surveys will vary by species and even by individuals of the same species. Migrating humpback, grey, and bowhead whales have reacted
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 212 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA to sound pulses from marine seismic exploration by deviating from their normal migration route and/or interrupting their feeding and moving away (e.g., Malme et al. 1984, 1985, 1988, Richardson et al. 1986, 1995, Ljungblad et al. 1988, Richardson and Malme 1993, McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a, b, Miller et al. 1999). Some baleen whales may show strong avoidance at received levels lower than 160 to 170 dB re 1 μPa rms. The observed avoidance reactions included movement away from feeding locations or statistically significant deviations in the whales’ direction of swimming and/or migration corridor as they approached or passed the sound sources. In the case of the migrating whales, the observed changes in behaviour appeared to be of little biological consequence to the animals. They simply avoided the sound source by slightly displacing their migration route yet remained within the natural boundaries of the migration corridors. Few studies have been conducted on the reaction of toothed whales to seismic activity, but there are numerous observations of dolphins and porpoises bow riding active seismic vessels (e.g., Duncan 1985, Arnold 1996, Stone 2003). However, some studies, especially near the UK, showed localized (~one kilometre) avoidance (Calambokidis and Osmek 1998, Goold 1996a). There are no specific data on responses of beaked whales to seismic surveys (Würsig et al. 1998, Kasuya 1986). One incident of stranding of Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) in September 2002 in the Gulf of California after exposure to multi-beam bathymetric sonar, which emits high-frequency sound was thought to be in the best hearing range of toothed whales like the Cuvier's beaked whale (Malakoff 2002). The evidence linking the Gulf of California strandings to the seismic surveys is inconclusive, and to this date is not based on any physical evidence. Baleen whales generally avoid an operating air gun, but the avoidance radii appear to be quite variable. Baleen whales, like the listed fin and blue whales, may deviate from a migratory route, suspend feeding or avoid the area. The biological significance of such a change in behaviour is considered slight since there are no uniquely significant habitats (feeding, nursery, mating) identified within the Study Area and there are alternate feeding areas. Fin whales are expected to avoid the area of 160 dB and higher. They may tolerate higher decibel levels if they are feeding, rather than migrating, as bowheads apparently do (Miller et al. 2005). For instance, migratory bowhead whales may begin to avoid a seismic source 35 km away, but continue feeding until the sound source comes to within 3 km. Ringed seals near an artificial island drilling site were monitored before and during development of the site. Although air and underwater sound was audible to the seals for up to 5 km, there was no change in their density in that area between breeding seasons before and breeding seasons after development began (Moulton et al. 2003). Very little information exists on the reactions of pinnipeds to sounds from seismic exploration in open water (Richardson and Malme 1993). Visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown that pinnipeds frequently do not avoid the area within a few hundred metres of an operating airgun array (Harris et al. 2001). However, the telemetry research of Thompson et al. (1998) suggests that reactions may be stronger than has been evident from visual studies.
Exposure to sounds higher than 130 dB re 1 μParms is possible for marine mammals within 30 km horizontal to the array. The US NMFS has developed criteria for marine mammal seismic
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 213 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
exposure. The level considered harmful to whales is 180 dB re 1 μParms and sound levels of
160 dB re 1 μParms are considered to cause harassment to whales (NMFS 2000). ). Based on Austin and Carr (2005) modeling on the Scotian Shelf, a 180 dB zone could be 700 m from an airgun array; a 190 dB zone could be 300 m from an airgun array and a 160 dB zone could be distance of 5 to 6.5 km from an argun array. These distances depend on the airgun configuration and environmental setting and physical oceanographic conditions. Whales are not expected to be exposed to these sound levels since they will likely be deterred from the immediate area by the presence of the vessel and ramp-up procedure. The impact of mammal species at risk would depend on the duration and timing of the seismic survey as well as availability of alternate locations for activities the whales were engaged in. The Statement of Canadian Practice for Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment will also provide guidance to the seismic program. The Statement aims to formalise and standardise the mitigation measures used in Canada with respect to the conduct of seismic surveys in the marine environment. Sound level criteria are not provided for operators, instead a safe distance of 500 m from the array is required. It is based on a DFO-sponsored peer review by Canadian and international experts. The following points outline the mitigation measures described in the Statement of Canadian Practice (Appendix 2 of the C-NLOPB Geophysical Program Guidelines): Avoid death, harm, or harassment of individuals of marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened on SARA; Avoid, to the extent reasonably practical, causing a displacement of a group of breeding, feeding or nursing, or migrating, marine mammals, if it is known there are no alternate areas available to those marine mammals for those activities. Avoid, to the extent reasonably practical, displacing an individual marine mammal listed as endangered or threatened on SARA from breeding, feeding or nursing, or migrating, if it is known there are no alternate areas for those activities that the individual could be expected to use. Establish a safety zone of 500 metres from the centre of the seismic source array or arrays. Delay start up if a whale, other than a dolphin or a porpoise, is seen within the safety zone during the 30 minute visual survey until the whale has not been observed for at least 30 minutes within the safety zone or has been observed leaving the safety zone. Conduct regular on-going visual monitoring of the safety zone by a qualified Marine Mammal Observer, including continuous visual monitoring during a period of at least 30 minutes prior to start-up of the seismic array. Shut down seismic array when a marine mammal listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act has been observed in the 500 m safety zone. Operations may re-commence, using ramp-up/soft-start measures if the array has been shut down for more than 30 minutes. This includes commencing the ramp-up by firing a single source, preferably the smallest source in terms of energy output and volume; and continually activating additional sources in ascending order of size over a 20 to 40 minute period until desired operating level is attained.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 214 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Shut down seismic source array(s) or reduce to a single energy source for line changes. If shut down occurs, ramp-up/soft-start procedures will not be required as alternative measures to maintain the safety zone will be used.
MKI will conduct a marine mammal monitoring program for whale species at risk during survey data acquisition. The reporting of marine mammal observations will use the forms developed under the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Guidelines for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Surveys. A trained Environmental Observer will watch for marine mammals from the bridge, forward and aft, of the seismic vessel throughout the survey. MKI will establish a 500 m safety zone for the program and will delay start up of the air guns if a whale is observed at surface within the safety zone and will shut down the seismic array if a SARA listed whale or turtle is observed within the safety zone. Prior to arriving at the start of a line, the air source array will be slowly brought up to maximum power, a procedure referred to as a “soft start” or “ramping up”. An approved ramp-up procedure will be followed when air source operations begin or after every shutdown. Vessels towing streamers have limited manoeuvrability when the equipment is deployed. MKI will include a turn-around perimeter around the Study Area, during which time the array will be powered down to a single air source (likely the smallest) to warn marine mammals of the presence of the seismic vessel. If the air sources are completely shut down due to maintenance or other purposes, the procedure will be followed again.
6.3.5 Malfunctions and Accidental Events Spilled oil may affect marine mammals through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion and/or fouling of baleen plates. Potential impacts will be short-lived due to the high volatility and relatively small volume of the spilled oil (diesel or isopar) and confinement to surface water. No significant adverse effects are anticipated for marine mammals as a result of small volume accidental spills.
6.3.6 Monitoring and Follow-up A dedicated Environmental Observer will be onboard the seismic vessel. If a concentration of marine mammals is observed in a particular area, it is possible for the survey to shift to another part of the Study Area until the concentration has moved away. This, along with a whale survey before ramp up, a 30-minute ramp-up procedure, and the shut-in protocol if a SARA species is observed within 500m during active air gun firing, will ensure that whale species at risk in the Study Area are not significantly affected in an adverse manner. MKI will conduct a periodic review of the EA Report as deemed necessary to determine the validity of species at risk assessment and acknowledges that additional mitigation may be necessary should new species be added to Schedule 1 over the life of the Project.
6.3.7 Summary Table 6.8 summarizes the environmental effects on marine mammals from the MKI 2-D seismic surveys.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 215 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Table 6.8: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Marine Mammals Interactions and Issues Disturbance of marine mammals caused by the presence of vessels, particularly with regard to collisions with species at risk. Noise from seismic leading to masking of cetacean vocalization; behavioural changes; temporary threshold shift or hearing impairment; or physical injury. Impact Analysis There is lack of published information regarding avoidance thresholds in odontocete whales, however, baleen whales exhibit clear avoidance behaviours at threshold levels of approximately 160 to 170 dB re 1μPa (rms). NMFS policy regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is that whales should not be exposed to impulse sounds exceeding 180 dB re 1μPa (rms), although behavioural changes are apparent at 160 dB re 1μPa (rms) (NMFS 2000). Effects from seismic activities may result in physical injury and auditory impairment in cetaceans that are in close proximity (<100 m) to the firing air source array, a distance that should be avoided by marine mammals through ramping-up or when they hear the approaching seismic vessel. Auditory damage and mortality as a result of seismic activities and/or vessel traffic is not considered to be a major concern with respect to the proposed Project. The proposed Project may result in behavioural effects on marine mammals; however, most studies indicate that such behavioural disturbances are likely to be transitory with normal behaviour resuming within an hour or two after vessel passage. Mortality, serious injury or displacement from behavioural patterns that disrupt the ecological functioning of a species are not expected as there is no evidence nor expectation that seismic activities will result in these effects (MMS 2004). Mitigation Collision avoidance practices, including constant speed and course maintained by seismic and support vessels. Trained observer on the seismic vessel to ensure that air sources are shut down if SARA species are present within 500 m of the seismic vessel. Prior to start, survey of a 500 m zone from the array for whales before ramp-up procedure Ramp-up procedure will be implemented, prior to start. Ramp-up will be delayed if a marine mammal is present within 500 m of the seismic vessel. Ramp-up will commence again once marine mammal vacates 500 m zone..
Ecological/Socio-Cultural and Project Activity Economic Content Duration Duration Magnitude Magnitude Frequency Frequency Geographic Geographic Reversibility
Vessel 1 1 3 1 R 1 Presence/Collision 2-D programme 2 2 2 1 R 1 Accidental Spill 1 3 1 1 R 1 Significance of Residual Effect Not adversely significant Confidence Medium level of confidence related to significance rating given international and local industry experience
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 216 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Magnitude Geographic Frequency Duration Reversibility 0=negligible Extent 1= isolated 1=days R=reversible 1=low 1= 10s of metres 2= intermittent 2=two weeks I=Irreversible 2=medium 2= <500 m 3 = continuous 3= 30 days 3=high 3= 1-10 km 4= 60 days 4= 10-50 km 5= >50 km Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context 1 Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2 Evidence of existing adverse effects
6.4 Sea Turtles Sea turtles are considered a VEC due to their special conservation status and uncertainty regarding their distribution in the Study Area. Any loss of breeding adults, above that caused by natural predation and disease, can lead to significant declines in population. As well, the leatherback is a SARA-listed species.
6.4.1 Boundaries The spatial boundaries for the assessment of sea turtles include the Study Area, although it is recognized that sea turtles have widespread distribution patterns from the Caribbean to the Northwest Atlantic, as far north as Labrador. Temporal boundaries are defined by the Project schedule (May to November). Based on data collected by DFO, marine turtles are likely to occur in the Study Area during the summer and fall months. For the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that any species of sea turtle that could potentially be present offshore Newfoundland could be present within the Study Area.
6.4.2 Potential Issues Potential interactions between the Project seismic surveys and sea turtles relate primarily to auditory damage and behavioural effects (e.g., avoidance behaviour, increased swimming speeds).
6.4.3 Significance Criteria A significant adverse environmental effect on sea turtles is one that may result in: mortality or serious injury of one or more individuals of a species at risk; long-term displacement from preferred or critical habitat; and/or change in the preferred or critical habitat.
A non-significant adverse environmental effect on sea turtles is one that may result in: minor injury of one or more individual of any sea turtles species; and/or short term displacement from preferred or critical habitat.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 217 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.4.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation
6.4.4.1 Vessel Presence There is some risk to marine turtles from collision with seismic vessels, as they would be with fishing and commercial marine traffic. As they are submerged for the most part and may avoid seismic arrays, the risk of mortality or serious injury to sea turtles is anticipated to be low (MMS 2004).
6.4.4.2 Noise Emissions
6.4.4.2.1 Hearing Ability Studies on sea turtle hearing are limited and the role in their ecological functioning is not well known. It has been suggested that sound may play a role in sea turtle navigation. However, recent studies suggest that visual, wave and magnetic cues are the principal navigational cues used by hatchling and juvenile sea turtles (Lohmann and Lohmann 1996, Lohmann et al. 2001). Maximum hearing sensitivity in sea turtles has been observed in the 100 to 700 Hz range (Ridgway et al. 1969, McCauley 1994, Davis et al. 1998).
6.4.4.2.2 Physical Effects Sea turtles remain submerged for the majority of time and thus may be exposed to the highest sound levels as the vessel and towed equipment pass overhead. TTS was observed by Moein et al. (1994) when loggerhead turtles were exposed to a few hundred air source pulses approximately 65 m away. Moein et al. (1994) do not describe the received sound levels or size of the air source used, making it difficult to estimate the sound level that caused TTS in loggerhead turtles. The hearing capabilities of the loggerhead turtles returned to normal two weeks later. Temporary or permanent hearing impairment may occur at close range, but life- threatening injury or mortality is unlikely. Weir’s (2007) observation of collisions between turtles and vessels are clearly not limited to seismic ships, which are slow (survey speed of 4–5 knots) compared with other vessel types. However, the large amount of equipment towed astern of seismic ships does increase the potential for collision. Basking turtles were particularly slow to react; for example one animal was washed away in the bow-wave while others had ‘near misses’ with towed surface floats. While little can be done to avoid outright collision, turtles can also become entrapped within some seismic equipment leading to suffocation. For example, during seismic surveys off West Africa in 2003, turtles became fatally entrapped within gaps in the tail-buoys (seismic personnel, pers. comms.). Weir recommended that modifying equipment (e.g. with ‘turtle guard’ bars placed over such gaps to exclude turtles) can prevent these scenarios and should be implemented on all seismic vessels operating in turtle-inhabited areas. MKI has fitted a debris guard on their array tailbouy to reduce entanglement.
6.4.4.2.3 Behavioural Effects Research has shown that sea turtles modify their behavioral patterns when exposed to high- intensity sound. For example, studies carried out by Lenhart (1994) showed that sea turtles
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 218 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA increase their movements after airgun shots and do not return to the depth where they usually rest. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association sponsored an experimental program between 1996 and 1999 to study the environmental implications of marine seismic surveys. One of the components of this program, run by the Centre for Marine Science and Technology of Curtin University in Western Australia, involved trials with an air gun approaching caged sea turtles, fishes and squid (McCauley et al. 2000). Observers noted erratic behaviour (“alarm response”) of caged loggerhead and green turtles at received sound levels of 175 dB re
μPa(rms) (or 185 dB re 1 μPa0-p) while received sound levels of 166 dB re μParms (or 176 dB re
1μPa0-p) triggered avoidance behaviour. Marine turtles displayed no long-term neurophysical damage. Although a reduction in hearing capability was evident, the effect was temporary and returned to normal within a short period of time (McCauley et al. 2000). The avoidance reaction could be generated by this 3-D program array of 240 dB re 1μParms at a distance of about 65 m horizontal from the array and to the seafloor over all water depths (100 to 500 m) at 45º angle of emission. Erratic behaviour could result between 16 m and 64 m based on 0° and 45° angles of emission, respectively. Marine turtles are expected to display behavioural changes at around two kilometres and avoidance around one kilometre from the seismic array in 100 to 120 m water depth (McCauley et al. 2000). These results were consistent with other similar studies (e.g., O’Hara and Wilcox 1990; Moein et al. 1994) that demonstrated avoidance of operating air guns. Moein et al. (1994) observed avoidance behaviour during the first presentation of the airgun exposure at a mean range of 24 m. Further trials several days afterwards did not elicit statistically significant avoidance behaviour. Physiological measurements showed evidence of increased stress; however, the effect of handling the turtles was not taken into account within the study and, therefore, the increased stress could not be attributed to the airgun operations. A temporary reduction in hearing capability was evident from the neurophysiological measurements but this effect was temporary and the turtles hearing returned to pre-test levels at the end of two weeks. Moein et al. (1994) concluded that this might have been due to either habituation or a temporary shift in the turtles hearing capability. Recent monitoring studies have shown that some sea turtle’s show localized movement away from approaching airguns (Holst et al. 2005). However, studies have observed that there was no adverse effect on sea turtles off Brazil following over 2000 hours of seismic survey (Parente et al. 2006) or significant different between turtle sightings when seismic surveys were on or off, near the coast of West Africa (Weir 2007). It is therefore reasonable to assume that marine turtles in the Study Areas would attempt to avoid the operating seismic vessel, thereby limiting their exposure to increased noise levels. Eckert et al. (1989) stated that the leatherback turtle can achieve a sustainable swimming speed of 3.6 km/hr. The available evidence from the scientific literature suggests that sea turtles may show behavioural responses to an approaching airgun array at a received level of approximately 166 dB re 1 μPa(rms) and if avoidance behaviour is trigged at 176 dB re 1 μPa(0-p), the ramp-up procedure will provide sufficient time for turtles to move away from the source.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 219 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The Science Review Working Group, in their evaluation of two proposed seismic surveys near Cape Breton agreed that based on the limited knowledge of marine turtle response to sound; effects from seismic activities are likely to be sub-lethal, affecting fitness of exposed individuals only. MKI will ramp up for 30 minutes to allow for the marine turtle’s swimming speed. Any avoidance behaviour caused by the Project is expected to be temporary and is not predicted to affect migration patterns and reproductive behaviour, particularly as the marine turtles found in the Study Area are considered migrants, with major breeding grounds located well to the south in the Caribbean. Survey activities are not expected to affect the distribution or abundance of marine turtle prey items (e.g. jellyfish). The MKI seismic surveys are, therefore, not predicted to result in a significant adverse effect on the foraging leatherback turtle population on the southern Newfoundland waters.
6.4.5 Malfunctions and Accidental Events Oil may affect marine turtles through dermal contact, inhalation or ingestion. This risk of such events occurring is very low, as discussed. No significant adverse effects are likely to occur as a result of an accidental event associated with this Project.
6.4.6 Monitoring and Follow-up Because sea turtles are visually and acoustically difficult to detect, the mitigation of observing to avoid is considered less effective than for marine mammals. However, the airgun array will be shut down if a sea turtle is observed within 500 m of the seismic vessel (500 m from the vessel is more conservative than 500 m from the arrays, as the vessel is moving forward at approximately 4-5 knots). A trained observer will keep daily records of marine turtles within visual range, weather permitting. Any sightings of marine turtles will be provided to the Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Working Group for use and distribution. Given the lack of systematic surveys for marine turtles in the Project Area, this opportunity for observation of marine turtles will add to the understanding of their distribution offshore Newfoundland and may provide additional insight into their behavioural response to seismic activities.
6.4.7 Summary Table 6.9 summarizes potential interactions, environmental effects, mitigation, residual and cumulative effects on marine turtles from the MKI 2-D seismic surveys.
Table 6.9: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Marine Turtles Interactions and Issues noise from seismic surveys collision entanglement and vessel cables Impact Analysis Potential interactions between marine turtles and the Project are expected to be adverse, but not significant, if at all, based on their transitory presence in the Study Area and tendency to avoid seismic operations. Ramp up procedures will also serve to further minimize direct effects on marine turtles. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the residual environmental effects of planned Project components on marine turtles are evaluated as not significant.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 220 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Mitigation A 30-minute ramp-up procedure will be implemented for seismic surveys Pre-survey for sea turtles. Air source s will be shut down if a leatherback turtle is observed within 500 m. Ramping up will be delayed if a sea turtle is observed within 500 m. Debris/turtle guard fitted to tailbuoy
Ecological/Socio- Project Activity Cultural and Economic Content Duration Duration Magnitude Magnitude Frequency Frequency Geographic Geographic Reversibility
Vessel Presence/ Collision 0 1 3 1 R 1 2-D program 1 2 2 1 R 1 Accidental Spill 1 1 1 1 R 1 Significance of Residual Effect Not adversely significant Confidence High level of confidence based on previous seismic surveys, monitoring observations and research. Magnitude Geographic Frequency Duration Reversibility 0=negligible Extent 1= isolated 1=days R=reversible 1=low 1= 10s of metres 2= intermittent 2=two weeks I=Irreversible 2=medium 2= <500 m 3 = continuous 3=one month 3=high 3= 1-10 km 4=two months 4= 10-50 km 5= >50 km Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context 1=Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2=Evidence of existing adverse effects
6.5 Species at Risk There is one bird species at risk considered in this section: Ivory Gull
Fish species at risk known to or may occur in the Study Area: Atlantic cod American plaice Roundnose grenadier Roughhead grenadier Northern wolffish Atlantic wolffish Spotted wolffish
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 221 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Porbeagle shark Blue shark Shortfin mako White shark Basking shark Cusk
There are seven marine mammal species at risk that are known to or may occur in the Study Area: North Atlantic right whale Blue whale Fin Whale Sowerby’s beaked whale Northern bottlenose whale Harbour porpoise Killer whale
There are two sea turtle species at risk that may occur in the Study Area: Leatherback sea turtle Loggerhead sea turtle
6.5.1 Boundaries The spatial boundaries of interaction between species at risk and the Project are primarily related to the zone of influence as predicted by modelling of noise attenuation from the seismic array. Ecological spatial boundaries vary between the various species at risk although it is recognized that most species at risk range well beyond the Study Area. For example, cod are known to spawn in the Study Area. The ecological spatial boundary for marine bird species at risk includes the breeding, nesting, foraging and overwintering habitat of Ivory Gull. As discussed above, there is likely no direct interaction with this Project. There are no known nesting grounds for the Ivory Gull in the Study Area, and any presence in the area is expected to be incidental. Seven species of cetaceans are listed at risk that occur in the Study Area and can be potentially affected by Project activities. Spatial distribution for sea turtles is vast and encompasses and extends into the southern Newfoundland waters. Leatherback and loggerhead turtles generally migrate between the warm and cold waters seasonally, migrating north to forage and south to breed in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Caribbean Sea. Sea turtles are likely to occur in the Study Area during the summer and fall months. With respect to temporal boundaries, the potential interactions of concern are those related to the seismic activities that could occur at any time of year during a nine year (2010 to 2018) time period. Fish species at risk spawn in May to July and the surveys are likely to interact.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 222 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
The presence of Ivory Gull in the Study Area would be incidental; and therefore, there are no relevant temporal boundaries for this species. The ecological temporal boundaries for cetaceans vary according to species. Most cetaceans are migratory and occur predominantly during the summer and fall months (Reeves and Brown 1994), and thus may be in the Study Area during surveys. With regard to administrative boundaries, the SARA is administered by Environment Canada, Parks Canada, and DFO. The boundaries of the critical habitat for each species are defined in species recovery strategies, action plans and management plans. The technical boundaries of the assessment include limited knowledge on potential effects of seismic sounds on individual species at risk found in the Study Area and the lack of information on the use of the Regional Area by species at risk. Because there is little species-specific information directly related to species at risk in the Study Area, existing scientific information has been reviewed and applied generically where appropriate to the proposed Project seismic surveys.
6.5.2 Potential Issues Potential interactions between Project activities and species at risk relate primarily to behavioural and physiological effects associated with air source operations and oiling for an accidental release of hydrocarbons. These disturbances may lead to the following effects: direct physical effects associated with seismic noise; behavioural effects associated with seismic noise, auditory and communication masking by seismic noise in fish, marine mammals and sea turtles; and physical effects from oiling, particularly marine birds.
There are also likely interactions associated with operation of the seismic survey vessels and vessel traffic, particularly for bird species (e.g., attraction, noise and lights, oiling), sea turtles, and marine mammals (e.g., collisions with vessels).
6.5.3 Significance Criteria A significant, adverse environmental effect is one that, after application of all feasible mitigation and consideration of all reasonable Project alternatives: will prevent the achievement of self-sustaining population objectives or recovery goals; will result in exceedance of applicable allowable harm assessments; for which an incidental harm permit would not likely be issued. Due to the sensitive nature of species at risk, residual adverse effects on one individual may be considered significant; and/or will result in species being permanently displaced from critical habitat.
A non-significant, adverse environmental effect is one that, after application of all feasible mitigation and consideration of all reasonable Project alternatives:
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 223 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
results in threats to individuals, residences or critical habitat of listed species that does not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species; does not result in exceedance of applicable allowable harm assessments; and/or for which an incidental harm permit would likely be issued.
6.5.4 Effects Assessment Potential effects on species at risk are discussed for marine and migratory birds, fish, for marine mammals and for sea turtles. Recovery plans for the species at risk that have the potential to occur in the Study Area are discussed below with respect to mitigation measures applied to the Project. Recovery plans for species that are pending will be considered over the course of the nine year period, once or if they become available.
6.5.4.1 Marine and Migratory Bird Species at Risk The Ivory Gull is very vulnerable to any type of disturbance at certain times of the breeding season. They may abandon eggs if approached. The Ivory Gull breeds in high-Arctic coastal areas with permanent pack ice and open water. It winters primarily in Arctic seas, though may be seen along the Atlantic coast to New York (COSEWIC 2006). There are not known nesting grounds for the Ivory Gull in the Study Area, and any presence in the area are expected to be incidental.
6.5.4.2 Fish Species at Risk
6.5.4.2.1 Vessel Presence Potential impacts of vessel traffic on Atlantic cod and several species of wolffishes have been identified in ‘A Strategy for the Recovery and Management of Cod Stocks in Newfoundland and Labrador’ (2005) and ‘Recovery Strategy for the Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada’ (Kulka et al. 2007, DFO 2008), respectively. Areas of concern related to vessel traffic and mitigation measures are addressed below.
6.5.4.2.2 Noise Emission With respect to attributing the decline and low levels of cod stocks to the petroleum industry, the most recent review of the effects of seismic sound on fish and other marine species (DFO 2004a) found no documented cases of fish mortality from exposure to seismic sound under field conditions and concludes that such exposure is unlikely to result in direct fish mortality. The review concludes also that the behavioural changes in fish observed to occur are expected to be of little ecological significance except where they influence reproductive activity. Similarly, it found that the magnitude of mortality that might be caused to fish eggs and larvae is likely to be far below that which would be expected to affect populations. There are no unique features of cod biology that would make it an exception to the conclusions of the review that seismic surveys are unlikely to pose a high risk of mortality. It is pointed out, however, that there is a dearth of scientific information, particularly from field experiments, on the effects of sound on fish. The Statement of Canadian Practice for Mitigation of Seismic Noise (DFO 2007) provides
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 224 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA for protection against disruption of cod spawning or migratory behaviour that could have negative effects at the population level, such as causing recruitment failure. There is no evidence to support a view that direct mortalities of either adults or eggs and larvae are sufficiently great to have population level consequences (DFO 2005a). Fish use sound for communication, navigation and sensing of prey and predators. In particular, sound transmission is thought to play an important role in cod mating (Engen and Folstad 1999; Hawkins and Amorin 2000). One study on the acoustic sound production of Atlantic cod provides some insight into possible mating behaviours. Drumming muscles are present in both males and females, yet males tend to have more pronounced muscles. The mass of the drumming muscles increases in males prior to spawning and larger males have larger muscles. This suggests that the amplitude of sound production might be a determinant in the success of spawning and selection by females. Observations of Atlantic cod behaviour support the hypothesis that females are responsible for mate selection. The biology of the drumming muscles in males, as well as the circling behaviour of numerous males around prospective females supports the female selection hypothesis. A comparison of moderately sensitive species such as cod, haddock, pollock and redfish determined a measurable behavioural response in the range of 160 to 188 dB re 1μPa (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994). Source levels during seismic surveys are usually in excess of the noise levels that elicit a response in fish, so the area in which fish react to the noise may extend up to 16 km in the open ocean. By comparison underwater ambient noise in bad weather is in the range of 90 to 100 dB re 1 μPa. Sea ice noise can be significant and highly variable. The spring noise spectra peaked at about 90 dB re 1 μPa. Spawning cod would be exposed to the spring ice melt noises. Large tankers may have a source noise level of 170 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. Effects of auditory masking on fish are discussed above. The proposed seismic survey are not expected to cause long-term or permanent displacement of any listed species from critical habitat or other preferred habitat nor result in destruction or adverse modification of critical or essential fish habitat. Therefore, potential impacts to fish species at risk will be negligible most of the time with occasional impacts being potentially adverse but not significant. The recovery strategy for wolffishes states (Kulka et al. 2007, DFO 2008) “Impact of incidental capture of wolffish in many fisheries is thought to be the leading cause of human induced mortality. However, the live release of spotted and northern wolffish mitigates the affect of incidental capture to some degree”. Other potential sources of harm (habitat alteration, oil exploration and production, pollution, shipping, cables and lines, military activities, ecotourism and scientific research) are considered to have negligible impacts on the ability of both spotted and northern wolffish to survive and recover (DFO 2008). While all three species have undergone substantial declines during the 1980s and 1990s, the causes of their decline remain uncertain (Kulka et al. 2007, DFO 2008). The effects of bottom trawling activities on wolffish habitat, the discharge of bilge and ballast water, and pollution from land-based sources may all be contributors to the species’ decline, though further investigation into these factors in necessary. The importance of effects mitigation during offshore exploration activities has also been underlined in the recovery and management strategies for these three species. Nothing is known about the possible effect on wolffish species at any stage of their life history, and
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 225 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA currently there is scientific uncertainty regarding the potential impacts of seismic activity on marine organisms in general. The recovery strategy for wolffishes cites Sverdrup (et al. 1994) who suggests that airgun blasts constitute a highly un-physiological sensory stimulus to fish. The noise from airguns generates a compression and decompression wave in the water that, at close range, is sufficient to kill fish at certain life stages (Boudreau et al. 1999). At less than about 5 m, air guns have the potential to cause direct physical injury to fish, eggs and larvae. However, Payne (2004) provides a literature review that suggests that injury to fish eggs and larvae even at close range is limited. It is likely that fish would be driven away from the noise prior to coming close to the air guns, so the risk of physical injury would be greatest for those organisms that cannot swim away from the approaching sound source, especially eggs and larvae. If seismic operations are conducted in areas where larvae are aggregated then higher levels of mortality may occur. However, the level of mortality for marine fish is not regarded as having significant effects on recruitment to a stock (Payne 2004, Dalen et al. 1996). In the case of wolffish, adults and eggs are generally found on or near bottom at distances of 100-900 m away from the surface. Hence, direct physical impact on these life stages will likely be minimal or non-existent. The recovery potential assessment for cusk (DFO 2008b) notes that fishing is the only known major source of human-induced mortality on cusk. Habitat does not appear to be, nor is likely to become, a limiting factor to cusk survival and recovery. There are no known threats from seismic surveys that have reduced cusk habitat quantity or quality. The recovery potential assessment for Atlantic cod in NAFO Divisions 2GHJ, 3KLNO list threats to include overfishing, habitat degradation through physical damage and eutrophication (DFO 2011d). There is uncertainty if oil and gas development may cause of physical disturbance or contamination. Seismic effects on spawning cod was not noted. The recovery potential assessment for American plaice (DFO 2011c) notes that the greatest threat to recovery of this species is continued fishing mortality. Threats related to oil drilling include discharges of drill wastes. The recovery potential assessment for shortfin mako in Atlantic Canada notes that high exploitation rate is the only cause for the apparent decline in population size that has been identified for shortfin mako (DFO 2006b). Estimates of allowable harm could not be calculated. There are neither mating areas nor nursery grounds in Canadian waters, so there are no sensitive habitats to protect in the Study Area. The status and recovery potential report for porbeagle shark (DFO 2005) does not list the threats from petroleum related activity. There are no recovery potential assessment or recovery strategies finalized or developed yet for roughhead or roundnose grenadier, basking shark in Atlantic waters, blue shark, or white shark (DFO 2006c). MKI will be examining the progress of DFO and COSEWIC efforts in this regard. The proposed seismic survey are not expected to cause long-term or permanent displacement of any listed species from critical habitat or other preferred habitat nor result in destruction or adverse modification of critical or essential fish habitat. Therefore, potential impacts to fish
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 226 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA species at risk will be negligible most of the time with occasional impacts being potentially adverse but not significant.
6.5.4.2.3 Malfunctions and Accidental Events While risk to adult fish and shellfish is low, pelagic fish eggs and larvae may be affected to different degrees by an accidental spill of hydrocarbons in the water. The nature and degree of such an interaction depends on the severity, timing, and location of the spill. The risk of such vessel accidents is low, and the volumes potentially released are limited. Although oil spills and blowouts can result in fish kills, neither event has been found to result in a decrease in fish stocks (Environment Canada 1984; Martec Limited 1984; Armstrong et al. 1995). Therefore, incidents involving seismic survey vessels are not likely to result in significant effects on fish. Potential oil spillage may occur from ballast and bilge water discharge but will be regulated to ensure that oil concentrations in the discharge do not exceed 15 mg/L as required by the MARPOL 73/78 (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1972, and the Protocol of 1978 related thereto), International Maritime Organization and OWTG. Any accidental spills will be reported to the C-NLOPB immediately.
6.5.4.3 Marine Mammals at Risk
6.5.4.3.1 Vessel Presence The potential effects from vessels on marine mammals include strikes, temporary behavioural (aversion or attraction) effects, and effects from vessel noise. The physical presence of the vessel during seismic surveys does not typically result in significant adverse effects. Several potential impacts of vessel traffic and noise on North Atlantic right whales have been identified in the recovery strategy for the north Atlantic right whale (DFO 2009d). Vessel collisions, noise disturbance and habitat degradation have been identified as three of the main threats to North Atlantic right whale recovery. Entanglement with fishing gear is a well-documented and publicized impact on the north Atlantic right whale in the Bay of Fundy. No fishing gear will be aboard the vessel, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. There are no records of marine mammals becoming entangled in seismic arrays or hydrophone cables. Marine species, in particular marine mammals, are expected to easily avoid the vessel during seismic surveys due to exhibited avoidance behaviour to noise and the slow speed of the ship. The survey vessel will likely travel at an average speed of 4.5 kn when the survey gear is deployed and will increase to approximately 10 kn while in transit. While the potential for collision exists, collision events are predicted to be unlikely, the presence of Environmental Observers will further mitigate vessel and whale collisions. Collision with an endangered species would be considered significant; however, since there are no records of collision between the listed species at risk and seismic vessels, the probability of occurrence is considered low. The Survey Area is not located in or anywhere near a Right Whale Sanctuary or any area considered where they aggregate. In the recovery strategy for the blue whale (DFO 2011) vessel collision as a medium risk threat to blue whale recovery. Large vessels traveling between 8.6 and 15 knots, such as container ships and other large vessels (i.e., measuring 80 m long and more), have been found to be the
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 227 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA principal source of severe or fatal injuries for large whales. A blue whale (northwest Atlantic population) recovery action plan will be developed by 2014. Meanwhile, many of the recommended approaches proposed in the recovery strategy are expected to be initiated and pursued even in the absence of a formal action plan. The recommended recovery approaches to meet recovery objectives for noise and collision include: implement adequate mitigation measures for all inshore and offshore projects within the range of the blue whale; minimize blue whale exposure to risk of collisions; and raise awareness in the marine shipping industry and on large cruise vessels of their negative impact on the blue whale population.
Performance measures for collision avoidance include: boats use shipping lanes in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and off the North American coast reducing impact on blue whales; and target audiences have been identified and appropriate activities to raise awareness were carried out.
The recovery strategy for the northern bottlenose whale is specific for the Scotian Shelf population, with mention of the Davis Strait population (DFO 2010). In general, DFO states that potential threats from acoustic disturbance, discarded materials and vessel collisions, are not limited to the activities of the oil and gas industry. The plan does not make mention of reducing oil and gas exploration as a recovery target. There is no recovery strategy, action plan or management plan for Sowerby’s beaked whale or fin whale. Seismic vessels activity is a minor component of total marine transportation compared with the hundreds of commercial tanker, cargo ships, research vessels, cruise ships, fishing vessels and offshore supply vessel trips. The additional vessel activity from the survey is negligible compared to the other vessels and cumulative impacts on species at risk are not significant.
6.5.4.3.2 Noise Emission Marine noise is a highly emotive issue as it affects cetaceans (large marine mammals, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises). Initial studies have established that noise generated from offshore operations present a low risk to marine life, but due to a lack of data for sensitive species, this statement cannot be adequately defined in all cases. In the proposed recovery strategy for the blue whale (DFO 2009e) seismic noise is considered a high risk threat to blue whale recovery and vessel collision as a medium risk threat. The potential effects of noise have been discussed at length. Large vessels traveling between 8.6 and 15 knots, such as container ships and other large vessels (i.e., measuring 80 m long and more), have been found to be the principal source of severe or fatal injuries for large whales. A blue whale (northwest Atlantic population) recovery action plan will be developed by 2014, at the latest. Meanwhile, many of the recommended approaches proposed in the recovery
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 228 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA strategy are expected to be initiated and pursued even in the absence of a formal action plan. The recommended recovery approaches to meet recovery objectives for noise and collision include: Implement adequate mitigation measures for all inshore and offshore projects within the range of the blue whale; minimize blue whale exposure to vessel noise and risk of collisions; and raise awareness in the marine shipping industry and on large cruise vessels of their negative impact on the blue whale population. Performance measures for noise and collision include: percentage of noise reduction from anthropogenic sources (e.g., seismic exploration, military operations, explosions, drilling) within the Canadian portion of the range; boats use shipping lanes in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and off the North American coast reducing impact on blue whales; and target audiences have been identified and appropriate activities to raise awareness were carried out.
The proposed Recovery Strategy for the Northern Bottlenose Whale is specific for the Scotian Shelf population, with mention of the Davis Strait population (DFO 2009c). In general, DFO states that potential threats from acoustic disturbance, discarded materials and vessel collisions, are not limited to the activities of the oil and gas industry. The plan does not make mention of reducing oil and gas exploration as a recovery target. There are no documented cases of marine mammal mortality from exposure to seismic sounds and DFO (2004b) considers it unlikely that mammal mortality would be caused by seismic sound exposure. A dedicated Environmental Observer will be onboard the seismic vessel. This, along with a 30- minute ramp-up procedure will ensure that whale species at risk in the Study Area are not significantly affected. The potential effects from vessels on marine mammals include strikes, temporary behavioural (aversion or attraction) effects, and effects from vessel noise. The physical presence of the vessel during seismic surveys does not typically result in significant adverse effects. Marine species, in particular marine mammals, are expected to easily avoid the vessel during seismic surveys due to exhibited avoidance behaviour to noise and the slow speed of the ship. The survey vessel will likely travel at an average speed of 4.5 kn when the survey gear is deployed and will increase to approximately 10 kn while in transit. While the potential for collision exists, collision events are predicted to be unlikely, the presence of Environmental Observers will further mitigate vessel and whale collisions. Collision with an endangered species would be considered significant; however, since there are no records of collision between the listed species at risk and seismic vessels, the probability of occurrence is considered low.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 229 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.5.4.3.3 Malfunctions and Accidents Petroleum spills are potentially a threat to North Atlantic right whale recovery. Minimal amounts of oil will be aboard the seismic vessel. Potential oil spillage may occur from ballast and bilge water discharge but will be regulated to ensure that oil concentrations in the discharge do not exceed 15 mg/L as required by the MARPOL 73/78 (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1972, and the Protocol of 1978 related thereto), International Maritime Organization and OWTG. Any accidental spills will be reported to the C-NLOPB immediately.
6.5.4.4 Sea Turtle Species at Risk
6.5.4.4.1 Vessel Presence Several potential impacts of vessel traffic on leatherback turtles have been identified in the ‘Recovery Strategy for the Leatherback Turtle in Atlantic Canada (Atlantic Leatherback Recovery Team 2006). There is some risk to marine turtles from collision with seismic vessels. As they are submerged for the most part and may avoid seismic arrays, the risk of mortality or serious injury is anticipated to be low (MMS 2004). Environmental observers in Canada have not noted the presence of marine turtles during seismic surveys; however, visual monitoring provides limited mitigation due to the low profile of marine turtles in the water, limited surface time, and solitary nature at sea. Guard for debris and turtles are fitted to the MKI tailbouy to prevent entanglement.
6.5.4.4.2 Noise Emissions There are a range of sources of anthropogenic noise in the marine waters of Atlantic Canada that produce underwater sounds within the frequency range detectable by sea turtles. These include oil and gas exploration and development, shipping, fishing, military activity, underwater detonations, and shore based activities (Davis et al. 1998; Greene and Moore 1995; Lawson et al. 2000) Physical harm is expected to be mitigated by using ramp-up or soft-start procedures which will encourage whales to move from the area prior to physical effects occurring. The Statement of Canadian Practice for Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment for ramp-up and shut down of the air sleeves will be closely followed to avoid death, harm or harassment of individuals of sea turtles listed under SARA. Specifically, the ramp-up of the air sleeve to seismic survey capacity will occur over a 20- to 40-minute period to initiate a behavioural avoidance response in sea turtles whereby they will leave the Project Study Area prior to experiencing hearing damage. MKI will make the necessary arrangements to ensure that a qualified Environmental Observer will be on board the survey vessel at all times during the survey period. The observer will conduct continuous monitoring for sea turtles for 30 minutes prior to start-up of the seismic array. Should any sea turtle be observed in a 500-m zone from the centre of the seismic source array, start-up will be delayed until the animal has not been observed for 30 minutes. The
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 230 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA survey will also shut down should the observer detect a turtle within 500 m from the centre of the seismic source array.
6.5.4.4.3 Malfunctions and Accidental Events Oil may affect marine turtles through dermal contact, inhalation or ingestion. This risk of such events occurring is low. Potential impacts will be short-lived and confined to the surface water. No significant adverse effects are likely to occur as a result of an accidental event associated with this Project.
6.5.5 Follow up and Monitoring Monitoring of species at risk is the same as for unlisted species discussed in the appropriate VEC sections above.
6.5.6 Summary A summary of potential interactions, environmental effects, mitigation, and cumulative and residual environmental effects is provided in Table 6.10.
Table 6.10: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Species at Risk Interactions and Issues Direct physical effects associated with seismic noise, entanglement and collision (e.g., auditory damage, egg and larval mortality). Behavioural effects associated with seismic noise (e.g., avoidance, changes in migration, reproduction and feeding). Communication masking by seismic noise in fish and mammals (e.g., during spawning/mating, feeding, etc.). Disturbance from vessel noise. Impact Analysis Seismic activities may potentially impact Atlantic cod and wolffish recovery in Atlantic Canada; however, no evidence is documented to support the claim that seismic activity results in serious or irreversible harm exists. Nonetheless, mitigation measures will include a gradual increase in intensity of air gun discharge to allow fish to avoid the source of the sound, public notices to alert fishers of the seismic activity. The Project is unlikely to result in population level effects on that fish species at risk based on scientific research to date. Potential adverse environmental effects on species at risk will be unlikely because of planned monitoring and mitigation measures. In addition, species at risk are expected to show some avoidance of the areas of highest received levels of seismic sounds. Therefore, there is not likely to be a significant adverse environment effect on species at risk. Mitigation Adherence to the Statement of Canadian Practice on the Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment to the extent reasonably practical. A 500-m safety zone monitoring program for whale species at risk during survey data acquisition will be implemented. A dedicated Environmental Observer will be onboard the seismic vessel. If a concentration of marine mammals is observed in a particular area, the survey can shift to another part of the Study Area until the concentration has moved away. To minimize sudden changes in noise levels, a ramp up procedure will be implemented. Collision avoidance practices, including constant speed and course maintained by seismic
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 231 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
vessels. Compliance with OWTG (NEB et al. 2010) for all discharges.
Ecological/Socio- Cultural and Project Activity Economic
Duration Duration Content Magnitude Magnitude Frequency Frequency Geographic Geographic Reversibility
Vessel 0 1 3 1 R 2 Presence/Collision/Entanglement 2-D program 1 4 2 1 R 1 Accidental Spill 1 2 1 1 R 2 Significance of Residual Effects Not adversely significant Confidence High level of confidence based on previous seismic surveys, monitoring observations and research. Magnitude Geographic Frequency Duration Reversibility 0=negligible Extent 1= isolated 1=days R=reversible 1=low 1= 10s of metres 2= intermittent 2=two weeks I=Irreversible 2=medium 2= <500 m 3 = continuous 3=one month 3=high 3= 1-10 km 4=two months 4= 10-50 km 5= >50 km Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context 1=Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2=Evidence of existing adverse effects
6.6 Sensitive Areas Portions of four DFO designated EBSAs occur in the Study Area boundary: Southeast Shoal and Tail, Northeast Shelf and Slope, Lilly Canyon-Carson Canyon, and Virgin Rocks. EBSAs do not have any special legal status, rather the identification provides guidance on the standard of management that is considered to be appropriate. For example, EBSAs are candidates for Areas of Interest (AOI).
6.6.1 Boundaries The spatial boundaries of interaction between the Sensitive Areas and the yearly seismic surveys are primarily related to the zone of influence as predicted by noise attenuation from the seismic array. With respect to temporal boundaries, the potential interaction of concern is that related to cod spawning from February to June, with a peak in May and June; yellowtail flounder spawning in May to July; offshore capelin spawning in June and July; and American plaice spawning in spring. Also as mentioned above in Section 5.0, the Grand Banks is an aggregate area for seabirds and cetaceans.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 232 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.6.2 Potential Interactions and Issues Potential interactions between Project activities and sensitive areas relate primarily to: Disturbance to cod, yellowtail, capelin and plaice spawning area by seismic noise; Disruption of cetacean and seabird feeding; and Collision with cetaceans.
6.6.3 Significance Criteria and Evaluation A significant adverse environmental effect for sensitive areas is one that disturbs, damages, destroys or removes any living marine organism or any part of its habitat. Disturbance, damage and destruction for the purpose of this EA includes: an alteration of critical or essential habitat physically, chemically or biologically, in quality or extent, to such a degree that there is a measurable decline in species diversity; mortality or serious injury to individuals of a species at risk; the abundance of one or more non-listed species is reduced to a level from which recovery of the population is uncertain or more than one season would be required for a locally depleted population or altered community to be restored to pre-event conditions; impairment of ecosystem functioning; or long-term or permanent displacement of any species from critical habitats.
A non-significant adverse environmental effect is one that does not meet the criteria for disturbance or damage to habitat within the sensitive areas.
6.6.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation
6.6.4.1 Vessel Presence The short term presence of the various seismic related vessels in any one location, ranging from 60 to 90 m in length, in the sensitive areas identified will be negligible compared to the daily and regular year round marine traffic currently experienced in the Study and Regional Areas. The vessel will shoot a line of 100 km in length over a 24 our period. The effect of vessel presence was assessed for each VEC in Section 6.0. The risk to fish, marine bird and migratory birds, marine mammals and sea turtles in the sensitive areas is anticipated to be negligible to low, as these animal groups are somewhat acclimated and accustomed to marine vessel traffic of commercial and fishing vessels.
6.6.4.2 Noise Emissions Seismic noise from air gun sources will not alter critical or essential seafloor habitat or prey sources and supply for cod, wolffishes, American plaice, flounder, capelin, seabirds or cetaceans or any seafloor habitat in general or sea turtle food sources in the EBASs and VMEs.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 233 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
No seismic surveys will be conducted in winter months; therefore, no interaction with overwintering fish or seabird species will occur. Sound energy levels emitted from the air guns are not anticipated to alter the physical, chemical or biological features that result in fish, cetacean, seal or seabird aggregations in the EBSAs. Seismic surveys have been pursued for decades on the Grand Banks without any apparent significant adverse effect on the marine biota. Conversely, the commercial fishery has a direct effect on fish populations through the harvesting practices and continued permit to harvest species at risk as well as alteration of seafloor features from bottom-founded gear. The seismic surveys will not alter the physical or chemical nature of the sensitive areas that result in marine animal aggregations for spawning, nursing or feeding. With respect to migration, there may be some short term avoidance reaction in fish, cetaceans and sea turtles. This is assumed as field observations, although limited and varied, indicate that avoidance of airgun firing can result. The animals are likely moving out of a zone to a distance where the sound levels are not a deterent. This effect does not imply that displacement or a barrier to migration will result and no research studies have indicated that fish, sea turtles or cetaceans have vacated an area long term or permanently. Seismic surveys are not unique to the Atlantic region. They are of short duration, with limited geographic scale, infrequent and recovery of fish behaviour is documented to be within hours and a few days. The survey lines for each annual survey will be planned to avoid the EBSAs in May to July as per each EBSA specific sensitive species, until spawning has ceased. The 2012 survey will not commence until August. Seismic does not physically, biologically or chemically affect coral, thus the NAFO coral areas will not be affected. Enhanced mitigation measures to minimize the impact of seismic operations on sensitive areas include: There will be no vessel presence in The Southeast Shoal and Tail EBSA. The vessel will adhere to international maritime law and the Canada Shipping Act. A 500-m safety zone (from the centre of the array) monitoring program for marine mammals and turtles during survey data acquisition will be implemented as described above. Survey vessels will comply with the requirements of the Canada Shipping Act and Regulations and with the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention). All discharges will comply with C-NLOPB’s Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (NEB et al. 2010).
6.6.4.3 Malfunctions and Accidental Events Oil may affect seabird, cetaceans and marine turtles through dermal contact, inhalation or ingestion. This risk of such events occurring is low. Potential impacts will be short-lived and confined to the surface water. No significant adverse effects are likely to occur as a result of an accidental event associated with this Project.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 234 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
6.6.5 Follow-up and Monitoring Sensitive areas are categorized by the species they support as well as critical habitat. Follow- up and monitoring for those VECS are discussed in detail in other appropriate sections of this assessment. Physical habitat is not altered by seismic activity.
6.7 Summary of Residual Effects A summary of potential impacts, mitigation, and residual effects is provided in Table 6.11 for routine Project activities and accidental events on sensitive areas.
Table 6.11: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Sensitive Areas Interactions and Issues Disturbance to fish spawning area by seismic noise; and Alteration of critical habitat Displacement of species from aggregating habitat and food sources accidental spill events Impact Analysis Seismic surveys do not alter the seafloor It is unlikely that the seismic surveys will affect sensitive habitats as there is no change in the features that attract the marine animals identified in the area. It is unlikely that species will be permanently displaced from habitat Mitigation Dedicated observer will be on board the seismic vessel to record marine birds, sea turtles and marine mammals. Vessel compliant with audit prior to survey. Avoidance of fish spawning areas Compliance with OWTG for maintenance issues and MARPOL (bilge) for all discharges. Seismic vessel will have an oil spill prevention program. MKI has a waste management plan and Oil Spill Response Plan
Ecological/Socio- Project Activity Cultural and Economic Content Duration Duration Magnitude Magnitude Frequency Frequency Geographic Geographic Reversibility
Vessel Presence/Lights 1 3 3 1 R 1 2-D programme 1 2 2 1 R 1 Accidental Spill 1 3 1 1 R 1 Significance of Residual Effects Not adversely significant Confidence High level of confidence based on previous seismic surveys, monitoring observations and research. Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility 0=negligible 1= 10s of metres 1= isolated 1=days R=reversible 1=low 2= <500 m 2= intermittent 2=two weeks I=Irreversible 2=medium 3= 1-10 km 3 = continuous 3=one month 3=high 4= 10-50 km 4=two months
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 235 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context 1 Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2 Evidence of existing adverse effects
6.8 Commercial Fisheries and RV Surveys Commercial fisheries are important to the economy of Newfoundland and considered a VEC for this assessment due to potential interactions between the seismic vessel and fishing gear and vessels. The potential effect of underwater noise on the catchability of fish is also assessed. This impact analysis also considers potential impacts on DFO research/industry surveys.
6.8.1.1 Boundaries The boundary of the interaction with other users (commercial fisheries, sentinel surveys and scientific surveys) includes primarily the exclusion area surrounding the working sites, although activity of other users within the Study Area has been considered. With respect to temporal boundaries, the potential interactions of concern are those related to the exploration seismic activities that are planned to occur intermittently between May and November in 2012 to 2017. With regard to administrative boundaries, DFO and NAFO manages the fisheries resources in the area and DFO is primarily responsible for scientific surveys within the area. The technical boundaries, and the information available for this study, vary according to location of the fisheries. Georeferencing of catch is inconsistent and does not exist for inshore (coastal) fisheries and is sporadic at best for midshore fisheries, and the further offshore fisheries data are incomplete for 2011 and 2012.
6.8.1.2 Potential Interactions and Issues The seismic survey vessel and Project-related support vessel traffic will be present within 3Ps, 3Pn and 4Vn. Conflict with harvesting activities and fishing gear was raised as a potential issue during the consultations with fishers for this assessment. There is potential for interference from seismic activities with DFO activities and catch success. Seismic streamers and vessels can conflict with and damage fishing gear, particularly fixed gear, and such conflicts typically occur three or four times a season in Atlantic Canada. Potential interactions between the Project and commercial fisheries relate primarily to: Behavioural changes in target species in relation to catchability; Conflict with harvesting activities/fishing gear; and Potential interaction with DFO surveys.
6.8.1.3 Significance Criteria and Evaluation A significant adverse environmental effect on commercial fisheries is defined as one that:
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 236 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
excludes fishers from using 10% or more of the fishable area for the targeted species for all or most of the fishing season; and/or 10% of more fishers are excluded from the fishable area of the targeted species for all or most of the fishing season; and/or results in erroneous survey data, as a result of effects on 10% of the target marine fish populations; and/or causes damage to fishing gear or vessels.
A non-significant adverse environmental effect on commercial fisheries is defined as one that: excludes fishers from using less than 10% of the fishable area for the targeted species for all or most of the season; and/or less than 10% of fishers are excluded from a targeted species fishable area for all or most of the fishing season; and/or results in a reduction in profits due to a decrease in catchability of target species in less than 10% of the fishable area for the targeted species.
6.8.1.4 Effects Assessment and Mitigation The prime means of mitigating potential impacts on commercial fisheries activities is to avoid active fishing areas, particularly fixed gear zones, when they are occupied by harvesters. Impacts on DFO assessment / research surveys would occur either as a result of behavioural responses or fishing interference (i.e., through the same pathways as impacts on commercial fishing) and avoidance is also an appropriate mitigation for these potential effects.
6.8.1.4.1 Vessel Presence Commercial fish harvesting activities occur throughout the May to November seismic survey period being assessed, although the timing of specific fisheries varies. Of these, the fixed gear: long-line fishery, gill net fishery and pot fishery for snow crab pose the highest potential for interaction conflict, particularly if they are concurrent with seismic survey operations. For the 2- D survey programme, the seismic vessel will operate intermittently on a 24 hour basis period for a 40 to 75 day or up to a 150 day period over the entire Study Area, but not in any one area. Behavioural changes in commercial fisheries target species in relation to catchability and conflict with harvesting activities and fishing gear were raised as a potential issue during issues scoping for this assessment. Seismic streamers and vessels can conflict with and damage fishing gear, particularly fixed gear and such conflicts have occurred a few times a season in Atlantic Canada when seismic vessels were operating in heavily fished areas. There is also a potential for interference from seismic activities with DFO and/or fishing industry stock assessment activities and catch success if they are in a seismic survey area at the same time. Depending on the scheduling of surveys, moderate to concentrated fisheries activity is expected within the assessment period. Operation of the seismic survey vessel and associated support vessels may overlap with most shrimp and snow crab fisheries from May to July, turbot fishing is most likely to be concluded by August with some minor late fall effort in water less than 200 m .
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 237 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Pelagic fisheries are mainly inshore. The DFO RV surveys will occur in the spring (acoustic) and fall (multi-species trawling). MKI has reviewed the 2012 program with the FFAW, fishers and One Ocean. The necessary arrangements were made to ensure that a qualified Fisheries Liaison Observer is onboard the survey vessel at all times during the survey periods. To minimise the effects of Project activities on the conflict with fishing gear component of the Commercial Fisheries VEC the following mitigations measures will be implemented.
Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO) An on-board fisheries industry FLO will provide a dedicated marine radio contact for all fishing vessels near project operations to help identify gear locations, assess potential interactions and provide guidance to the bridge.
Single Point of Contact (SPOC) The SPOC has become a standard and effective mitigation for all seismic surveys operating in this sector. The survey will use the firm of Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc. as the survey's Single Point of Contact with the fisheries industry. They will update vessel personnel (e.g. the FLO) about known fishing activities in the area, and will relay relevant information from DFO and fishing companies.
Avoidance Mitigation Potential impacts on fishing gear will be mitigated by avoiding active fixed gear fishing areas during the survey. If gear is deployed in a survey area, the diligence of the Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO), good at-sea communications and mapping of current fishing locations have usually proven effective at preventing such conflicts.
For streamer deployment during transits to a survey area, the principal mitigation will also be avoidance, based on route selection aimed at deviating around fixed gear fishing areas. Since the patterns of fishing vary by month, a final route, taking into account the avoidance of active areas, will be chosen shortly before the survey work begins. As noted above, a route analysis for this purpose will be prepared and discussions with fishing interests undertaken before the transits.
Communications Mitigation Fishers have noted that good communications, exchange of plans and gear locations, understanding of fishing practices and co-operation at sea are the keys to addressing this issue. MKI will establish advance communications with representatives of any fisheries and DFO survey teams that may be present in the survey area. Open lines of communication between the commercial fishery and the proposed seismic survey program should prevent potential adverse effects.
As in past surveys, the survey vessel and DFO (and/or other research surveys) will need to exchange detailed location information. The exact planned RV survey locations will be provided and plotted by the survey ship, and the locations of planned survey lines and daily vessel location reports were provided to DFO. A temporal and spatial separation plan will be agreed with DFO and implemented by the seismic vessel to ensure that their work did not overlap spatially and temporally, and to ensure an adequate "quiet time" before the RV came to the location. Specifically, the avoidance protocol to avoid sound overlap with the research work has been 30 km (16 NMi) separation from research set location, seven days in advance of the locations being surveyed by DFO (i.e. seven days of “quiet time”).
Fishing Gear Compensation In case of accidental damage to fishing gear or vessels, MKI will implement gear damage compensation contingency plans to provide appropriate and timely compensation to any affected fisheries participants (Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating to Offshore Petroleum Activity, C-NLOPB 2002). The Notices to Shipping, filed by the vessels for surveys and for transits to the sites, will also inform fishers that they may contact the SPOC (Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., toll free at 877-884-3474), if they believe that they have sustained survey-related gear damage. MKI will provide the C-NLOPB with details of any compensation to be paid. The programs developed jointly by the fisheries industry and offshore petroleum operators (e.g. by the Canadian Association of Petroleum
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 238 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Producers and other Operators) as alternatives to claims through the courts or the C-NLOPB, to address all aspects of compensation for attributable gear and vessel damage. These programs include provisions for paying compensation for lost or damaged gear, and any additional financial loss, which is demonstrated to be associated with the incident. The programs include mechanisms for claim payments and dispute resolution. The Operator will implement similar procedures to settle claims promptly for any loss or damage that may be caused by survey operations, including the replacement costs for lost or damaged gear, and any additional financial loss that is demonstrated to be associated with the damage, as specified under the guidelines. Preventing any potential impact will be achieved through the exchange of information with industry participants. MKI liaises regularly with the position at the FFAW who can provide feedback related to operational issues on the Newfoundland side. One Ocean provides assistance with the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). Because the fisheries and the seismic survey are dynamic activities, there will be an annual review of catch effort data with industry representatives. In addition, communications with relevant DFO contacts will be utilized. MKI will keep affected parties informed about their plans and schedule. These measures will minimize interference with DFO RV surveys, industry sentinel fisheries research and commercial fishing activities. The effects are predicted to be negligible to low, continuous over a short-term, over an area of 10s to 100 km2 and reversible. The long term observations and experience with seismic program offshore Nova Scotia and Newfoundland provides a high level of confidence in this assessment. With precautions and compensation plans in place (described below), and considering the avoidance of fixed and mobile gear fishing areas that will be necessary in general, the economic impacts on fishers would be negligible, and thus not adversely significant.
6.8.1.4.2 Noise Emissions The potential for impacts on fish harvesting will, therefore, depend on the location of the surveying activities in relation to these fishing areas, and the type of fishing gear used in any given season. If the survey work is situated away from these fishing areas, the likelihood of any impacts on commercial harvesting will be greatly reduced. The Survey Area spans across shrimp, snow crab and Greenland halibut-turbot fishing areas, therefore, interaction is possible. The DFO research surveys are conducted by "fishing" for species. As such, the issues related to potential interference with DFO research surveys are essentially the same as for commercial fish harvesting, i.e. potential effects on catch rates, and potential conflicts with research vessel operations. Potential effects on marine fish behaviour are known with high confidence. While adult fish could be injured by seismic arrays if they are close to an airgun, this is not likely to happen as most finfish disperse when the array ramps up and becomes active, or when the vessel approaches (McCauley et al. 2003). Thus, the most likely type of impacts will be on fish behaviour. Seismic surveys can result in reduced trawl and longline catches immediately following a survey as the fish temporarily move from the area. There are various research studies on this subject (e.g., Chapman and Hawkins 1969; Skalski et al. 1992; Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994; Engås et al. 1996). Although all indicated some impacts on fish behaviour, they reached different conclusions about the duration of the change in behaviour and/or the degree
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 239 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA of the effect on catch. For instance, Engås et al. (1996) suggest that fishing for some gear types in the Barents Sea did not return to normal for at least a week after sound exposure, although the study conducted by Engås et al. (1996) is the only one to report effects over a large area that show slow recovery in catches (Davis et al. 1998). On the St. Pierre Bank in 1999, a trawler reported experiencing decreased trawl catches after a seismic vessel began surveying in the area. The captain of this fishing vessel (a National Sea Products trawler) reported that, on one occasion, catch dropped from 25,000 to 30,000 pounds per tow, to several thousand pounds per tow, after the seismic vessel began recording. About one day later, the catch rate appeared to have returned to pre-recording levels. Fish brought to the surface in the trawl after seismic began, however, seemed more active. They also reported that, after recording started, aggregations of fish were seen on the sounder, but could not be caught. Up until 2010, shrimp fishing operators reported no observed adverse effect on catch rates offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. Reports of domestic and foreign shrimp harvest dropping dramatically and not recovering following two surveys by WesternGeco on the Orphan Knoll in 2011 are creating great concern. Industry sponsored studies are currently underway to investigate this finding using vessel specific fishing locations and seismic vessel operations. There is reluctance at this point to assign blame to the seismic programs without evidence. In other instances, specific seismic surveys were not observed to have caused impacts on catches. For example, nearshore and shallow water seismic surveys in Port au Port Bay and Bay St. George, Newfoundland in 1995 and 1996 were not reported to affect catches of snow crab and other fisheries (CEF 2002). Snow crab, being sedentary benthic species, are not likely to disperse and catch rates are not as likely to be affected. However, fishers off Newfoundland are reporting reduced catches and assumed that crab move off temporarily into deeper water following the two WesternGeco seismic surveys in 2011. Fishers also recognise that crab catches are decreasing due to harvesting pressure. Because the MKI study area is large, they have the ability to conduct survey lines away from the concentrated fishing areas in waters <200 m until post-harvesting season for shrimp and snow crab. The FFAW and One Ocean identified that August and onwards was suitable to enter those areas for the survey. McCauley et al. (2000) observed a return to normal behaviour patterns for some caged finfish within 14 to 30 minutes of the array ceasing. There are a number of reasons why studies may have reached different conclusions about the impacts of seismic noise on fish behaviour, including possible differences in species response, differences in the receiving environments (depth, seabed formations), as well as the different experimental methodologies used. Payne et al. (2008) commented that some attention should also be given to the potential for chronic effects during surveys that may last some weeks. However, regarding animal behavior and ambient noise in the ocean, the constant cacophony of noise associated with ships could be of much greater importance than seismic sounds. In connection with the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate’s seismic survey off the coasts of Vesterålen in summer 2009, a project was carried out to study the degree to which commercial fishes were affected (Løkkeborg et al. 2010). Four chartered gillnet and longline vessels fished for Greenland halibut, redfish, saithe and haddock in the periods before (12 days), during (38 days) and after (25 days) the seismic data acquisition. Gillnet catches of Greenland halibut and redfish rose during seismic shooting and remained higher after the end of the campaign than
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 240 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA they had been before the start of seismic activity. Longline catches of Greenland halibut fell during the seismic campaign, but rose again in the course of the following 25-day period. The results for saithe revealed a decline (not statistically significant) in gillnet catches both during and after seismic shooting. Based on the acoustic survey estimates, the results were interpreted as an indication that saithe partly left the area. The longline catches of haddock did not reveal statistically significant differences in catch rates from before and during the seismic survey. The area in which the haddock fishery took place was less affected by the sound of the air-guns than the fishing grounds for the other species. Nevertheless, there was a decline in haddock catches when the seismic vessel approached this area. The acoustic survey of the distribution of demersal fishes confirms the results of the fishing experiments. During seismic shooting, lower concentrations of saithe were measured in the area, whereas no changes in the distribution of the other demersal fishes were observed. The results of this study provide clear signs that fish reacted to the sound of the air-guns in that catch rates changed (increased or fell) during the period of seismic shooting. Sound measurements showed that the fish were exposed to sound levels within a range where obvious changes in swimming activity can be expected. These results can be explained by the fish raising their level of swimming activity, thus making the Greenland halibut, redfish and ling more liable to be taken in gillnets, while the saithe may have migrated out of the area. The rise in swimming activity may be a symptom of a stress reaction that could lead to reduced longline catch efficiency. The results of this study differ from those of previous studies that revealed significant reductions in trawl and longline catch rates. In the earlier studies, however, the seismic shooting was concentrated within smaller areas, which meant that the fish were exposed to stronger and more continuous sounds (number of air-gun shots per unit area and period of time) than was the case in the seismic survey area in this study. An analysis of the official catch statistics from an area with seismic surveys in Norway in 2008 also showed very different results (Vold et al. 2009): Catch rates of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), ling (Molva molva), tusk (Brosme brosme) and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) were not changed significantly. Catch rates of redfish and monkfisk (Lophius piscatorius) seemed to increase, while catch rates of saithe and haddock caught in gillnet decreased and catches with other gear was not affected. The majority of the seismic surveys included in the analysis were 2D and scattered in time and space, why major influences on the fisheries was not expected. While most of the behavioural effects studies report some decrease in catch rates near seismic arrays, there is less agreement on the duration and geographical extent of the effect, ranging from a quick return to several days, and from very localized effects to decreased catch rates as far as 15 km to 20 km away. Researchers observed a return to normal behaviour patterns for some caged finfish within 14 to 30 minutes of the array ceasing. There are a number of reasons why studies may have reached different conclusions about the impacts of seismic noise on fish behaviour, including possible differences in species response, differences in the receiving environments (depth, seabed formations), as well as the different experimental methodologies used. Regarding animal behaviour and ambient noise in the ocean, the constant cacophony of noise associated with ships could be of much greater importance than seismic sounds. As commercial catches are quota based, the overlap between fishing and seismic activity is
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 241 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA unknown, but will be determined prior to the commencement of the surveys. The effects of seismic surveys on the catchability of fish and shellfish are predicted to be negligible to low, continuous over a short-term, over an area of 10 to 100 sq km and reversible. As previously noted, there is some potential for overlap with DFO research surveys, although schedules may change from year to year. It has been accepted during past surveys, that the best way to prevent overlap between the surveys is to exchange detailed location information and establish a tailored temporal and spatial separation plan. This approach is discussed in more detail in the mitigations section, below. As discussed below, any research survey taking place in the vicinity of the proposed project surveys will need to be monitored and avoided by the vessel. Given this, the impact of both noise and the seismic streamer on DFO science surveys will be negligible and not significant. Effects on groundfish catchability are anticipated to be within 18 km of the seismic vessel for a 24-hour period following air source emissions. These 2-D surveys are operational 30 to 40% of the time, thus there is time for recovery of catch rates. Approximately 24 hours after air source emissions cease, catch rates within 18 km of the seismic vessel are expected to recover. During a seismic program, it is therefore expected that fishing could occur. Based on catch data for 2005 to 2010, May to July are the months with the highest potential to affect commercial shellfish catchability. As commercial catches are quota based, the overlap between fishing and seismic activity is unknown, but will be determined prior to the commencement of the surveys. It was agreed with MKI and the FFAW, that the seismic lines in the intensively fished areas for shrimp and crab will be deferred until after those fisheries are completed and on findings of the data analysis of reduced landings. The effects of seismic surveys on the catchability of fish were predicted to be minor, sub-local, short-term and likely to occur.
6.8.1.5 Malfunctions and Accidental Events If a spill of diesel or lubricant entered the water, the quantities would be too small and would occur in too short a time to result in tainting of fish or fouling of gear. MKI will adhere to the OWTG. Mitigation measures intended to minimize the effects of Project-related accidental events on the ‘product quality component of this VEC are as follow: preventative protocols; rapid response plans; and good communications/public relations. No significant adverse effects are likely to occur as a result of an accidental event associated with this Project.
6.8.2 Follow-up and Monitoring Ongoing communications during the survey period, through the avenues described, will be instrumental in minimising Project effects on commercial fisheries. A Fisheries Liaison Observer onboard the seismic vessel will play a large role in communications with fishing vessels to help avoid potential conflicts at sea. MKI will also work collaboratively on the operational issues associated with the survey with the FFAW’s Petroleum Liaison. Another important follow-up aspect will require scheduling of survey lines to avoid as much as possible areas where fisheries are active. The Fisheries Liaison Observer will document any contact with fishing vessels (including those outside the Study Area), including the date and time, their location, and any action which may have been taken to avoid a potential conflict. Key shore-
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 242 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA based personnel will monitor the progress of key fisheries and completion of quotas in Study Areas to facilitate line scheduling.
6.8.3 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects A summary of residual environmental effects is provided in Table 6.12. Potential adverse environmental effects on commercial fisheries will be mitigated through the implementation of various proven mitigation measures, including: enhanced communications with fishing industry representatives and individual fishing vessels; use of a FLO; monitoring of gear locations and research survey locations; scheduling of survey lines to minimize potential conflicts with harvesting and research activities; and, as required, implementation of a gear and vessel damage compensation contingency plan. Therefore, there is not likely to be a significant adverse environment effect on ocean resource users. Table 6.12: Summary of Environmental Assessment for Ocean Resource Users
Interactions and Issues Presence of seismic vessel causing loss of access to fishing grounds and/or potential gear interaction. Noise from seismic recording causing behavioural changes resulting in reduced short-term catchability. Interaction with DFO, industry surveys and commercial fisheries. Impact Analysis Potential adverse environmental effects on commercial fisheries will be mitigated through the implementation of various proven mitigative measures, including: enhanced communications with fishing industry representatives and individual fishing vessels; use of a Fisheries Liaison Observer; monitoring of gear locations and research survey locations; scheduling of survey lines to minimize potential conflicts with harvesting and research activities; and, as required, implementation of a gear and vessel damage compensation contingency plan. Mitigation Communication with fishing industry representatives, and DFO Avoidance of fishing gear through communication tools; Notice to Shipping, CBC Fishermens Broadcast Notice to Mariners on the location and scheduling of seismic activities Dedicated FLO onboard Developed communication mechanisms with the fishing industry programs; and Compliance with C-NLOPB guidelines respecting compensation.
Ecological/Socio- Project Activity Cultural and Economic Content Duration Duration Magnitude Magnitude Frequency Frequency Geographic Geographic Reversibility
Vessel Presence 1 4 3 1 R 2 2-D program 1 4 2 1 R 2 Accidental Spill 1 4 1 1 R 2 Significance of Residual Effect Not adversely significant Confidence High level of confidence based on previous seismic surveys, monitoring observations and research. Magnitude Geographic Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility 0=negligible 1= 10s of metres 1= isolated 1=days R=reversible 1=low 2= <500 m 2= intermittent 2=two weeks I=Irreversible 2=medium 3= 1-10 km 3 = continuous 3=one month
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 243 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
3=high 4= 10-50 km 4=two months 5= >50 km Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context 1 Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity 2 Evidence of existing adverse effects
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 244 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
7 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT In the Northwest Atlantic, marine operations are primarily affected by wind, waves, currents, visibility, and to a lesser extent air and sea temperatures. Sea ice, icebergs and vessel icing, are potential seasonal hazards to consider. The time of year is a factor in determining the level of risk or impact any of these environmental parameters may have on operational efficiency or success. Planning and executing activities safely requires due consideration of the seasonally variable hazards which may be encountered. For the Grand Banks region, Project activities are planned to take place during the period May to November. This section characterizes the range of conditions likely to be encountered within this time frame, and some of the potential associated adverse effects. Vessels, equipment and materials used by the Project must be rated to function within the expected conditions and adhere to all standards and codes for safety and data quality.
7.1 Metocean Wind and waves have the potential to increase stress on vessels, disrupt operations and scheduling, and to affect survey data quality. Vessels and equipment must be able to withstand the range of normal and extreme wind and wave conditions expected. Seismic survey operations are typically limited by wind or sea conditions due to loss of data quality in high seas. Wind and wave directions are predominantly from the south and southwest in summer and the west and northwest in fall and winter. Hurricane season is now June 1 through to November, a reflection of climate change when the season previously ranged between August to November. Vessel icing potential is a risk in the winter: the potential for even light icing is very low in May and November, and zero during the months in between. There is therefore negligible risk for personnel safety or performance issues. Freezing spray or ice-forming conditions which could potentially be encountered in May or November would be light and would not be anticipated to affect operations. While the summer to early fall period generally favours calm seas, visibility may be reduced due to formation of coastal fog. In April/May through to July, when warm air masses move over cold water, reduced visibility of less than one kilometre occurs from 40 to 50% of the time. Visibility and ceiling restrictions may be a factor for shipping or for helicopter support activities. A review of the seasonal range and variation in these conditions would be appropriate for contingency planning. A weather observation and site-specific forecasting program would be prudent to ensure safe and efficient Project planning and operations, and to better manage weather and sea related effects.
7.2 Ice Sea ice and icebergs should be expected to be a factor for seismic operations since the Study Area and/or planned time of year activities is generally within limits of these seasonal phenomena. There should be no adverse or significant effect on Project personnel, equipment, or activities with the employment of the available tracking services.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 245 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT Individual environmental effects can accumulate and interact to result in cumulative environmental effects. Past and ongoing human activities have affected the region's natural and human environments. The description of the existing environment reflects the effects of these other actions. An environmental assessment pursuant to CEAA must, however, include consideration of the “cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.” A critical step in the environmental assessment, therefore, is determining what other projects or activities have reached a level of certainty (e.g., “will be carried out”) such that they must be considered in an environmental assessment. It is helpful to consider the clarification provided by the Joint Review Panel for the Express Pipeline Project in Alberta (NEB and CEA Agency 1996). Following an analysis of subsection 16(1)(a) of the CEAA, the Joint Review Panel determined that certain requirements must be met for the Panel to consider cumulative environmental effects: there must be a measurable environmental effect of the Project being proposed; the environmental effect must be demonstrated to interact cumulatively with the environmental effects from other projects or activities; and it must be known that the other projects or activities have been, or will be, carried out and are not hypothetical (NEB and CEA Agency 1996).
Furthermore, the Joint Review Panel indicated that it is an additional requirement that the cumulative environmental effect is likely to occur, that is, there must be some probability, rather than a mere possibility, that the cumulative environmental effect will occur. These criteria were used to guide the assessment of cumulative environmental effects. The other projects and activities considered in this assessment include those that are likely to proceed (such as those listed in the CEAA registry), and those which have been issued permits, licences, leases or other forms of approval (as specified by the CEA Agency 1994). Past, present and future activities that may impact cumulatively with the Project are outlined in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Summary of Offshore Activities and Interaction with the Survey Project
Activity Information Interaction with Project Offshore Petroleum Production Exxon Mobil’s HMDC, further The active production platform production drilling 2012 – 2014. located in study area. Ongoing production until 2036. Offshore Petroleum Drilling Exxon Mobil Hebron Project Four drilling rigs planned to operate commence offshore 2016-ongoing on the Grand Banks presently and Exxon Mobil HMDC production in the future. drilling 2012-2014 Husky exploration drilling 2008- No spatial overlap anticipated due 2017 to distance between programs. Suncor exploration drilling 2009- Temporal overlap. 2017 Statoil exploration drilling 2008- 2016
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 246 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Activity Information Interaction with Project Seismic Exploration WesternGeco 2D+3D in 2012-2015 Four programmes in the same from May to November over 40- region with high potential for >150 days overlap. Overlap between two Husky 2D, 3D, 4D + geophysical Western Geco surveys in 2011. surveys, in 2013 – 2020, March to November, No spatial overlap due to late Statoil 3D, 2D + geophysical season arrival into Study Area in surveys in 2011-2019, April to 2012. Possible for future temporal October and spatial overlaps. Chevron 2D, 3D + geophysical in 2012-2017, May to November, 30 to 120 days Marine Traffic Heavy domestic and international Project not in shipping channels marine traffic over the Grand Banks. Highly competitive Atlantic Commercial Fishing Fishing effort is diverse and shifting Temporal and spatial overlaps will in response to stock locations occur.
In addition to consideration of these projects and activities, the cumulative effects assessment also considers past biological and/or anthropogenic pressures that may have contributed to existing conditions within the Project Area (i.e., commercial whaling). Where applicable, these pressures and the resulting effects are reflected in the description of existing conditions.
8.1 Species at Risk With the possibility of five seismic programs occurring over the Grand Banks in the next four years and four programs for another two years afterwards migratory species may be affected as they pass by them. Such species are capable of avoiding the ensonified areas to prevent harmful and disruptive effects. In general, the seismic survey vessel activity and noise will constitute a minor percentage contribution to the overall noise generated by other such sources and space-user conflict, and will be of short duration in local areas. Based on current knowledge, and especially with the proposed mitigation procedures in place, the proposed Project is not expected to result in or contribute to any significant cumulative impacts on species at risk.
8.2 Marine Fish Marine fish populations in the Study Area may be affected by natural factors, such as changes in prey and predator populations in areas within their natural range that may occur outside the Study Area. Certain populations of marine fish are more vulnerable to changes in their environment. This is especially true of species at risk. This seismic program is not resulting in mass removal of these species. The distribution of most fish species varies seasonally in response to physical or chemical changes in the surrounding environment (e.g., depth, substrate, salinity, temperature) and as a result of seasonal habitat requirements (e.g., spawning, feeding). This shift is becoming more apparent to fishers with climate change influence resulting in water temperature and mass changes. Long annual migrations are undertaken by groundfish species, such as cod, and pelagic species such as Atlantic salmon and sharks. The Project will not change the physical or chemical requirements that dictate fish presence, and their ability to reproduce.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 247 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Although non-significant, the residual effects of the Project components on finfish at risk that may be cumulative with the effects of other human activities in the region are expected to be very limited, consisting primarily of short-term avoidance behaviour. The predicted cumulative effects of the proposed seismic survey with other seismic projects, drilling programs, noise from vessel traffic, and commercial fishing are likely similar to those discussed in the assessment above. Seismic surveys produce repetitive, localised and short-term increases in ambient noise levels, with the period between potential exposures ranging from hours to days. Within the near field of an array, about 30 m, received noise levels may reach or is less than 180 dB re 1 μPa at a sound source from the array at water depths over the Study Area. Beyond this distance, sound from a seismic survey is similar to commercial vessels (MMS 2004). Cooperation between operators is key to avoid each other programs. Also there are only a few vessels available to conduct these surveys, therefore, not all five programmes will be underway at the same time. Given the existing and future seismic survey activity, the incremental sound made by fishing vessels and commercial vessel traffic will not add significantly to existing ambient noise levels in the Study Area. MKI is making a compromise in its programme to avoid the EBSAs during fish spawning periods. Therefore, MKI will not cumulatively add to other seismic operations that may operate in those areas in the spring to early summer. Considering the significance criteria provided for fish and given that impacts from cumulative vessel traffic, individual projects and other activities in the Study and Regional Areas are not likely to contribute to significant adverse effects. The Project components are predicted to have minimal interaction with fish species at risk and are not anticipated to result in significant cumulative adverse effects to marine fish species at risk. The main cumulative impact on fish population is the fishing activities that potentially occur at the same time as the seismic exploration. Fish and shellfish are subject to mortality (direct and indirect) and population (stock) decreases as a result of harvesting in the order of 100s to 100,000s of tonnes. And in some species harvesting is conducted at unsustainable levels and on species that are listed as species-at-risk. Research indicates that adverse seismic related effects are largely of a temporary behavioural level effect. Therefore, seismic surveys will not contribute significant adverse cumulative effects to fish and shellfish populations to the removal effects of fishing. In general, the cumulative effect on fish populations is short-term and localized and not significant to the overall well-being of the fish and shellfish invertebrate species. The proposed Project components are not expected to result in or contribute to any significant cumulative impacts on fish species at risk populations.
Seabirds Routine discharges from marine vessels containing petroleum hydrocarbons could cumulatively influence avifauna. Survey vessels used for this Project will comply with discharge regulations established by OWTG and thus should not significantly add to short-term or long-term effects of oil spillage on marine avifauna. Overall, there are no cumulative adverse effects of this seismic exploration Project expected to occur on the distribution, abundance, breeding status and general well-being of marine avifauna inside and outside the Study Area.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 248 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Marine Mammals In general, because the sounds generated by seismic surveys are transient and do not "accumulate" in the environment, the most likely cumulative effects will be associated with other concurrent activities (e.g., cargo ships, tankers, petroleum drilling and production activities, other seismic surveys and fishing vessels). Studies in the Gulf of Mexico showed that seismic surveys produce a relatively minor contribution to the overall underwater noise environment (MMS 2004). The cumulative effect is short term, intermittent and localised, and therefore, not significant with respect to effects on marine mammal species at risk. In general, the individual seismic survey vessel activity and noise will constitute a minor percentage contribution to the overall noise generated by other such sources and space-user conflict, and will be of short duration in local areas. Based on current knowledge, and especially with the proposed mitigation procedures in place, the proposed Project is not expected to result in, or contribute to, any significant cumulative impacts on marine mammal species at risk.
Sea Turtle DFO reviewed literature on laboratory and field studies of the effects of sound on marine organisms (DFO 2004a). Because sea turtles are visually and acoustically difficult to detect, the mitigation of observing to avoid is considered less effective than for marine mammals. However, the air source array will be shut down if a sea turtle is observed within 500 m of the seismic vessel (500 m from the vessel is more conservative than 500 m from the arrays, as the vessel is moving forward at approximately 4 to 5 kn). A trained Environmental Observer will keep records of marine turtles within visual range, weather permitting. Given the lack of systematic surveys for marine turtles in the Study Area, this opportunity for observation of marine turtles will add to the understanding of their distribution in the area and may provide additional insight into their behavioural response to seismic activities.
Sensitivel Areas The EBSAs in and adjacent to Study Area support critical habitats for some species at risk as well as species not at risk. The threats identified to these EBSAs are considered to result from overfishing (proven) and a concern for oil spills from offshore oil production facilities (perception). This seismic program is not changing critical or preferred habitats within the EBSAs, nor resulting in mass removal of species, and their offspring/eggs and or larvae. The Project will not change the physical or chemical requirements that dictate bird, fish, sea turtle and marine mammal presence, and their ability to reproduce. Major impact producing factors on marine mammals in the EBSAs under cumulative effects include offshore vessel traffic (i.e., from petroleum exploration production activities, other seismic projects, military activities, commercial shipping traffic, commercial fishing, and commercial fishing traffic) and its associated noise and ship strike potential. Seismic surveys produce repetitive, localised and short term increases in ambient noise levels, with the period between potential exposures ranging from hours to days. Within the near field of an array, about 700 m, received noise levels may reach or exceed 180 dB re 1 µPa. Beyond this distance, sound from a seismic survey is similar to commercial vessels (MMS 2004).
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 249 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Operators will be cooperating on their programmes to minimize spatial and temporal interference. MKI has committed to avoiding the EBSAs before end of July, thus the Project activities are not likely to contribute to significant cumulative adverse effects.
8.3 Ocean Resource Users
8.3.1 Marine Traffic Effects from vessel traffic under the cumulative scenario are potentially adverse but not significant. With respect to vessel activity levels, seismic survey vessel activity represents a small portion of total vessel activity on the Grand Banks. Commercial fishing, commercial shipping and ocean study activities also contribute to the cumulative vessel activity level further reducing the relative contribution from seismic surveys. Therefore, the cumulative incremental impact attributed to the Project vessel operations is negligible.
8.3.2 Offshore Petroleum Activity Table 8.1 shows four other seismic programmes, three exploration drilling programmes and one development drilling program to overlap temporally. Spatial overlap will require close cooperation between operators. Typically seismic vessels maintain a distance of 40 to 50 km apart to avoid gear entanglement and damage as well as to eliminate air gun interference in data aquisition. The MKI will not be surveying in the area of the production platform or during exploration drilling areas while they are underway.
8.3.3 Commercial Fisheries Cumulative effects on commercial fisheries are related to the space-use conflicts and noise associated with other users of the offshore resources. Seismic vessel activity is a minor component of total marine transportation. Although the additional vessel activity from the survey is negligible compared to the other vessels and cumulative effects on fishing gear are not significant, any such damage resulting from the Project will be fully compensated, and the Project will thus not increase economic risk to fishers. In general, because the sounds generated by seismic surveys are intermittent and non- stationary, the most likely cumulative effects will be associated with other concurrent activities (e.g., cargo ships, tankers, oil and gas exploration and production activities, other seismic surveys, fishing vessels). Studies in the Gulf of Mexico showed that seismic surveys produce a relatively minor contribution to the overall underwater noise environment (MMS 2004). The cumulative effect is expected to be short term, intermittent and localised, and therefore, not significant to the success of commercial fisheries. As discussed above, shrimp fishers are investigating a sudden decrease in shrimp catch that has been long term since 2011 following two WesternGeco surveys. This finding is unusual considering the history of active seismic surveying and drilling and the lack of such an observation previously. The findings of the analysis underway will be incorporated in an EA update report. In the event of another seismic survey being conducted in the vicinity within the proposed timeframe, a significant distance between surveys will be necessary to prevent both operational conflict and acoustical interference. This will reduce or eliminate the likelihood that the sound levels from two surveys will be additive in a particular area, and reduce the potential for cumulative effects on fishing activities.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 250 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
In general, the seismic survey vessel activity and noise will constitute a minor incremental contribution to the overall noise generated by other such sources and space-user conflict, and will be of short duration in local areas. Based on current knowledge, and especially with the proposed mitigation procedures in place, the proposed Project is not expected to result in or contribute to any significant cumulative effects on commercial fisheries.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 251 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
9 SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS
9.1 Summary of Mitigation and Follow-Up Table 9.1 summarizes mitigating measures and follow-up procedures that are recommended in this EA Report.
Table 9.1: VEC – Specific Mitigation Measures and Follow-Up
VEC Mitigation Measures Follow-Up Species at Before start of the operations, a meeting will be A trained observer will record marine Risk held with MKI representatives to review sail lines, mammal, sea turtles and seabird scheduling, anticipated fishing vessels and gear observations. types, mitigating measures, expectations of all Records of sea turtle sightings will be parties and Emergency Response Plans. reported to the Atlantic Leatherback A trained Environmental Observer will be onboard Turtle Working Group. the seismic or chase vessel throughout the Sightings data for seabirds, marine duration of the survey will record sightings of mammals and sea turtles will be marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles on a summarised in a monitoring report daily basis. which will be made available to The Fisheries Liaison Officer will be onboard the CNLOPB for their distribution to DFO seismic vessel and CWS. Adherence to the Statement of Canadian Practice All spills will be reported. on the Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment, to the extent reasonably practical. A 20 to 40 minute ramp-up procedure will be undertaken. Ramping up will be delayed if a marine mammal at risk or sea turtle is observed in the 500 m safety zone. Airguns will be shut down or reduced to a smaller airgun while the vessel is doing turns between survey lines. The Environmental Observer will ensure the delay or shut down of seismic operations if endangered or threatened whales are present within 500 m. Any re-start of the airgun array will follow the ramping up procedure. vessels will maintain a steady course and speed, and use existing travel routes, where possible. Compliance with CCR WMP, Canada Shipping Act and MARPOL for all discharges. Turtle/debris guard attached to tailbuoy Senstivie Operations will not take place within the EBSA until Areas after July.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 252 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
VEC Mitigation Measures Follow-Up Ocean A Notice to Mariners on the location and The FLO report will be document daily Resource scheduling of seismic activities will be issued. vessel activities and fisher Users Communication mechanisms will be developed interactions and submitted to the C- with the fishing industry and DFO research NLOPB upon completion of the surveys. program Fisheries observers on the seismic vessel will monitor fishing activity and serve as a liaison between the fishing and seismic vessels; A Notice to Shipping and notification on the CBC Fisheries Broadcast on the location and scheduling of seismic activities will be issued. MKI will comply with C-NLOPB’s compensation guidelines.
9.2 Conclusions The Project Area is not known to be an important feeding, rearing or mating area for any of the listed species at risk that could occur in the area. Ecological processes will not be disturbed outside natural variability, and ecosystem structure and function will not be critically affected. All effects are reversible, of limited duration, magnitude, and geographic extent. With the use of appropriate mitigation, all Project effects have been rated as not adversely significant. Most of the species that could occur in the Project Area are more vulnerable to direct and indirect fishing activities; entanglement in fishing gear; collisions with ships; and/or pollution. As described in the EA Report, all appropriate mitigation measures and response planning will be in place to limit pollution as a result of the Project; vessel activity will generally be restricted to the immediate Project Area; and noise levels associated with the Project are not predicted to result in physical harm to marine mammals, marine fish, seabirds or sea turtles. Based on the above, no harm to listed species or their critical habitat is anticipated to occur as a result of the Project at any time of year. Previous 2-D, 3-D seismic surveys, well site geohazard and VSP surveys conducted in this area have not resulted in claims that significant adverse effects to biological or socio-economic VECs of the area, with exception of the 2011 reduction in shrimp catches without recovery in landings. This observation is unique to findings in other fishing areas subject to seismic activity. Therefore, there is high confidence that the mitigation in place of avoidance is effective to ensure that no harm to listed species, critical habitats or fisheries harvesting is anticipated to occur as a result of the Project. This is consistent with the recent review by the Mineral Management Service (2004) on environmental effects of seismic activities in the Gulf of Mexico, which have shown that adverse significant effects from a much larger number of seismic programs are not apparent beyond the immediate localised project areas. The significance of residual environmental effects (i.e., after mitigation has been applied), including cumulative effects, is predicted not likely to be significantly adverse for all VECs. In conclusion, this environmental assessment predicts that MKI’s proposed seismic program can be conducted with no likely significant adverse effects on the biological and socio-economic resources of the Northeast Newfoundland Slope.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 253 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
10 LITERATURE CITED
Alam, M. 1979. The effects of Pleistocene climatic changes on the sediments around the Grand Banks. National Library of Canada, Ottawa.
ALTRT (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team). 2006. Recovery Strategy for Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, vi + 45 p.
Amoser, S. and F. Ladich. 2003. Diversity in noise-induced temporary hearing loss in otophysine fishes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(4): 2170-2179.
Anderson, J.T., E.L. Dalley and R.L. O’Driscoll. 2002. Juvenile capelin (Mallotus villosus) off Newfoundland and Labrador in the 1990s. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59: 917–928.
Andersen, J. M., Y. F. Wiersma, G. Stenson, M. O. Hammill, and A. Rosing-Asvid. 2009. Movement Patterns of Hooded Seals (Cystophora cristata) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean During the Post-Moult and Pre-Breed Seasons. J. Northw. Atl. Fish Sci., 42: 1–11. doi:10.2960/J.v42.m649
Armstrong, D.A., P.A. Dinnel, J.M. Orensanz, J.L. Armstrong, T.L. McDonald, R.F. Cusimano, R.S. Nemeth, M.L. Landolt, J.R. Skalski, R.F. Lee and R.J. Huggett. 1995. Status of Selected Bottomfish and Crustacean Species in Prince William Sound Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. pp. 485-547. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 p.
Arnold, B.W. 1996. Visual monitoring of marine mammal activity during the Exxon 3-D seismic survey/Santa Ynez Unit, offshore California/9 November to 12 December 1995. Rep. from Impact Sciences Inc., San Diego, CA, for Exxon Co. U.S.A., Thousand Oaks, CA. 25 p
Atkinson, D.B. 1995. The biology and fishery of Roundnose Grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris Gunnerus, 1765) in the Northwest Atlantic. In Hopper, A.G. (ed), Deepwater fisheries of the North Atlantic Oceanic Slope. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 51 – 112.
Au, W.W.L. 1993. The Sonar of Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 277 pp.
Au, W.W.L and K. Banks. 1998. "The acoustics of the snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe Bay". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103: 41–47. doi:10.1121/1.423234.
Au, W.W.L., R.W. Floyd., R.GZH. Penner and A.E. Murchison.1974. Measurement of echolocation signals of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus Montagu, in open waters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 56:1280-1290
Au, W.W.L., D.D., Carder, R.H. Penner and B.L. Scronce. 1985. Demonstration of adaptation in beluga whale echolocation signals Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77:726- 730
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 254 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Au, W.W.L., and P.W.B. Moore. 1990. Critical ratio and critical bandwidth for the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 88:1635-1638.
Au, W.W.l, and PW.B Moore 1988. Detection of complex echoes in noise by an echolocating dolphin Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103:41-47
Austin,M.E and S.A.Carr 2005. Summary report on acoustic monitoring of Marathon Canada Petroleum ULC 2003 Cortland/Empire 3-D seismic program. Pg15-28. In:Lee, K. H., & Hurley, G. V. (Eds.). (2005). Acoustic Monitoring and Marine Mammal Surveys in The Gully and Outer Scotian Shelf before and during Active Seismic Programs. Report No. 151 & 154. Environmental Studies Research Fund.
Baird RW, Gorgone AM, McSweeney DJ, Webster DL, Salden DR, Deakos MH, Ligon AD, Schorr GS, Barlow J, Mahaffy SD. 2008. False killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) around the main Hawaiian Islands: Long-term site fidelity, inter-island movements, and association patterns. Mar Mamm Sci 24: 591-612
Barrie, J.V. and Collins, M. B. 1989. Sediment transfer on the shelf margin of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Atlantic Geology 25, 173-179
Barrie, J. and S. Browne. 1980. Nearshore studies of marine benthos in the Makkovik Bay and Cartwright regions. pp. 154- 173. In: Proceedings 1980 Workshop on Research in the Labrador Coastal and Offshore Region, Goose Bay, Labrador, Sept. 4-6, 1980. Sponsored by Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador Dept. of Mines and Energy, and Petro- Canada.
Beanlands, G. E., and P. N. Duinker. 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Halifax, NS: Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies.
Beauchamp, J., H. Bouchard, P. de Margerie, N. Otis and J.-Y. Savaria. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Northwest Atlantic population, in Canada [FINAL]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. 62 pp.
Berta, A., R. Racicot and T. Deméré. 2009. The comparative anatomy and evolution of the ear in Balaenoptera mysticetes. Page 33 in Abstracts of the 18th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 October 2009, Québec City, Canada.
Bjorndal, K.A. (ed). 1995. Biology and conservation of sea turtles. 2nd.ed. Smithsonian Institute Press. Washington. D.C.
Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, A. Thode, K.H. Kim, Charles R. Greene, Jr., and A.M. Macrander. 2010. Effects of seismic exploration activities on bowhead whale call distribution in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(3):1756.
Blaxter, J.H.S., J.A.B. Gray, and E.J. Denton. 1981. Sound and startle responses in herring shoals. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 61: 851-869.
Blomquist, S. and M. Peterz. 1984. Cyclones and pelagic seabird movements. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 20:85-92.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 255 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren and K. Toklum. 1996. Effecter av luftkanonshyting påegg, larver og yngel. Fisken og Havet 1996(3):1-83. (Norwegian with English summary)
Boudreau, M., S.C. Courtenay, and K. Lee. 2009. Proceedings of a Workshop Held 23 January 2007 at the Gulf Fisheries Centre; Potential Impacts of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab: An Update to the September 2004 Review. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2836: vii+31 p.
Boulva, J. and I. A. McLaren. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in eastern Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 200:1-24.
Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster and D. Palka. 1994. Relative abundance and behavior of marine mammals exposed to transmissions for the Heard Island feasibility test. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96: 2469-2484.
Branscomb ES, and Rittschof D.1984. An investigation of low frequency sound waves as a means of inhibiting barnacle settlement. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 79:149–154
Breeze, H.; Fenton, D.G.; Rutherford, R.J.; Silva, M.A. 2002. The Scotian Shelf : an ecological overview for ocean planning. Canadian technical report of fisheries and aquatic sciences; 2393. x, 259 p.
Brown, J.D. 1990. Constraints for Offshore Structures in Constraints to Development, Chapter 14. pp. 774-780. In:Geology of the Continental Margin of Eastern Canada, M.J. Keen and G.L. Williams (ed.); Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada, No. 2.
Brown, M.W., Fenton, D., Smedbol, K., Merriman, C., Robichaud-Leblanc, K., and Conway, J.D. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vi + 66p.
Budelmann, B.-U. .1992. Hearing of nonarthropod invertebrates. In: Webster, D.B., Fay, R.R. and Popper, A.N. eds. Comparative Evolutionary Biology of Hearing, Springer Verlag, NY., pp. 141-155.
Burns, J.J. 1981. Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus Erxleben, 1777. In: Ridgway SH, Harrison, R.J. (eds) Handbook of marine mammals, Seals. Academic Press, London, 2:145-170
Buscaino,G., F. Filiciotto, M. Gristina, G. Buffa, A. Bellante, V. Maccarrone, B. Patti, S. Mazzola. 2011. Defensive strategies of European spiny lobster Palinurus elephas during predator attack. MEPS 441:177-184.
Calambokidis, J. and S.D. Osmek. 1998. Marine mammal research and mitigation in conjunction with air gun operation for the USGS 'SHIPS' seismic surveys in 1998. Draft Report from Cascadia Research, Olympia, WA, for United States Geological Survey, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Minerals Management Service
Campbell, D.C., D.J.W. Piper, E.V. Dougla, and S. Migeon. 2002. Surficial geology of Flemish Pass: Assessment of hazards and constraints to development. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 1454, 61 p.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 256 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Campbell, J. and N. Sutterlin. 1981. Grand Banks bibliography. Unpubl. Report to Petro- Canada, St John’s, Newfoundland. 47 p.
Campbell, D.C. 2005. Major Quaternary mass-transport deposits in southern Orphan Basin, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada Current Research 2005-3, 10 p.
Campbell, J.S. and Simms, J.M. 2009. Status Report on Coral and Sponge Conservation in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: vii + 87 p.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency). 1994. Responsible Authority’s Guide to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. CEA Agency, Ottawa.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency). 1997. Guide to the Preparation of a Comprehensive Study for Proponents and Responsible Authorities. CEA Agency, Ottawa. Canadian Wildlife Service. CWS Leach’s Storm Petrel Mitigation Program
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEAA. 2003. Process for Defining the Spatial Boundary of a Study Area During an Environmental Assessment of Offshore Exploratory Drilling Projects.
Canadian Ice Services, 2001. Sea Ice Climatic Atlas, East coast of Canada, 1971-2000. Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada. 34p. Available at http://ice- glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=23&ScndLvl=no&ID=11705
Canadian Ice Service, July 2009. Seasonal Summary for Eastern Canada. Winter 2008-2009. http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/IS_SS_EC/East_Coast_Seasonal_Summary_2008-09.pdf Canadian Ice Service, 2010. Climatic Ice Atlas – East Coast of Canada. http://ice- glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=24&ScndLvl=no&ID=11705
Canadian Ice Services, 2010. Sea Ice Climatic Atlas, East coast of Canada, 1981-2010. Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada. 248p. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=090AF7D6-1&xml=AE4A459A-FFF4- 4E38-A09E-7DF258873739
Carscadden, J.E., B.E. Nakashima and K.T. Frank. 1997. Effects of fish length and temperature on the timing of peak spawning in capelin (Mallotus villosus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 781-787.
Carscadden, J.E., K.T. Frank and W.C. Leggett. 2001. Ecosystem changes and the effects on capelin (Mallotus villosus), a major forage species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58: 73-85.
Chaffey, H. 2003. Integrating scientific knowledge and local ecological knowledge about common eiders (Somateria mokissima) in southern Labrador. M.S. Thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland. St. John’s.
Chapman, C.J., and A.D. Hawkins. 1969. The importance of sound in fish behaviour in relation to capture by trawls. P717-729 In: A. Ben-Tuvia and W. Dickson (eds.), Proceedings of the FAO conference on fish behaviour in relation to fishing techniques and tactics. 19-27 Oct 1967. FAO Fisheries Report 62 (3), Rome.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 257 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
CNSOPB and C-NLOPB. 2002. Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating To Offshore Petroleum Activity
Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White, and R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effect of seismic energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 144. Calgary, Alb., Canada.
Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White and R.A. Buchanan. 2004. Effect of seismic energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) 7 November 2003. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 144. Calgary. 106 pp.
CNSOPB and C-NLOPB. 2002. Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating To Offshore Petroleum Activity
Colbourne, E. 2000. Oceanographic conditions in NAFO Division 2J3KLMNO during 1999 with comparisons to the long-term (1961–1990) average. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document, 2000/048: 53 pp.
Cook, M.L.H., R.A. Varela, J.D. Goldstein, S.D. McCulloch, G.D. Bossart, J.J. Finneran, D. Houser, and A. Mann. 2006. Beaked whale auditory evoked potential hearing measurements. J. Comp. Physiol. A 192(5):489- 495.
Corwin, J.T. and D.A. Cotanche. 1988. Regeneration of sensory hair cells after acoustic trauma. Science 240. no. 4860: 1772-1774
COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 32 pp.
COSEWIC 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 28 pp.
COSEWIC 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 70 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).
COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. ix + 37 pp
COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 42 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).
COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 75 p.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 258 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Courtenay, S.C, M. Boudreau and K. Lee. (editors). 2009. Potential Impacts of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab: An Update to the September 2004 Peer Review. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 178. Moncton, 181 p.
CPAWS ( Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society) Newfoundland & Labrador Chapter. 2009. Special Marine Areas in Newfoundland & Labrador. Areas of Interest in our marine backyards.
Dahlheim, M.E 1987. Bio-acoustics of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 315 p.
Dalen, J., Ona, E., Vold Soldal, A. og Sætre, R. 1996. Seismiske undersøkeleser til havs: En vurdering av konsekvenser for fisk og fiskerier. Fisken og Havet, nr. 9 – 1996. 26 s.
Dalen, J., E. Dragsund, A. Næss, 2007. Effects of seismic surveys on fish, fish catches and sea mammals 2007-0512 rev 01, Cooperation group - Fishery Industry and Petroleum Industry.
Dalen, J. And Knutsen, G.M. 1987. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations. S. 93-102 i MERKLINGER, H.M. red. Progress in Underwater Acoustics. Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Dalen, J. and A. Raknes. 1985. Scaring effects on fish from 3D seismic surveys. Institute of Marine Research Report, No. P.O. 8504, Bergen, Norway.
Davies, D.M. and J.S. Bell. 1984. A comparison of the levels of hepatic aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase in fish caught close to and distant from North Sea oil fields. Marine Environmental Research 14:23-45.
Davis, R.A., D.H. Thomson and C.I. Malme. 1998. Environmental assessment of seismic exploration on the Scotian Shelf. Prepared for Mobil Oil Canada Properties Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., and Imperial Oil Ltd. for the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Halifax.
Desharnais, F. and Collison, N.E. B. 2001. Background noise levels in the area of The Gully, Laurentian Channel and Sable Bank. ECR 2001-028 Defence Research Establishment Atlantic.
DFO. 1997. State of the Ocean: Northwest Atlantic. Stock Status Report G0-01. 8p.
DFO. 2004a. Review of scientific information on impacts of seismic sound on fish, invertebrates, marine turtles and marine mammals. Habitat Status Report 2004/002. September 2004. 15 pp.
DFO, 2004b. Potential Impacts of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Habitat Status Report 2004/003.
DFO. 2005. Status and recovery potential of porbeagle shark in the northwest Atlantic. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res. Doc. 2005/053.
DFO. 2006a. Assessment of the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (Divisions 4RST) capelin stock in 2005. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report, 2006/022.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 259 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
DFO. 2006b. Recovery potential assessment report of shortfin mako sharks in Atlantic Canada. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2006/051.
DFO. 2006c. Recovery potential assessment report on white sharks in Atlantic Canada. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2006/052.
DFO. 2007a. Statement of Canadian Practice for Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment.
DFO. 2007b. Stock Assessment of Subdivision 3Ps cod. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/041
DFO. 2007c. Placentia Bay-Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area Science-based Conservation Objectives. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/042
DFO. 2007d. The Grand Banks of Newfoundland: Atlas of Human Activities. http://www.nfl.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/e0007193
DFO. 2008a. Recovery Strategy for the Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada.
DFO. 2008b. Recovery potential assessment for cusk (Brosme brosme). Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv Report 2008/024.
DFO. 2009a. Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis Rep. 2009/045
DFO 2009b. Recovery Strategy for the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), inner Bay of Fundy populations [Proposed]. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. xiii + 73 pp.
DFO 2009c. Recovery Strategy for the Northern Bottlenose Whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), Scotian Shelf population, in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vi + 60p.
DFO. 2009d. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vi + 66p.
DFO. 2009e. Recovery Strategy for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Northwest Atlantic population, in Canada [FINAL]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. 62 pp.
DFO 2010a. Occurrence, susceptibility to fishing, and ecological function of corals, sponges, and hydrothermal vents in Canadian waters. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/041.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 260 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
DFO 2010b. Recovery Strategy for the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), inner Bay of Fundy populations [Final]. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. xiii + 58 pp. + Appendices
DFO 2010c. The Beluga Whale: A species in need of your help in Newfoundland and Labrador.
DFO 2011a. Stock Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Salmon - 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/087.
DFO 2011b. Review of aerial survey estimates for Ringed Seals (Pusa hispida) in western Hudson Bay, 2009 and 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/024.
DFO. 2011c. Recovery potential assessment of American plaice (Hippoglossides platessoide) in Newfoundland and Labrador. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2011/030.
DFO. 2011d. Recovery potential assessment for the Newfoundland and Labrador designatable unit (NAFO Divs. 2GHJ, 3KLNO) of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2011/037. Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. Biol. Lett. 6(1):51-54.
DNV Energy. 2007. Effects of seismic surveys on fish, fish catches and sea mammals Report for the Cooperation group - Fishery Industry and Petroleum Industry Report no.: 2007-0512
Donskoy, D. M. and M.L. Ludyanskiy.1995. Low frequency sound as a control measure for zebra mussel fouling. Proceedings of the Fifth International Zebra Mussel and Other Aquatic Nuisance Organisms Conference, Toronto, Canada, 14-21 February 1995.
Duncan, P.M. 1985. Seismic sources in a marine environment. pp. 56-88. In: Proc. Workshop on Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, Nova Scotia Technical Report 5. Canadian Oil & Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, Ottawa, ON. 398 p.
Dunn, R.A. and O. Hernandez. 2009. Tracking blue whales in the eastern tropical Pacific with an ocean-bottom seismometer and hydrophone array. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(3):1084- 1094.
Dunbar, M.J., D.C. MacLellan, A. Filion, D. Moore. 1980. The biogeographic structure of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. McGill Univ., Mar. Sci. Centre Manuscr. 32: 1-142.
Dutton, P.H., B.W. Bowen, D.W. Owens, A. Barragan and S.K. Davis. 1999. Global phylogeography of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Journal of Zoology (London) 248: 397-409.
Eckert S.A., Eckert, K.L., Ponganis, P. and Kooyman, G.L. 1989. Diving and foraging behavior of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67, 2832- 2840
Edinger, E, K. Baker, R. Devillers and V. Wareham. 2007. Coldwater corals off Newfoundland and Labrador: Distributions and fisheries impacts. World Wildlife Foundation, Toronto, Canada.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 261 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Enachescu, M. 2007. Newfoundland and Labrador Call for Bids NL07-2 Labrador Shelf. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Natural Resources. 54 p.
Engen, F. & Folstad, I. 1999. Cod courtship song: a song at the expense of dance? Can. J. Zool. 77: 542–550.
Enger, P.S. 1981. Frequency discrimination in teleosts-central or peripheral?. pp. 243-253. In: W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay. (eds.). Hearing and sound communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag New York.
Engås, A, S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona and A.V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (G. morhua) and haddock (M. aeglefinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2238-2249. (Norwegian with an English summary)
Environment Canada, 1984. A Summary of Trends Relating to Spills of Oil and Hazardous Materials in the Atlantic Region, 1981 and 1982. Surveillance Report EPS-5-AR-84-5. Atlantic Region.
Ernst, C.H., R.W. Barbour and J.E. Lovich (eds). 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 578 p.
Evans, P.G.H., E.J. Lewis, E. Parsonsz and C. Swann. 1993. A Survey of Whales and Dolphins in Hebridean Waters. Sea Watch Foundation, Oxford.
Fader, G.B., L.H. King, and H.W. Josenhans. 1982. Surficial Geology of the Laurentian Channel and the Western Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Marine Sciences Paper 21, Geological Survey of Canada Paper 81-22. Joint publication of the Canadian Hydrographic Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Geological Survey of Canada, and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Fay, R. R. and Popper, A. N. (2000). Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: The inner ears and processing. Hear. Res., 149:1-10.
Fifield, D.A., K.P. Lewis, C. Gjerdrum, G.J. Robertson, R. Wells. 2009. Offshore Seabird Monitoring Program. Environment Studies Research Funds Report No. 183. St. John’s, NL 68 p.
Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary Shift in Masked Hearing Thresholds in Odontocetes after Exposure to Single Underwater Impulses from a Seismic Watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111(6): 2929-2940.
Folkens, P., R. Reeves, B. Stewart, P. Clapham and J. Powell. 2002. National Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 527 pp.
Gaston, A.J. and I.L. Jones. 1998. The Auks. Bird Families of the World. Oxford Univ. Press, NY. 349 pp.
Gausland, I. 2003. Impact of seismic surveys on marine life. In: SPE International Conference in Health, Safety and the Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. June 2000, Stavanger, Norway, Society of Petroleum Engineers., p.. 26-28 .
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 262 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Gauthreaux, Jr. S.A., and C.G. Belser. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on migrating birds, pg 67-93. In: Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Rich C and T. Longeore (eds.) Island Press 480 pp.
G& G Exploration Consulting Ltd. 2003. Orphan Basin Offshore Newfoundland. Prepared for the Department of Mines and Energy Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 106 p.
Gilchrist, H.G. and M.L. Mallory. 2005. Declines in abundance and distribution of the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnean) in Arctic Canada. Biological Conservation, 121: 303-309.
Gilkinson, K., and Edinger, E. (Eds.) 2009. The ecology of deep-sea corals of Newfoundland and Labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2830: vi + 136 p.
Gilkinson, K. 1996. Review and assessment of the literature on marine benthic mollusks (Amphineura, Bivalvia, Gastropoda) in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. NAFO Science Council Studies, 10:93-108.
Goff, G.P. and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold water off Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(1):1-5.
Goodall, C., C. Chapman, and D. Neil. 1990. The acoustic response threshold of the Norway lobster, Nephrops norvegicus (L.) in a free sound field. p. 106-113 In: K. Wiese, W.D. Krenz, J. Tautz, H. Reichert, and B. Mulloney (eds.), Frontiers in crustacean neurobiology. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland.
Goold, J.C. 1996. Acoustic assessment of common dolphins off the west Wales coast, in conjunction with 16th round seismic surveying. Rep. to Chevron UK Ltd, Repsol Exploration (UK) Ltd and Aran Energy Exploration Ltd from School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Wales. 22 pp.
Greene, C.R., Jr. and M.W. McLennan. 2000. Sound levels from a 1210 cu. in. air gun array. pp. 3-1-3-9. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical’s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2000: 90-day report. Report TA2424-3. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Anchorage, AK, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 121 pp.
Greene, C. R. J. and S. E. Moore 1995. Man-made Noise. Pp 101-158 in Marine Mammals and Noise. W. J. Richardson, C. R. J. Greene, C. I. Malme and D. H. Thomson (ed.),Academic Press,San Deigo
Greene, C.R., Jr. and M.W. McLennan. 2000. Sound levels from a 1210 in airgun array. Pp. 3-1 to 3-9. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.). Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of Western Geophysical’s Open-water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2000: 90-day Report. Report TA2424-3. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, ON., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Anchorage, AK, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 121 pp.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 263 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Hammill, M.O. and G.B. Stenson. 2000. Estimated prey consumption by harp seals (Phoca groenlandica), hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in Atlantic Canada. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 26: 1-23.
Hammill, M.O. and Stenson, G.B. 2011. Estimating abundance of Northwest Atlantic harp seals, examining the impact of density dependence. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/011. iv + 27 p.
Han G., Loder J.W., and Smith P.C., 1999. Seasonal-Mean Hydrography and Circulation in the Gulf of St Lawrence and on the Eastern Scotian and Southern Newfoundland Shelves. Journal of Physical Oceanography, June 1999, Vol 29, pp1279-1301.
Hanser, S.F., L.R. Doyle, A.R. Szabo, F.A. Sharpe and B. McCowan. 2009. Bubble-net feeding humpback whales in Southeast Alaska change their vocalization patterns in the presence of moderate vessel noise. p. 105 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Canada, Oct. 2009. 306 p.
Hardy. 1985. Evaluation of biological community studies of the southern and southeastern Newfoundland shoreline. Report by Hardy Associates (1978) Ltd. to Petroleum Directorate, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St John’s, Newfoundland. 251 p.
Hartung. R. 1995. Assessment of the Potential for Long-term Toxicological Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Birds and Mammals. pp. 693-725. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 pp.
Harris, R.E., G.W. Miller and W.J. Richardson. 2001. Seal responses to airgun sounds during summer seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science, 17: 795- 812.
Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, S. Løkkeborg, K. Skaar, Ø. Østensen, E.K. Haugland, M. Fonn, Å. Høines and O.A. Misund. 2003. Reaction of sandeel to seismic shooting: A field experiment and fishery statistics study. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway.
Hastings, M. C., Popper, A. N., Finneran, J. J., and Lanford, P. J. 1996. Effect of low frequency underwater sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 1759–1766.
Hawkins, A. D. & Amorim, M. C. P. 2000. Spawning sounds of the male haddock, Melanogrammus aegelfinus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59: 29-41.
Henninger, H.P. and W.H. Watson, III. 2005. Mechanisms underlying the production of carapace vibrations and associated waterborne sounds in the American lobster, Homarus americanus. J. Exp. Biol. 208:3421-3429.
Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski and B. Haley. 2005. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s Marine Seismic Program off the Northern Yucatán Peninsula in the Gulf of Mexico, January-Feburary 2004. LGL Report TA2822 31. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, ON., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 96 pp.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 264 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Holst, M., I. Stirling and K.A. Hobson. 2001. Diet of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) on the east and west sides of the North Water Polynya, northern Baffin Bay. Marine Mammal Science, 17(4): 888-908.
Hu, M., Yan, H. Y., Chung, W.-S., Shiao, J.-C. and Hwang, P.-P .2009. Acoustical evoked potentials in two cephalopods inferred using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 153A, 278-283.
Hurley, G. and J. Ellis. 2004. Environmental effects of exploratory drilling offshore Canada: Environmental effects monitoring data and literature review-final report. Report for The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Regulatory Advisory Committee (RAC).
Husky. 2000. White Rose oilfield comprehensive study. Report for Husky Oil Operations Ltd. St. John's, NF. 1011 p.
IBA (Important Bird Areas Canada). website, accessed January 2012: Online at: (http://www.ibacanada.com/)
International Ice Patrol, 2009a. Archived Data. Available at http://www.uscg- iip.org/pdf/Annual_Report_2009.pdf
International Ice Patrol, 2009b. Archived Data. Available at http://www.uscg- iip.org/General/75_95BergClimo_Images/May30_1975-1995.gif
IUCN 2009. Ringed Seals and Climate Change: Arctic ice loss seals the deal.
Jacques Whitford. 2009. Screening report for Hibernia drill centres construction and operation program. Rep. No. 1042664.01. Prepared by Jacques Whitford Limited, St. John’s, NL for Hibernia Drill Centres Construction and Operation Program, St. John’s NL. 333 p.
Jacobs, C. L. 1985. Sedimentary processes along Flemish Pass, offshore eastern Canada: a GLORIA and high-resolution seismic reconnaissance. Institute of Oceanographic Science. Can. J. Earth Sci. 9 p.
James, M. C., S. A. Sherril-Mix, K. Martin and R. A. Myers. 2006. Canadian waters provide critical foraging habitat for leatherback sea turtles. Bio. Conserv. 133:347-357.
James, M., S.A. Eckert and R.A. Myers. 2005. Migratory and reproductive movements of male leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Marine Biology 147:845-853.
Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs, editors. 2003. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico. Annual report: Year 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. 139 pp. Available at: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/studies/2003/2003-069.pdf
Jochens, A. D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Those, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico/Synthesis report. OCS Study MMS 2008- 006. Report from the Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 265 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Station, TX, for the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.
Jorgenson, J.K. and E.C. Gyselman. 2009. Hydroacoustic measurements of the behavioral response of arctic riverine fishes to seismic airguns. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(3):1598-1606.
Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu, and S. Segawa. 2008. Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst. Fish. Sci. 74:781-786.
Kastak, D., and Schusterman, R. J. 1998. Low-frequency amphibious hearing in pinnipeds: methods, measurements, noise, and ecology, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 2216–2228.
Kastak, D., Schusterman, R. J., Southall, B. L., and Reichmuth, C. J. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold shift in three species of pinniped, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 1142–1148.
Kastak, D., Southall, B., Schusterman, R., and Reichmuth-Kastak, C. 2005. Underwater temporary threshold shift in pinnipeds: Effects of noise level and duration, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 3154–3163.
Kastelein, R.A., P. Bunskoek, M. Hagedoorn, W.W. L. Au and D. de Haan. 2002. Audiogram of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) measured with narrow-band frequency-modulated signals. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 112(1): 334-344.
Kasuya, T. 1986. Distribution and behavior of Baird’s beaked whales off the Pacific coast of Japan. The Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute 37: 61-83.
Kenchington, E.L.R., J. Prena, K. Gilkinson, D.C. Gordon, K. MacIsaac, C. Bourbonnais, P. Schwinghamer, T.W. Rowell, D.L. McKeown and W.P. Vass. 2001. Effects of experimental otter trawling on the macrofauna of a sandy bottom ecosystem on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58: 1,043-1,057.
Kenney, R.D. 1994. Anomalous 1992 spring and summer distributions of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and other cetaceans in continental shelf waters off the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Final report for MMC contract T94070648. NTIS PB99102493. 66 pp. (A05)
Ketten, D.R. 2000. Cetacean ears. p. 43-108 In: W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay (eds.), Hearing by whales and dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 485 p. Ketten, D.R. 2004. Marine mammal auditory systems: a summary
Komak, S., J.G. Boal, L. Dickel, and B.U. Budelmann. 2005. Behavioural responses of juvenile cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to local water movements. Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 38:117- 125.
Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger and O. Sand. 1992. Awareness reactions and avoidance responses to sound in juvenile Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fisheries Biology 40(4): 523-534.
Kosheleva, V. 1992. The impact of air guns used in marine seismic explorations on organisms living in the Barents Sea. Contr. Petro Piscis II `92 Conference F-5, Bergen, 6-8 April, 1992.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 266 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Kostyuchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea. Hydrobiol. J. 9:45-48.
Kulka, D. W. 2001. Distribution of Greenland halibut and by-catch species that overlap the 200- mile limit, spatially and in relation to depth - effect of depth restrictions in the fishery. NAFO SCR Doc. 01/40, Ser. No. N4418 42 p.
Kulka, D. W., Simpson, M. R., and Inkpen, T. D. 2003. Distribution and Biology of Blue Hake (Antimora rostrata Günther 1878) in the Northwest Atlantic with Comparison to Adjacent Areas. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol. 31. 20 p.
Kulka, D., C. Hood and J. Huntington. 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.
Lacroix, D.L., R.B. Lanctot, J.A. Reed and T.L. McDonald. 2003. Effect of underwater surveys on molting male Long-tailed Ducks in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 81:1862-1875.
Ladich, F., and Popper, A.N. 2004. Parallel evolution in fish hearing organs. In: Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System (eds. G.A. Manley, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay). Springer-Verlag, New York, 95-127.
Lawson. J.W., and Gosselin, J.-F. 2009. Distribution and preliminary abundance estimates for cetaceans seen during Canada’s marine megafauna survey - A component of the 2007 TNASS. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2009/031. vi + 28 p.
Lawson, J.W., R. A. Davis, W.J. Richardson and C.I. Malme. 2000. Assessment of Noise Issues Relevant to Key Cetacean species (Northern Bottlenose and Sperm Whales) in the Sable Gully Area of Interest. Prepared for Oceans Act Coordination Office. LGL Report TA2446-2. July 20, 2000.
Lawson, J.W., T. Stevens and D. Snow. 2007. Killer whales of Atlantic Canada, with particular reference to the Newfoundland and Labrador region. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2007/062. 16 p.
LeDrew. 1984. Southeastern Newfoundland marine resources: a literature review. Report to Newfoundland Department of Development by LeDrew Environmental Management Ltd., and Oceans Ltd., St. John’s, Newfoundland. 413 p.
Lesage, V. and M.O. Hammill. 2001. The status of the grey seal, Halichoerus grypus, in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. Field- Nat. 115(4): 653-662.
Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M.C.S. Kingsley and B. Sjare. 1999. The effect of vessel noise on the vocal behaviour of belugas in the St. Lawrence River Estuary, Canada. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15: 65-84.
LGL Limited. 2003. Orphan Basin Strategic Environmental Assessment. Rep. No. SA767. Prepared by LGL Limited, environmental research associates, St. John's, NL for Canada- Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John's, NL. 244 p.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 267 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
LGL Limited, 2005. Orphan Basin exploration drilling program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA825. for Chevron Canada Limited, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, Calgary, AB and Shell Canada Limited. 353 p.
LGL Limited. 2005. Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area Environmental Assessment. LGL Report SA845. Report by LGL Limited, Oceans Limited, Canning & Pitt Associates Inc., and PAL Environmental Services for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL.
LGL Limited, 2006a. Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction & Operations Program Environmental Assessment. LGL Rep. SA883. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 299 p. + App.
LGL Limited, 2006b. Orphan Basin Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment Addendum. LGL Rep. SA825. for Chevron Canada Limited, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, Calgary, AB and Shell Canada Limited. 142 p. + App.
LGL Limited. 2007. Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area, 2008-2017, Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 231 p. + App.
LG Limited, 2008a. Environmental assessment of StatoilHydro’s Jeanne d’Arc Basin area seismic and geohazard program, 2008- 2016. LGL Rep. SA947a. Rep. by LGL Limited, Canning and Pitt Associates Inc., and Oceans Ltd., St. John’s, NL for StatoilHydro Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL. 174 p + App.
LGL Limited. 2008b. Environmental Assessment of StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Exploration and Appraisal/Delineation Drilling Program for Offshore Newfoundland, 2008-2016. LGL Rep. SA947b. for StatoilHydro Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL. 292 p. + App.
LGL Limited. 2009a. Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment. LGL Rep. SA1037. for Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John’s, NL. 339 p. + App.
LGL Limited. 2009b. Orphan Basin exploration drilling program environmental assessment: Validation 2010. LGL Rep. SA1012. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB. 63 p. + App.
LGL Limited. 2011a. Environmental assessment of Chevron’s North Grand Banks regional seismic program, 2011-2017. LGL Rep. SA1119. for Chevron Canada Limited, Calgary, AB. 226 p. + App.
LGL Limited, 2011b. Environmental Assessment of Statoil’s Geophysical Program for the Jeanne d’Arc and Central Ridge/ Flemish Pass Basins, 2011-2019. LGL Rep. SA1121. Rep. by LGL Limited for Statoil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL. 227 p. + App.
LGL Limited. 2011c. Project description of WesternGeco Canada’s Jeanne d’Arc Basin Seismic Program 2012-2015. LGL Rep. SA1150. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for WesternGeco Canada, a division of Schlumberger Canada, Calgary, AB. 19p.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 268 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
LGL Limited. 2011d. Environmental Assessment of Husky’s Jeanne d’Arc Basin/Flemish Pass Regional Seismic Program, 2012-2020. LGL Rep. SA1144. Prepared for Husky Energy, St. John’s, NL. 320 p. + App.
Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral 13 responses of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan 14 Beaufort Sea. Arctic 41(3):183-194.
Lock, A.R., R.G.B. Brown and S.H. Gerriets. 1994. Gazetteer of marine birds in Atlantic Canada. An atlas of seabird vulnerability to oil pollution. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada, Atlantic Region. 137 p.
Lohmann, K. J., Cain, S. D., Dodge, S. A., and C. M. F. Lohmann. 2001. Regional magnetic fields as navigational markers for sea turtles. Science. 294: 364-366.
Lohmann, K. J., Hester, J. T., and C. M. F. Lohmann. 1999. Long-distance navigation in sea turtles. Ethology, Ecology, and Evolution. 11: 1-23.
Lohmann, K. J., and C. M. F. Lohmann. 1996. Detection of magnetic field intensity by sea turtles. Nature. 380: 59-61.
Løkkeborg, S., Ona, E., Vold, A., Pena, H., Salthaug, A., Totland, B., Øvredal, J.T. Dalen, J. & Handegard, N.O. 2010. Effects of seismic surveys on fish fish distribution and catch rates of gillnets and longlines in Vesterålen in summer 2009. – Fisken og Havet 2/2010, Havforskningsinstituttet, Bergen. (In Norwegian with summary in English).
Lokkeborg, S. and A.V. Soldal. 1993. The influences of seismic exploration on cod (Gadus morhua) behavior and catch rates. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Marine Science Symposium 196: 62-67.
Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) CM B:40. 9 pp.
Lutcavage, M. 1996. Planning your next meal: leatherback travel routes and ocean fronts. Pp. 174-178 in J. Keinath, D. Barnard, J. A. Musick and B.A. Bell (eds.). Proceedings of the 15th annual symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC 387.
Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, (eds). 2002. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
MacLaren. 1977. Report on biological literature review of the Labrador Sea region. Report for Imperial Oil Ltd., by MacLaren Atlantic Ltd., St John’s, Newfoundland. 109 p.
Madsen, P.T. 2005. Marine mammals and noise: Problems with root mean square sound pressure levels for transients. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(6): 3952- 3957.
Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen and M. Wahlberg. 2002a. Male sperm whale behavior during exposures to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammology 28(3):231-240.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 269 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Malakoff, D. 2002. Suit ties whale deaths to research cruise. Science 298(5594): 722-723.
Malme, C.I., Miles, Wursig, B., Bird, J.E. and Tyack, P. 1988 Observations of feeding gray whale responses to controlled industrial noise exposure. In: Sackinger, W.M. et al. (Eds) Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions. Volumn II. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, Geophys. Inst.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior. Phase II: January 1984 migration. BBN Report 5586. Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report for Minerals Management Service, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. BBN Report 5851; OCS Study MMS 85-0019. Rep. from BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for United States Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK.
Mann, D. A., Higgs, D. M., Tavolga, W. N., Souza, M. J. and Popper, A. N. 2001. Ultrasound detection by clupeiform fishes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 3048-3054.
Mann, D. A., Lu, Z., Hastings, M. C., and Popper, A. N. 1998. Detection of ultrasonic tones and simulated dolphin echolocation clicks by a teleost fish, the American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104: 562e568.
Mann, D. A., Lu, Z., and Popper, A. N. 1997. A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature, 389: 341.
Martec Limited. 1984. Report on the Environmental Program Associated with the Blowout at Shell et al. Uniacke G-72. Report for Shell Canada Resources Limited, Dartmouth, NS.
Matishov, G.G. 1992. The reaction of bottom fish larvae to airgun pulses in the context of the vulnerable Barent Sea ecosystem. Fisheries and Offshore Petroleum Exploitation, 2nd International Conference, Bergen, Norway, 6-8 April.
Mayo, Ralph, Laurel Col, and Michele Traver December 2006 Acadian redfish, Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US
Montevecchi, W.A. 2006. Influences of artifical light on marine birds. pg 94-113. In: Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Rich C and T. Longeore (eds.) Island Press 480 pp.
Moriyasu, M., R. Allain, K. Benhalima, and R. Claytor. 2004. Effects of seismic and marine noise on invertebrates: A literature review. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Science. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res. Doc. 2004/126.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of airgun signals; and effects of air gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 270 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Rep. from Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin Univ., Perth, W.A., for Austral. Petrol. Prod. Assoc., Sydney, N.S.W. 188 pp.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, M.-N. Jenner, M-N., C. Jenner, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, K. McCabe and J. Murdoch. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys - a study of environmental implications. APPEA (Australian Petroleum Producers and Explorers Association) Journal 40:692-708. McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, M.-N. Jenner, M-N., C. Jenner, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, K. McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(1): 638-642.
McCauley, R.D., M. Jenner, Jenner, C., McCabe, K.A. and Murdoch, J., 1998. The response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA Journal, 38 (1), 692–707.
McDonald M.A, J.A. Hildebrand S.C.Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on seafloor array in the Northeast Pacific. J Acoust Soc Am 98:712–721.
McQuinn, I.H. and Carrier D. 2005, Far-field measurements of seismic airgun array pulses in the Nova Scotia Gully Marine Protected Area. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2615: v + 20 p.
Mendenhall, V.M. 2004. Seabirds in the Marine Environment. Web reference at http://www.pbs.org/ harriman/explog/lectures/mendenhall2.html.\
Meteorological Service of Canada, Government of Canada, Environment Canada. Meteorological Service of Canada, 50-year (1954 to 2005) wind and wave hindcast of the North Atlantic. Meteorological Service of Canada, 2006.
Meteorological Service of Canada (formerly Atmospheric Environment Service (AES)), Government of Canada, Environment Canada. Meteorological Service of Canada 40- year (1958-1997) wind and wave hindcast of the North Atlantic. Meteorological Service of Canada, 1999.
Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Whales. pp. 5- 1 to 5-109. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. xx + 390 pp.
Miller, A. A.L. 1999. The Quaternary sediments and seismostratigraphy of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the Northeast Newfoundland Shelf: foraminiferal refinements and constraints. George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 948 p.
Mitson, R.B. 1993.Underwater noise radiated by research vessels. ICES Mar.Sci. Symp. 196: 147-152.
MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2004. Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf: Final Programmatic
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 271 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Environmental Assessment. United States Department of the Interior, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region.
Møhl,B., M. Wahlberg, P.T. Masden, A. Heerfordt and A. Lundt. 2003. The monopulsed nature for sperm whale clicks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114:143-155
Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M.L. Lenhardt, and R. George, 1994. Evaluation of Seismic Sources for Repelling Sea Turtles from Hopper Dredges. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, final contract report to U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. In: Sea Turtle Research Program Summary Report. Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS for U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Atlanta, GA and U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA, Technical Report CHL-97-31, NTIS ADA332588. 147 pp.
Mooney, T.A., R. T. Hanlon, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, P. T. Madsen,D. R. Ketten and P. E. Nachtigall. 2010Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked potentials: sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure
Moore P.W., and Pawloski D.A. 1990. Investigations on the control of echolocation pulses in the dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). In Sensory abilities of cetaceans: laboratory and field evidence Thomas J.A., Kastelein R. 1990pp. 305–316. Eds. New York, NY:Plenum.
NAFO. 2011. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures. NAFO/FC Doc. 11/1. Serial No. N5867
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 121 pp.
NEB, CNSOPB and C-NLOPB. 2010. Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines.
NEB and CEA Agency 1996. Joint Review Panel for the Express Pipeline Project in Alberta
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2000. Environmental Assessment on the Effects of Controlled Exposure of Sound on the Behaviour of Various Species of Marine Mammals. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.
Nieukirk, S.L., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, R.P. Dziak, and C.G. Fox. 2004. Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(4):1832-1843.
Nedwell J R, Turnpenny A W H, Langworthy J, Edwards B.2003. “Measurements of underwater noise during piling at the Red Funnel Terminal, Southampton, and observations of its effect on caged fish”. Subacoustech Report Reference: 558R0207, October 2003
Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise.Mammal Rev. 37(2):81-115.
NRC (National Research Council). 2003a. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National Academies Press. 192 pp.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 272 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Marine Mammals and Low-frequency Sound: Progress Since 1994. National Academy Press, Washington DC. 158 pp.
Oceans Limited. 2011. Physical environment of the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and Central Ridge/ Flemish Pass Basins Seismic Program for Statoil Canada. Unpubl. Report Prepared for LGL Limited and Statoil Canada Limited, St. John’s, NL. 237 p.
Oceanweather Inc and Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of Canada MSC50 Website. CT, U.S. and ON, Canada: Oceanweather Inc, 2001. Available at URL: http://www.oceanweather.net/MSC50WaveAtlas/
O'Hara, J. and J. R. Wilcox. 1990. Avoidance responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to low frequency sound. Copeia 1990(2):564-567. J. O'Hara, Univ. S. Carolina, Dept. Biology, Univ. Parkway, Aiken, S. C. 29801 USA.
Parente, C.L., M.C.C. Marcondes, and M.H. Engel. 2006. Humpback whale strandings and seismic surveys in Brazil from 1999 to 2004. Intern. Whal. Commis. Working Pap. SC/58/E41. 16 p.
Parente, C.L., J.P. de Araújo and M.E. de Araújo. 2007. Diversity of cetaceans as tool in monitoring environmental impacts of seismic surveys. Biota Neotrop. 7(1):1-7.
Parry, G.D. and Gason, A. 2006. The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research 79(3): 272-284. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2006.03.023.
Parsons, C., R. Swift and Sarah Dolman. 2004. Source of marine noise. In: Oceans of Noise. Eds. M. Simmonds, S. Dolman and L. Weilgart. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Science Report.
Payne, J.F. 2004. Potential effect of seismic surveys on fish eggs, larvae and zooplankton. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2004/125.
Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, and L. Fancey. 2008. Potential effects of seismic energy on fish and shellfish: an update since 2003. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2008/060.
Payne, J.F., Andrews, C.A., Fancey, L.L., Cook, A.L., and Christian, J.R. 2007. Pilot study on the effect of seismic airgun noise on lobster (Homarus americanus). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2712: v + 46.
Payne, J. F., J. Coady, and D. White. 2009. Potential effects of seismic airgun discharges on monkfish eggs (Lophius americanus) and larvae. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 170
Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on behavior of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 1343-1356.
Pickart R.S. and W.M. Jr. Smethie. 1993. How does the deep Western Boundary Current cross the Gulf Stream? JPO, Vol 23, December 1993.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 273 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Piper, D.J.W., Mudie, P.J., Fader, G.B., Josenhans, H.W., Maclean, B., and Vilks, G. 1990. Quaternary Geology, Chapter 10. pp. 475-607. In: Geology of the Continental Margin of Eastern Canada, M.J. Keen and G.L. Williams (ed.); Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada, no. 2.
Popper A.N. and Carlson TJ. 1998. Application of sound and other stimuli to control fish behavior. Trans Am Fish Soc 127: 673–707
Popper, A. N., Smith, M. E., Cott, P. A., Hanna, B. W., MacGillivray, A. O., Austin, M. E. and Mann, D. A. 2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 3958- 3971.
Popper, A. N. and Fay, R. R. 2010.. Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hear. Res., doi:10.1016/j.heares.2009.12.023
Popper A.N., Fay R.R., Platt C., Sand O. 2003. Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of teleost fish. In Collin S.P. and Marshall N.J. (Eds.). Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments(Springer-Verlag, New York) pp. 3–38 446 pp.
Popper, A.N., M. Salmon and K.W. Horch. 2001. Acoustic detection and communication by decapod crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology 187: 83-89.
Popper, A.N., Carlson, T.J., 1998. Application of sound and other stimuli to control fish behaviour. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127(5):673-707.
Plotkin, P. T., Byles, R. A., Rostal, D. C. And Owens, D. W. 1995. Independent versus socially facilitated oceanic migrations of the olive ridley, Lepidochelys olivacea. Mar. Biol. 122, 137– 143.
Price, A. 2007. The effects of high frequency, high intensity underwater sound on the oxygen uptakes of Mytilus edulis (L.). Thesis submitted as part of assessment for the Degree of Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Applied Biology. Heriot-Watt University, Scotland.
Protasov, V.R. 1966. Bioaccoustics of fishes. Springfield, Vermont. NTIS, 214 pp.
Pye, H.J., and W.H. Watson, III. 2004. Sound detection and production in the American lobster, Homarus americanus: sensitivity range and behavioural implications. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(Part 2):2486.
Rawizza, H.E. 1995. Hearing and associative learning in cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Hopkins Marine Station Student Paper. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Renaud, W.E. and McLaren, P.L. 1982. Ivory Gull (Pagophila ebumea) distribution in late summer and autumn in eastern Lancaster SoundandwesternBaffinBay. Arctic35:141-148.
Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr. C.I. Malme and D. H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576 pp.
Richardson, W.J. and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioral responses. Pp: 631- 700. In: J.J. Burns, J.J. Montague and C.J. Cowles (eds.). The Bowhead Whale. Special Publication of the Society for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence, KS.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 274 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Richardson, W.J., B.W. Würsig and C.R. Greene Jr. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 79: 1117- 1128.
Richardson P.L. 1977. On the crossover between the Gulf stream and the Western Boundary Undercurrents. Deep Sea Res. 24.
Ridgway, S.H.,E. G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson.1969. Hearing in the Giant Sea Turtle, Chelonia mydas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: 64 (3) 884-890
Riley, D.C. 1984. Post-mortem report, Uniacke well blowout incident. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Romanenko, E.V. and V.Ya. Kitain. 1992. The functioning of the echolocation system of Tursiops truncatus during noise masking. pp. 415-419. In: J.A. Thomas, R.A. Kastelein and A.Ya. Supin (eds.), Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. Plenum, New York. 773 pp.
Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr. C.I. Malme and D. H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576 p.
Rose, G.A. 2005. Capelin (Mallotus villosus) distribution and climate: a sea "canary" for marine ecosystem change. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 1524-1530.
Royal Society of Canada. 2004. Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues Related to Oil and Gas Activities, Offshore British Columbia. Prepared at the request of Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
Saetre, R. and E. Ona. 1996. Seismike undersøkelser og på fiskeegg og -larver en vurdering av mulige effecter pa bestandsniva. [Seismic investigations and damages on fish eggs and larvae; an evaluation of possible effects on stock level] Fisken og Havet 1996:1-17, 1-8. (in Norwegian, with an English summary - full translation not published).
SAR (Stock Assessment Reports).2011. Draft marine mammal stock assessment reports for Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Accessed at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm; accessed in February 2012
Saunders,J. and R. Dooling. 1974. Noise-Induced Threshold Shift in the Parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 71(5):1962-1965
Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds (MTTS) of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, after exposure to intense tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107: 3,496-3,508.
Schwartz, A.L. and G.L. Greer. 1984. Responses of Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi to some under water sounds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1183- 1192.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 275 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, ON. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 219, 731 pp.
Sjare, B., and Stenson, G. B. 2010. Changes in the reproductive parameters of female harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) in the Northwest Atlantic. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 304–315.
Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(7):1357-1365.
Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen and E. Ona. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian coast. Fish. Res. 67: 143-150.
Smith, S.C. 2001. Examination of Incidental Catch from the Canadian Atlantic Large Pelagic Longline Fishery. Prepared for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Contract No; F5238-000166.
Smith, M.E., A.S. Kane, and A.N. Popper. 2004. Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Journal of Experimental Biology 207:427-435.
Smultea, M.A., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and S. Stoltz. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory's seismic program in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean, April-June 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-26. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring,MD. 106 p.
Sodal, A. 1999. Measured underwater acoustic wave propagation from a seismic source. Proc. Airgun Environmental Workshop, 6 July, London, UK.
South, G.R., A. Whitlatch and R. Hooper. 1979. Biological bibliography of the Labrador Sea and coastal Labrador. Report to Total Eastern Exploration Ltd., St John’s, Newfoundland. 328 p.
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. Aquat. Mamm. 33(4):411-522.
Stafford, K.M., C.G. Fox, and D.S. Clark. 1998. Long-range acoustic detection and localization of blue whale calls in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104:3616-3625.
Stansbury, D.E., D. Fiander and D. Maddock Parsons. 2009. Summary of the Industry-DFO Collaborative Post-season Trap Surveys for Snow Crab in Div. 2J3KLOPs4R
Stemp, R. 1985. Observations on the effects of seismic exploration on seabirds. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, 29–31 January 1985. Edited by G.D. Greene, F.R. Engelhardt, and R.J. Paterson. Tech. Rep. 5, Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, Ottawa, Ont. pp. 217–231.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 276 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Stenhouse, I.J. 2004. Canadian management plan for the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea). Canadian Wildlife Service, St. John’s, NL.
Stenhouse, I. J., G. J. Robertson, and H. G. Gilchrist. 2004. Recoveries and survival rate of Ivory Gulls banded in Nunavut, Canada, 1971–1999. Waterbirds 27:486-492.
Stone, C.J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters 1998-2000. JNCC Report 323. Joint Nature Conservancy, Aberdeen, Scotland. 43 pp.
Stout, H.B. 1993. Overview of oiled bird rehabilitation. The effects of oil on wildlife. p A38-A39. Third international conference.
Swail, V.R., V.J. Cardone, M. Ferguson, D.J. Gummer, E.L. Harris, E.A. Orelup and A.T. Cox. “The MSC50 Wind and Wave Reanalysis”. 9th International Wind and Wave Workshop, September 25-29, Victoria, B.C, 2006.
Swail, V.R., V.J. Cardone and A.T. Cox. “A Long Term North Atlantic Wave Hindcast”. 5th International Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting. January 26-30, Melbourne, Florida, 1998.
Taylor BL, Baird R, Barlow J, Dawson SM, Ford J, Mead JG, Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Wade P, Pitman RL (2008) Pseudorca crassidens. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2.
Templeman, N.D. 2010. Ecosystem Status and Trends Report for the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelf. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2010/026 vi + 72 p.
Terhune, J.M. 1999. Pitch separation as a possible jamming-avoidance mechanism in underwater calls of bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 1025-1034
Thomas, J.A. and C.W. Turl. 1990. Echolocation characteristics and range detection threshold of a false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). pp. 321-334. In: J.A. Thomas and, and R.A. Kastelein (eds.), Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans/Laboratory and Field Evidence. Plenum Press, New York. 710 pp.
Thomas, L., Hammill, M. O. and Bowen, W. D. 2011. Estimated size of the Northwest Atlantic grey seal population 1977-2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/017. iv + 23 p.
Thomson, D.H., R.A. Davis, R. Belore, E. Gonzalez, J. Christian, V.D. Moulton and R.E. Harris. 2000. Environmental Assessment of Exploration Drilling off Nova Scotia. Prepared for Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Shell Canada Ltd., Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Gulf Canada Ltd., Chevron Canada Resources, PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd., Marathon Canada Ltd., Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Norsk Hydro Canada Oil and Gas Inc.
Thompson, R.J. and D.A. Aggett. 1981. Biological and oceanographic descriptions of the Labrador Sea region. Report to Can. National Parks Service, Ottawa, ON.130 p.
Thomsen, B. 2002. An experiment on how seismic shooting affects caged fish. Thesis, Faroese Fisheries Lab. Univ. of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 277 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Thomson, D.H., R.A. Davis, R. Belore, E. Gonzalez, J. Christian, V.D. Moulton and R.E. Harris. 2000. Environmental Assessment of Exploration Drilling off Nova Scotia. Prepared for Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Shell Canada Ltd., Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Gulf Canada Ltd., Chevron Canada Resources, PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd., Marathon Canada Ltd., Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Norsk Hydro Canada Oil and Gas Inc.
Toews, M.W. and D.J.W. Piper. 2002. Recurrence interval of seismically triggered mass- transport deposition at Orphan Knoll, continental margin off Newfoundland and Labrador. Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada Current Research 2002-17. 8 p.
Tolstoganova, L.K. 2002. Acoustical behaviour in king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). p. 247-254 In: A.J. Paul, E.G. Dawe, R. Elner, G.S. Jamieson, G.H. Kruse, R.S. Otto, B. Sainte- Marie, T.C. Shirley, and D. Woodby (eds.), Crabs in cold water regions: biology, management, and economics. University of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-02-01. Fairbanks, AK.
Turnpenny A W H, and Nedwell J R (1994) 'The effects on marine fish, diving mammals and birds of underwater sound generated by seismic surveys'. FARL Report Reference: FCR 089/94, October 1994
Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Vermeij MJA, Marhaver KL, Huijbers CM, Nagelkerken I, Simpson SD. 2010. Coral Larvae Move toward Reef Sounds. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10660. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010660
Verrill A.E.1922. The Alcyonaria of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-1918, with a revision of some other Canadian genera and species. Reports from the Canadian Arctic Expedition 1913-18, vol VIII: molluscs, echinoderms, coelenterates, etc. Part G: Alcyonaria and Actinaria
Vold, A., Løkkeborg, S., Tenningen, M & Saltskår, J. 2009. Analysis of commercial catch data to study the effects of seismic surveys on the fisheries in Lofoten and Vesterålen summer of 2008. – Fisken og Havet 5/2009, Havforskningsinstituttet, Bergen. (In Norwegian with summary in English).
Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson and D. Mackie. 2001. Effects of seismic air guns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research 21(8-10): 1005-1027.
Wareham, V. 2009. Updates on deep-sea coral distributions in the Newfoundland and Labrador and Arctic Regions, Northwest Atlantic. In Gilkinson, K., and Edinger, E. (Eds.) 2009. The ecology of deep-sea corals of Newfoundland and Labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2830: vi + 136 p.
Waring GT, Josephson E, Fairfield-Walsh CP, Maze-Foley K, editors. 2007. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2007. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 205; 415 p.
Waring GT, Josephson E, Fairfield-Walsh CP, Maze-Foley K, editors. 2009. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2008. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 210; 440 p.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 278 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA
Watanabe, S., A. Metaxas, J. Sameoto, P. Lawton. 2009. Patterns in abundance and size of two deep-water gorgonian octocorals, in relation to depth and substrate features off Nova Scotia. Deep-Sea Research I 56:2235-2248.
Webb, C.L.F. & Kempf, N.J. 1998. The Impact of Shallow-water Seismic in Sensitive Areas. Society of Petroleum Engineers Technical Paper. SPE 46722.
Weir, R.D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacles: a review of the state of the art and solutions. Dept. of Fisheries and Environment. Environmental Management Services. Cdn Wildlife Service, Ontario, Ottawa.
Weir, C.R. 2007. Observations of Marine Turtles in Relation to Seismic Airgun Sound off Angola. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 116:17-20
Weir, C.R., and Dolman, S.J. 2007. Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented during industrial seismic surveys and guidance towards a worldwide standard. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Pol.icy 10:1-27.
Weir, C.R. 2008a. Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic exploration off Angola. Aquat. Mamm. 34(1):71-83.
Weir, C.R. 2008b. Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) respond to an airgun ramp-up procedure off Gabon. Aquat. Mamm. 34(3):349-354.
Wenz, G.M. 1962. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: spectra and sources. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34:1936-1956.
Wiese, F.K. 1999. Beached bird surveys in SE Newfoundland 1984-1997. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) Contract Report KE 209-8-043. 80 pp.
White, L. and R. Johns. 1997. Marine Environmental Assessment of the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence. Report prepared for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Green Plan Toxic Chemicals Programs. 128 p.
Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the US pelagic longline fleet in the western North Atlantic Ocean. 1992-1995. Fisheries Bulletin 97:200-211.
Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammology 24(1):41- 50.
YOLO Environmental Inc. Page 279
APPENDIX A – C-NLOPB SCOPING DOCUMENT
Multi Klient Invest AS Northeast Newfoundland Slope
Area Seismic Program 2012-2017
Scoping Document
Prepared by: Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board Environmental Affairs Department St. John’s, NL
For more information, contact: C-NLOPB th 5 Floor, TD Place, 140 Water Street St. John’s, NL, A1C 6H6 Tel: (709) 778-1400 Fax: (709) 778-1473
ISBN: 978-1-927098-11-0 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
1 Purpose This document provides scoping information for the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed seismic program offshore Newfoundland in the Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area, including the Labrador Basin, Orphan Basin, Flemish Basin and Jeanne d’Arc Basin, and all other related activities (the Project). Multi Klient Invest AS (MKI) is proposing to undertake 2D seismic surveys in one or more years within the 2012 to 2017 timeframe. The primary objective of the Project is to determine the presence and likely locations of geological structures that might contain hydrocarbon deposits.
Included in this document is a description of the scope of the project that will be assessed, the factors to be considered in the assessment, and the scope of those factors.
This document has been developed by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) in consultation with federal and provincial fisheries and environmental departments1.
2 CEA Act: Regulatory Considerations The Project will require authorizations pursuant to Section 138 (1)(b) of the Canada- Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and Section 134(1)(b) of the Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act (Accord Acts).
The C-NLOPB has determined, in accordance with paragraph 3 (1)(a) of the Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements (FCR), that an EA of the project under section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) is required.
Pursuant to Section 12.2 (b) of the CEA Act, the C-NLOPB will be assuming the role of the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) for this screening and in this role will be responsible for coordinating the review activities by the expert government departments and agencies that participate in the review.
The C-NLOPB has determined that the environmental assessment report and any supporting documents to be submitted by Multi Klient Invest AS will fulfill the requirements of a Screening. The C-NLOPB, therefore, pursuant to Section 17 (1) of the CEA Act, formally delegates the responsibility for preparation of an acceptable Screening environmental assessment to Multi Klient Invest AS, the project proponent. The C-NLOPB will prepare the Screening Report, which will include the determination of significance.
3 Scope of the Project The project to be assessed consists of the following components:
1Appendix 1 contains a list of the departments and agencies consulted during the preparation of the document.
January 4, 2012 Page 2 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
3.1 Multi Klient Invest AS propose to conduct a 2D seismic survey program in 2012 and one or more 2D seismic surveys within the 2013-2017 timeframe.
3.2 Operation of support craft associated with the above activities, including but not limited to standby/picket vessels and helicopters.
4 Factors to be Considered The EA shall include a consideration of the following factors in accordance with Section 16 of the CEA Act:
4.1 The purpose of the project; 4.2 The environmental effects2 of the Project, including those due to malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the Project and any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment; 4.3 Cumulative environmental effects of the Project that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; 4.4 The significance of the environmental effects described in 4.2 and 4.3; 4.5 Measures, including contingency and compensation measures as appropriate, that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project; 4.6 The significance of adverse environmental effects following the employment of mitigative measures, including the feasibility of additional or augmented mitigative measures; 4.7 The need for, and the requirements of, any follow-up programs in respect of the Project consistent with the requirements of the CEA Act and the SARA. (Refer to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s 2007 “OperationalPolicy Statement” regarding Follow-up Programs3); and 4.8 Report on consultations undertaken by MKI with interested other ocean users who may be affected by program activities and/or the general public respecting any of the matters described above.
5 Scope of the Factors to be Considered Multi Klient Invest AS will prepare and submit to the C-NLOPB an EA for the above- described physical activity, and as described in the “Project Description for 2-D Marine Regional Seismic Survey Northeast Newfoundland Slope” (RPS Energy & YOLO Environmental Inc. December 1, 2011). The EA will address the factors listed above; the issues identified in Section 5.2 (following), and document any issues and concerns that may be identified by the proponent through regulatory, stakeholder, and public consultation.
2 The term “environmental effects” is defined in Section 2 of the CEA Act. 3 CEA Agency Guidance documents and Operational Policy Statements are available on its web site: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/012/newguidance_e.htm#6.
January 4, 2012 Page 3 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
Program activities are proposed for areas of the Labrador Shelf, Orphan Basin (east and west), Flemish Pass Basin, and Jeanne d’Arc Basin of the Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area, which has been studied in a number of recent EAs and a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). For the purposes of this assessment, the information provided in the EA and SEA documents can be used in support of the EA for the proposed seismic program. It is recommended that the “valued ecosystem component” (VEC) approach be used to focus its analysis. A definition of each VEC (including components or subsets thereof) identified for the purposes of environmental assessment, and the rationale for its selection, shall be provided.
The scope of the factors, to be considered in the EA, will include the components identified in Section 5.2 - Summary of Potential Issues, setting out the specific matters to be considered in assessing the environmental effects of the project and in developing environmental plans for the project, and the “Spatial Boundaries” identified below (Section 5.1). Considerations relating to definition of “significance” of environmental effects are provided in the following sections. Discussion of the biological and physical environments should consider the data available for the Project and Study Areas. Where data gaps exist, the EA should clearly identify the lack of data available.
5.1 Boundaries The EA shall consider the potential effects of the proposed seismic survey program within spatial and temporal boundaries that encompass the periods and areas during and within which the project may potentially interact with, and have an effect on, one or more VECs. These boundaries may vary with each VEC and the factors considered, and should reflect a consideration of: the proposed schedule/timing of the seismic survey program; the natural variation of a VEC or subset thereof; the timing of sensitive life cycle phases in relation to the scheduling of seismic survey activities; interrelationships/interactions between and within VECs; the time required for recovery from an effect and/or return to a pre-effect condition, including the estimated proportion, level, or amount of recovery; and the area within which a VEC functions and within which a project effect may be felt.
The proponent shall clearly define, and provide the rationale for the spatial and temporal boundaries that are used in its EA. The EA report shall clearly describe the spatial boundaries (e. g. Study Area, Project Area) and shall include figures, maps and the corner-point coordinates. Boundaries should be flexible and adaptive to enable adjustment or alteration based on field data. The Study Area will be described based on consideration of potential areas of effects as determined by the scientific literature, and
January 4, 2012 Page 4 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
project-environment interactions. A suggested categorization of spatial boundaries follows.
5.1.1 Spatial Boundaries Project Area The area in which seismic survey activities are to occur, including the area of the buffer zone normally defined for line changes.
Affected Area The area which could potentially be affected by project activities beyond the “Project Area”.
Regional Area The area extending beyond the “Affected Area” boundary. The “Regional Area” boundary will also vary with the component being considered (e.g., boundaries suggested by bathymetric and/or oceanographic considerations).
5.1.2 Temporal Boundaries The temporal scope should describe the timing of project activities. Scheduling of project activities should consider the timing of sensitive life cycle phases of the VECs in relation to physical activities.
5.2 Summary of Potential Issues The EA report for the proposed seismic surveys should contain descriptions of the biological and physical environments, as identified below. Where applicable, information may be summarized from existing environmental assessment reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. The EA report should provide only summary descriptions of those biological and physical parameters. However, where new information is available, (e.g., fisheries data) for any of the following factors, the new data and/or information should be provided. If information is not updated, justification must be provided. Where information is summarized from existing EA reports, it should be properly referenced; with specific reference to those sections of the existing EA report summarized.
The EA shall contain descriptions and definitions of EA methodologies employed in the assessment of effects. Where information is summarized from existing EA reports, the sections referenced should be clearly indicated. Effects of relevant Project activities on those VECs most likely to be in the defined Study Area shall be assessed. Discussion of cumulative effects within the Project area and with other relevant marine projects shall be included. Issues to be considered in the EA shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
Physical Environment 5.2.1 The EA shall provide a brief summary description of the meteorological and oceanographic characteristics, including extreme conditions, and any change to the
January 4, 2012 Page 5 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
Project that may be caused by the environment.
Marine Resources 5.2.2 Marine and/or Migratory Birds The EA shall provide a summary description, where applicable, of the information presented in existing environmental reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. New or updated information should be provided, where applicable, to address any changes to the following: Spatial and temporal species distributions (observations from prior programs should be included); Species habitat, feeding, breeding, and migratory characteristics of relevance to the Study Area; Noise disturbance from seismic equipment including both direct effects (physiological), or indirect effects (foraging behaviour, prey species, adult attendance at the nest); Physical displacement as a result of vessel presence (e.g. disruption of foraging activities); Attraction of, and increase in, predator species as a result of waste disposal practices (i.e., sanitary and food waste); Nocturnal disturbance from light (e.g. increased opportunities for predators, attraction of birds to vessel lighting and subsequent collision, disruption of incubation); Procedures for handling birds that may become stranded on survey vessels; Means by which bird mortalities associated with project operations may be documented and assessed; Effects of hydrocarbon spills from accidental events, including fluid loss from streamers and operational discharges (e.g. deck drainage, gray water, black water); Means by which potentially significant adverse effects upon birds may be mitigated through design and/or operational procedures; and Environmental effects due to the Project, including cumulative effects.
5.2.3 Marine Fish and Shellfish The EA shall provide a summary description, where applicable, of the information presented in existing environmental reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. New or updated information should be provided, where applicable, to address any changes to the following: Distribution and abundance of marine fish and invertebrate species utilizing the Study Area with consideration of critical life stages (e.g., spawning areas, overwintering, juvenile distribution, migration); Description, to the extent possible, of location, type, diversity and areal extent of marine fish habitat in the Study Area. In particular, those indirectly or directly supporting traditional, aboriginal, historical, present or potential fishing activity, and including any essential (e.g. spawning, feeding, overwintering) habitats;
January 4, 2012 Page 6 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
The means by which potentially significant adverse effects upon fish (including critical life stages) and commercial fisheries may be mitigated through design, scheduling, and/or operational procedures; and Environmental effects due to the Project, including cumulative effects.
5.2.4 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles The EA shall provide a summary description, where applicable, of the information presented in existing environmental reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. New or updated information should be provided, where applicable, to address any changes to the following: Spatial and temporal distribution; Description of marine mammal and sea turtle life stages/life histories relevant to the Study Area; Disturbance to/displacement of marine mammals and sea turtles due to noise and the possibility of ship strikes; Means by which potentially significant adverse effects upon marine mammals and sea turtles (including critical life stages) may be mitigated through design, scheduling, and/or operational procedures; and Environmental effects due to the Project, including cumulative effects.
5.2.5 Species at Risk (SAR) Provide a summary description, where applicable, of the information presented in existing environmental reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. New or updated information should be provided, where applicable, to address any changes to the following: A description of SAR as listed in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and those under consideration by COSEWIC in the Study Area, including fish, marine mammal, sea turtles, and seabird species. It is advised that the SARA Registry and COSEWIC website be referred to for the most recent information; A description of critical habitat (as defined under SARA), if applicable, to the Study Area; Monitoring and mitigation, consistent with recovery strategies/action plans (endangered/threatened) and management plans (special concern); A summary statement stating whether project effects are expected to contravene the prohibitions of SARA (Sections 32(1), 33, 58(1)); Means by which adverse effects upon SAR and their critical habitat may be mitigated through design, scheduling, and/or operational procedures; and Assessment of effects (adverse and significant) on SAR and critical habitat, including cumulative effects.
5.2.6 “Sensitive” Areas The EA shall provide a summary description, where applicable, of the information presented in existing environmental reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. New or updated information should be provided, where applicable, to address any changes to the following:
January 4, 2012 Page 7 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
A description, to the extent possible, of any „Sensitive” Areas in the Study Area deemed important or essential habitat to support any of the marine resources identified; Environmental effects due to the project, including cumulative effects, on those “Sensitive” Areas identified; and Means by which adverse effects upon “Sensitive” Areas may be mitigated through design, scheduling and/or operational procedures.
Marine Use 5.2.7 Noise/Acoustic Environment The EA shall provide a summary description, where applicable, of the information presented in existing environmental reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. New or updated information should be provided, where applicable, to address any changes to the following: Disturbance/displacement of VECs and SAR associated with seismic survey activities; Means by which potentially significant effects may be mitigated through design, scheduling and/or operational procedures; and Effects of seismic activities (direct and indirect) including cumulative effects, on the VECs and SAR identified within the EA. Critical life stages should be included.
5.2.8 Presence of Seismic Survey Vessel(s) The EA shall provide a summary description, where applicable, of the information presented in existing environmental reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. New or updated information should be provided, where applicable, to address any changes to the following: Description of project-related traffic, including routings, volumes, scheduling and vessel types; Effects upon access to fishing grounds; Effects upon general marine traffic/navigation, including fisheries research surveys, and mitigations to avoid research surveys; Means by which potentially significant effects may be mitigated through design, scheduling and/or operational procedures; and Environmental effects assessment, including cumulative effects.
5.2.9 Fisheries and Other Ocean Users Provide a summary description, where applicable, of the information presented in existing environmental reports for the Northeast Newfoundland Slope area. New or updated information should be provided, where applicable, to address any changes to the following: A description of fishery activities (including traditional, existing and potential commercial, recreational and aboriginal/subsistence and foreign fisheries) in the Project Area; Consideration of underutilized species and species under moratoria that may be found in the Study Area as determined by analyses of past DFO research surveys
January 4, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
and Industry GEAC survey data, with emphasis on those species being considered for future potential fishers, and species under moratoria; Traditional historical fishing activity, including abundance data for certain species in this area, prior to the severe decline of many fish species (e.g., a general overview of survey results and fishing patterns in the survey areas for the last 20 years); An analysis of the effects of Project operations and accidental events upon the foregoing. The analysis should include consideration of recent scientific literature on effects of seismic activity on invertebrate species, including identified data gaps; Fisheries liaison/interaction policies and procedures; Program(s) for compensation of affected parties, including fisheries interests, for accidental damage resulting from project activities; Means by which adverse effects upon commercial fisheries may be mitigated through design and/or operational procedures; and Environmental effects due to the Project, including cumulative effects.
5.2.10 Accidental Events Discussion on the potential for spill events related to the use and maintenance of streamers. Environmental effects of any accidental events arising from streamers or accidental releases from the seismic and/or support vessels (e.g., loss of product from streamers). Cumulative effects in consideration of other oil pollution events (e.g., illegal bilge disposal) should be included. Mitigations to reduce or prevent such events from occurring. Contingency plans to be implemented in the event of an accidental release.
Environmental Management 5.2.11 The EA shall outline MKI‟s environmental management system and its components, including, but not limited to: Pollution prevention policies and procedures; Fisheries liaison/interaction policies and procedures; Program(s) for compensation of affected parties, including fishery interests, for accidental damage resulting from project activities; and Emergency response plan(s).
Biological and Follow-up Monitoring 5.2.12 Discuss the need for and requirements of a follow-up program (as defined in Section 2 of the CEA Act) and pursuant to the SARA. The discussion should also include any requirement for compensation monitoring (compensation is considered mitigation).
Details regarding the monitoring and observation procedures to be implemented regarding marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds (observation protocols should be consistent with the C-NLOPB “Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines” (February 2011)).
January 4, 2012 Page 9 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
5.3 Significance of Adverse Environmental Effects The Proponent shall clearly describe the criteria by which it proposes to define the “significance” of any residual adverse environmental effects that are predicted by the EA. This definition should be consistent with the November 1994 CEAA reference guide “Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects”, and be relevant to consideration of each VEC (including components or subsets thereof) that is identified. SARA species shall be assessed independent of non-SARA species. The effects assessment methodology should clearly describe how data gaps are considered in the determination of significance of effects.
5.4 Cumulative Effects The assessment of cumulative environmental effects should be consistent with the principles described in the February 1999 CEAA “Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners’ Guide” and in the November 2007 CEAA operational policy statement “Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act”. It should include a consideration of environmental effects that are likely to result from the proposed project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out. These include, but are not limited to: proposed oil and gas activities under EA review (listed on the C-NLOPB Public registry at www.cnlopb.nl.ca); other seismic activities; fishing activities, including Aboriginal fisheries; other oil and gas activities; and marine transportation. The C-NLOPB website list all current and active offshore petroleum activity within the NL offshore area.
6 Projected Timelines for the Environmental Assessment Process The following are estimated timelines for completing the EA process. The timelines are offered based on experience with recent environmental assessments of similar project activities.
ACTIVITY TARGET RESPONSIBILITY EA review upon receipt from Proponent 6 weeks C-NLOPB & Regulatory Agencies Compile comments on EA 1 week C-NLOPB Review of EA Addendum/Response 3 weeks C-NLOPB & Regulatory Document (if necessary) Agencies Screening Report (Determination of 3 weeks C-NLOPB Significance of Project Effects) Total 13 weeks
January 4, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Multi Klient Invest AS – Northeast Newfoundland Slope Area Seismic Program 2012-2017 Scoping Document
APPENDIX 1
Departments and Agencies Consulted by C-NLOPB
Federal Authorities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Department of National Defence Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Health Canada Natural Resources Canada Transport Canada
Other Departments/Agencies
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Provincial Departments (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)
Department of Environment and Conservation Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Department of Natural Resources
January 4, 2012 Page 11 of 11
APPENDIX B – LEACH’S STORM PETREL – GENERAL INFORMATION AND HANDLING INSTRUCTION
The Leach's Storm-Petrel: General information and handling instructions
Urban Williams (Petro-Canada) & John Chardine (Canadian Wildlife Service)
The Grand Banks is an area that is frequented by large numbers of seabirds, representing a variety of species. Large populations are found in this area in both summer and winter, and come from the Arctic, northern Europe, and the south Atlantic, as well as from colonies along the Newfoundland Coast. One of the species found in the area of the Terra Nova Field is the Leach’s Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa).
The Bird: Leach’s Storm-Petrels are small seabirds, not much bigger than a Robin. They have relatively long wings and are excellent fliers. Leach’s Storm-Petrels are dark brown in colour and show a conspicuous white patch at the base of the tail. In the hand, you can easily notice a small tube at the top of their bill, and you will also notice that the birds have a peculiar, not unpleasant smell (although some Newfoundlanders call these birds “Stink Birds”). Storm-Petrels are easy prey for gulls and other predators, and so to protect themselves from predation, Leach’s Storm-Petrels are only active at night when on land at the breeding colonies.
Nesting Habitat:
Leach’s Storm-Petrels are distributed widely in the northern hemisphere, however, their major centres of distribution are Alaska and Newfoundland. The bird breeds on offshore islands, often in colonies numbering tens or hundreds of thousands of pairs, even millions at one colony in Newfoundland. The nest is a chamber, sometimes lined with a some grass, located at the end of a narrow tunnel dug in the topsoil.. Depending on the colony, burrows may be under conifer or raspberry thickets or open grassland.
1 Reproduction:
In Newfoundland, Leach’s Storm-Petrels lay their single egg in May and June. The egg is incubated by both parents alternately, sometimes for stretches exceeding 48 hours. The egg is incubated for 41-42 days, which is a long time for such a small egg. The peak hatching period is in the last half of July. The young petrel remains in the tunnel for about 63-70 days. Once breeding is over in late-August or early September, the birds disperse from the colonies and migrate to their wintering grounds in the Atlantic. September is the most important period for migration of Storm-Petrels to the offshore areas such as near the Terra Nova field.
Populations:
Canada alone supports more than 5 million pairs of Leach's Storm-Petrels. Most of them are found in Newfoundland. The Leach’s Storm-Petrel colony located on Baccalieu Island is the largest known colony of this species.
Nesting sites for Leach’s Storm-Petrels are found along the southeast coast of Newfoundland. These are - i) Witless Bay Islands (780,00 nesting pairs), ii) Iron Island (10,000 nesting pairs), iii) Corbin Island (100,000 nesting pairs), iv) Middle Lawn Island (26,000 nesting pairs), v) Baccalieu Island (3,336,000 nesting pairs), vi) Green Island (72,000 nesting pairs), and vii) St. Pierre Grand Columbier (100,000 nesting pairs).
Feeding Habits:
Leach’s Storm-Petrels feed at the sea surface, seizing prey in flight. Prey usually consists of myctophid fish and amphipods. The chick is fed planktonic crustaceans, drops of stomach oil from the adult bird, and small fish taken far out at sea. Storm-Petrels feed far out from the colony and it would be reasonable to assume that birds nesting in eastern Newfoundland can be found feeding around the Terra Nova site.
The Problem:
As identified in the C-NOPB Decision 97-02, seabirds such as Leach’s Storm-Petrels are attracted to lights on offshore platforms and vessels. Experience has shown that Storm-Petrels may be confused by lights from ships and oil rigs, particularly on foggy nights, and will crash into lighted areas such as decks and portholes. Fortunately, this type of accident does not often result in mortality, however, once on deck the bird will sometimes seek a dark corner in which to hide, and can become fouled with oil or other contaminants on deck.
Period of Concern:
Leach’s Storm-Petrels are in the Terra Nova area from about May until October and birds could be attracted to lights at any time throughout this period. The period of greatest risk of attraction
2 to lights on vessels appears to be at the end of the breeding season when adults and newly fledged chicks are dispersing from the colonies and migrating to their offshore wintering grounds. September is the most important period for migration of storm-petrels to the offshore areas. Past experience suggests that any foggy night in September could be problematic and may result in hundreds or even thousands of birds colliding with the vessel.
The Mitigation:
On nights when storm-petrels are colliding with the vessel, the following steps should be taken to ensure that as many birds as possible are safely returned to their natural habitat.
• All decks of the vessel should be patrolled as often as is needed to ensure that birds are picked up and boxed (see below) as soon as possible after they have collided with the vessel. After collision, birds will often “freeze” below lights on deck or seek dark areas underneath machinery and the like. • Birds should be collected by hand and gently placed in small cardboard boxes. Care should be taken not to overcrowd the birds and a maximum of 10-15 birds should be placed in each box, depending upon its size. The birds are very easy to pick up as they are poor walkers and will not fly up off the deck so long as the area is well-lit. They will make a squealing sound as they are picked up- this is of no concern and is a natural reaction to be handled (the birds probably think they have been captured to be eaten!). • When the birds are placed in the box the cover should be put in place and the birds left to recover in a dark, cool, quiet place for about 5-10 minutes. The birds initially will be quite active in the box but will soon settle down. • Following the recovery period, the box containing the birds should be brought to the bow of the boat or to some other area of the vessel that has minimal (if any) lighting. The cover should be opened and each bird individually removed by hand. The release is usually accomplished by letting the bird drop over the side of the vessel. There is no need to throw the bird up in the air at release time. If the birds are released at a well-lit part of the vessel they usually fly back towards the vessel and collide again. • If any of the birds are wet when they are captured (i.e. they drop into water on the deck) then they should be placed in a cardboard box and let dry. Once the bird is dry it can be released as per the previous instruction. Also, temporarily injured birds should be left for longer to recover in the cardboard box before release. • Any birds contaminated with oil should be kept in a separate box and not mixed with clean birds. Contact Canadian Wildlife Service at (709) 772-5585 for instructions on how to deal with contaminated birds. • In the event that some birds are captured near dawn and are not fully recovered before daylight, they should be kept until the next night for release. Storm-Petrels should not be released in daylight as at this time they are very vulnerable to predation by gulls. Birds should be kept in the cardboard box in a cool, quiet place for the day, and do not need to be fed. • Someone should be given the responsibility of maintaining a tally of birds that have been captured and released, and those that were found dead on deck. These notes should be kept with other information about the conditions on the night of the incident (moonlight, fog, weather),
3 date, time, etc). THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE EXERCISE AS IT IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE EVENTS.
Handling Instructions:
• Leach’s Storm-Petrels are small, gentle birds and should be handled with care at all times. • It is recommended that the person handling the birds should wear thin rubber gloves or clean, cotton work gloves. The purpose of the gloves is to protect both the Storm-Petrel and the worker. • As mentioned Storm-Petrel’s have a strong odor that will stick to the handler’s hands. Washing with soap and water will remove most of the smell. • Handling Leach’s Storm-Petrels does not pose a health hazard to the worker, however some birds may have parasites on their feathers, such as feather lice. These parasites do not present any risk to humans, however, as a precaution we recommend wearing cotton work gloves or thin rubber gloves while handling birds and washing of hands afterwards.
Wilson’s Storm Petrels:
A relative of the Leach’s Storm-Petrel is the Wilson’s Storm-Petrel. They breed in the south Atlantic and Antarctica and migrate north in our spring to spend the summer in Newfoundland waters. This species is very numerous on the Grand Banks in the summer, and shares the same nocturnal habits as the Leach’s Storm-Petrel. Thus it is possible that Wilson’s Storm-Petrels may also be attracted to the lights of a vessel at night. The two species are very similar and should be handled in the same way as described above for our Leach’s Storm-Petrel.
Permits: A permit to handle storm-petrels issued by the Canadian Wildlife Service will be held on board the vessel to cover personnel involved in bird collision incidents.
4
APPENDIX C – CWS’S STANDARDIZED PROTOCOLS FOR PELAGIC SEABIRDS SURVEYS FROM MOVING AND STATIONARY PLATFORMS FOR THE HYDROCARBON INDUSTRY: INTERIM PROTOCOL – JUNE 2006
STANDARDIZED PROTOCOLS FOR PELAGIC SEABIRD SURVEYS FROM MOVING AND STATIONARY PLATFORMS FOR THE HYDROCARBON INDUSTRY
VERSION 1.2 – APRIL 2006
Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada – Atlantic Region Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Version 1.2
6 April 2006
Environment Canada Environnement Canada Atlantic Region Région de l’Atlantique
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. SEABIRD SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR MOVING PLATFORMS...... 1 2.1 General methodology...... 1 2.2 Recording information related to each observation period...... 2 3. SEABIRD SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR STATIONARY PLATFORMS ...... 3 3.1 General methodology...... 3 3.2 Recording information related to each scan...... 4 4. REFERENCES ...... 5
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I. Example of survey using a 90o scan, covering a 300m transect from a moving platform. Record birds that are observed within this transect, whether flying or on the water, as a priority. Record all birds seen outside the transect, if this does not affect observations within the transect, and note them as “not in transect”...... 6 Appendix II. Example of survey using a 180o scan, covering a semi-circle of 300m radius from a stationary platform. Record birds observed within this area, whether flying or on the water, as a priority. Record all birds seen outside the 300m semi-circle as well, but note them as “not in semi-circle”.………………………………………………….. 7 Appendix III. Estimating a 300m distance at sea using a slide calliper (formula derived by J. Chardine, based on Heinemann 1981)...... 8 Appendix IV. Intervals at which instantaneous or “snapshot” counts of flying birds should be conducted within a ten-minute observation period, within a 300m transect from a moving platform...... 9 Appendix V. Notes on completing Observation Period Information for a moving platform.....10 Appendix VI. Notes on completing Scan Information for a stationary platform...... 12 Appendix VII. Notes on completing Bird Information...... 14 Appendix VIII. List of species code for seabirds seen within the Atlantic Waters of Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)...... 15 Appendix IX. Codes for sea state and Beaufort wind force.…...... 17 Appendix X. Example of completed record sheet for a moving platform...... 18 Appendix XI. Example of completed record sheet for a stationary platform...... 19 Appendix XII. Check-list of materials required while conducting seabird surveys...... 20 Appendix XIII. Blank record sheets for moving and stationary platforms (hydrocarbon industry)...... 21
ii
1. INTRODUCTION
Protocol objectives. The main objective of this protocol is to ensure that observers conducting surveys at sea record data in a consistent, unbiased fashion that permits subsequent conversion into seabird densities. Such data are important for the monitoring of seabird abundance and species composition over space and time, which in turn help support future environmental assessments, and assess potential impacts of the hydrocarbon industry, as well as chronic ship- based oil pollution. This protocol is tailored after current methodologies used elsewhere in the world, making the data collected under this protocol comparable to datasets of other geographic areas. Two protocols are presented here for surveys conducted from two types of observation platforms: moving (e.g., fishing fleet, seismic vessel) and stationary (e.g., oil production rig, supply vessel on stand-by).
Observer requirements. These survey protocols should be used by observers with some level of experience conducting pelagic seabird surveys to ensure that appropriate information is collected in a consistent fashion for maximum value. Observers should have basic training in seabird identification, and in methods for conducting and recording observations in a standardized way. These protocols were designed to suit the needs of observers tasked with multiple duties who might have limited time to conduct seabird observations, as typically is the case for observers working for the hydrocarbon industry. More experienced observers who are completely dedicated to conducting surveys at sea while on the platform are encouraged to follow the more comprehensive version of these protocols (Standardized Protocols for Seabird Surveys from Moving and Stationary Platforms, CWS publication).
2. SEABIRD SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR MOVING PLATFORMS
2.1. General methodology
Observer position. Whenever possible, conduct observations from a position outdoors, at a high location near the front of the vessel (e.g., on the bridge). A high position facing the bow of the vessel increases the detection rates of birds, especially species that dive to escape, such as auks.
The transect method. Conduct surveys while looking forward from the moving platform, scanning at a 90o angle from either the port or starboard side, limiting observations to a transect band 300m wide from the side of the platform (Appendix I). This band is referred to as the area “in transect”.
Estimating transect width. Estimate the width of the 300m transect prior to beginning observations. This can be done by practicing with a buoy towed on a 300m rope behind a moving platform, using a range finder on a stationary object (e.g., a buoy) while the platform is docked, or using a slide calliper (Appendix III).
Ten-minute periods. A survey may consist of a series of ten-minute observation periods, which are exclusively dedicated to detecting birds at sea. Only take breaks at the end of a ten- minute period. We recommend that six consecutive ten-minute observation periods be
1
conducted three times a day (i.e., six in the morning, six mid-day, and six in the afternoon/early evening), regardless if birds are present or not. If time does not permit, then a minimum of one ten-minute watch three times a day (morning, mid-day, and afternoon/early evening) is advised.
Continuous counts of birds. Scan the transect continuously by eye, to count and identify birds present in air or on water. Use binoculars to confirm the species identification, and other details, such as age, moult, carrying fish, etc. Scan ahead regularly (e.g., every minute) to detect birds that may dive as the platform approaches. If large concentrations of birds in the transect fly off as the moving platform approaches, use binoculars to help count individuals, and record these as being on water.
Birds on water. Continuously record all birds observed on the sea surface throughout the ten- minute period. Leach’s Storm-petrels observed tapping the surface of the water with feet and bill should be recorded as being on water and feeding.
Birds in flight. Flying birds are not recorded continuously throughout the 10-minute period, as this would overestimate bird density. Instead, record flying birds using instantaneous counts, or “snapshots”, at regular intervals throughout the observation period. The number of snapshots conducted will depend on the speed of the platform (see Appendix IV for time intervals between snapshots). For example, if the platform is moving at a speed of 10 knots, snapshots will occur every minute for the 10-minute observation period. During each snapshot, record flying birds as “in transect” only if they are above the 300m strip transect AND observed when the snapshot is being done. Record all other flying birds that are seen outside of the transect or between snapshot intervals as “not in transect”. Observers unfamiliar with this method should record all birds in flight continuously, as they would with birds on water, but should note on the recording sheet that the snapshot method was not used.
Minimum requirements. Only conduct observations when the platform is travelling at a minimum speed of 4 knots (7.4 km/hr) and a maximum of 19 knots (35.2 km/h).
Poor visibility. When a scheduled observation cannot be conducted to due poor visibility due to rain or fog (i.e., when the entire width of the 300m semi-circle is not visible), fill in the Observation Period Information, and write in the notes section why the observation was not conducted.
Null observation periods. Record “No birds observed” when no birds were detected during a ten-minute period, as this type of information is also important.
2.2. Recording information related to each observation period
Observation period information. It is important to fill in all the fields under the heading “Observation Period Information” of the data sheet at the beginning of every ten-minute observation period. See Appendix V for detailed notes on filling in each field.
2
Bird information. Use appropriate codes to record the following information (in this order of priority) for all birds observed during the period, whether within or outside the transect:
1) Species (see Appendix VIII for list of species code) 2) Number of individuals 3) In transect? Y or N 4) Behaviour (flying, on sea, and/or feeding) 5) Associated with platform? Y or N 6) Age (J, I, or A) 7) Plumage of adults (B, NB, and/or M) 8) Sex (M or F) 9) Compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW) in which birds in flight are heading, if not associated with platform.
See Appendix VII for detailed notes on filling in each field.
Grouping observations. Record groups of birds in the same data row, if they behave as a group and have the same morphological and behavioural characteristics (e.g., all adults in breeding plumage flying in the same direction; see example in Appendix X). Record other individuals from the group that have different characteristics (e.g., juveniles) in the next row, and associate this record with the previous one by drawing a line that links the two rows (see example in Appendix X).
3. SEABIRD SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR STATIONARY PLATFORMS
3.1. General methodology
The scan method. Observations from stationary platforms are conducted using instantaneous counts, or “snapshots” of birds within an area that is scanned at regular intervals throughout the day. The length of the survey will depend on the number of birds present at the time of the scan, and may last only a few seconds if no birds are present.
Observer position. Whenever possible, conduct scans from a position outdoors, as close to the edge of the platform as permitted. A position near the edge will increase the detection rates of birds, especially for individuals that use the waters at the base of the platform. Conduct scans at the same location each time, and ensure that other observers use the same location.
Estimating “in semi-circle” area. Estimate the 300m distance prior to beginning observations. You can base your estimate on the known width of the platform or fixed structure, or by using a slide calliper (see Appendix III).
Delineated survey area. Conduct surveys by scanning at a 180o angle, limiting observations to a semi-circle around the observer, with a radius of 300m from the edge of the platform (see Appendix II). Sweep the area only once per scan, from one side to the other, and systematically record all birds on water and in flight within the area at that time.
3
Frequency of scans. Scan the same area once every 2 hours from morning to evening, regardless if birds are present or not. If time does not permit, then a minimum of one scan three times a day (morning, mid-day, and afternoon/early evening) is advised.
Snapshot counts of birds. Scan the area once per survey. If the stationary platform is high (e.g., an oil production platform), use binoculars to count and identify birds present in the air or on the water. Use a telescope to confirm species identification and other details, such as moult, age, carrying fish, etc. If the stationary platform is relatively low (e.g., a supply vessel on stand-by), scan the area by eye to count and identify birds, and confirm details using binoculars.
Poor visibility. When a scheduled scan cannot be conducted to due poor visibility due to rain or fog (i.e., when the entire width of the 300m semi-circle is not visible), fill in the Observation Period Information, and write in the notes why the scan was not conducted.
Null observation periods. Record “No birds observed” when no birds were detected during a scan, as this type of information is also important.
3.2. Recording information related to each scan
Scan information. It is important to fill in all the fields under the heading “Scan Information” of the data sheet at the beginning of each scan. See Appendix VI for detailed notes on completing each field.
Bird information. Use appropriate codes to record the following information (in this order of priority) for all birds observed during the period, whether in or out of the semi-circle:
1) Species (see Appendix VIII for list of species code) 2) Number of individuals 3) In semi-circle? Y or N 4) Behaviour (flying, on sea, and/or feeding) 5) Associated with platform? Y or N 6) Age (J, I, or A) 7) Plumage of adults (B, NB, and/or M) 8) Sex (M or F) 9) Compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW) in which birds in flight are heading if not associated with platform.
See Appendix VII for detailed notes on filling in each field.
Grouping observations. Record groups of birds in the same data row if they behave as a group and have the same morphological and behavioural characteristics (e.g., all adults in breeding plumage flying in the same direction; see example in Appendix XI). Record other individuals from the group that have different characteristics (e.g., juveniles) in the next row,
4
and associate this record with the previous one by drawing a line that links the two rows (see example in Appendix XI).
4. LIST OF CONSULTED REFERENCES
Anon. 2000. Seabirds Identification Guide: seabirds monitoring program for Terra Nova development drilling phase. Prepared for Terra Nova Development by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited.
Baillie, S.M., Robertson, G.J., Wiese, F.K., and Williams, U.P. 2005. Seabird data collected by the grand Banks offshore hydrocarbon industry 1999-2002: results, limitations and suggestions for improvement. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report, in press.
Heinemann, D. 1981. A range finder for pelagic bird censusing. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 489-493.
Komdeur, J., Bertelsen, J., and Cracknell, G. 1992. Manual for aeroplane and ship surveys of waterfowl and seabirds. IWRB Special Publication No. 19. National Environmental Research Institute, Department of Wildlife Ecology, Kalø, Denmark.
Montevecchi, W.A. and Burke, C. 2002. Surveys of marine birds and mammals in Newfoundland waters from offshore support vessels and ships of opportunity. Report prepared for Environmental Studies Research Fund Management Board of Canada. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s.
Tasker, M.L., Hope Jones, P., Dixon, T., and Blake, B.F. 1984. Counting seabirds at sea from ships: a review of methods employed and a suggestion for a standardized approach. Auk 101: 567-577.
Tasker, M.L., Hope Jones, P., Blake, B.F., Dixon, T.J., and Wallis, A.W. 1986. Seabirds associated with oil production platforms in the North Sea. Ringing and Migration 7: 7- 14.
5
Appendix I. Example of survey using a 90o scan, covering a 300m transect from a moving platform. Record birds that are observed within this transect, whether flying or on the water, as a priority. Record all birds seen outside the transect, if this does not affect observations within the transect, and note them as “not in transect”.
“in transect” 300m 90o
Moving platform
6
Appendix II. Example of survey using a 180o scan, covering a semi-circle of 300m radius from a stationary platform. Record birds observed within this area, whether flying or on the water, as a priority. Record all birds seen outside the 300m semi-circle as well, but note them as “not in semi-circle”.
Stationary platform
300m Observer
“in semi-circle”
7
Appendix III. Estimating a 300m distance at sea using a slide calliper (formula derived by J. Chardine, based on Heinemann 1981).
Measuring the 300m distance from the observation point can be estimated using a slide calliper and the following equation:
)3838( − ahdhah d h = 1000 e.g. if a = 0.714 m, h = 15 m, and d = 300m 2 + 3838 hdh then dh = 35.0mm where: dh = distance from horizon down (mm) a = distance between observer’s eye and calliper when arm is fully stretched out (m) h = height of eye above water from observation point (m) d = distance to be measured (m; in this case, 300)
First, calculate dh to obtain the amount that the calliper should be opened at for a 300m transect or semi-circle. Once this amount is known, hold the calliper vertically at arm’s length, opened to the appropriate interval, with the tip of the upper jaw in line to the horizon. The tip of the lower jaw of the calliper is now in line with a distance 300m from the platform, marking the far side of the transect or semi-circle.
Visual illustration of example above:
Horizon
dh = 35mm
300m
Edge of platform
8
Appendix IV. Intervals at which instantaneous or “snapshot” counts of flying birds should be conducted within a ten-minute observation period, within a 300m transect from a moving platform.
Platform’s Interval between speed (knots) counts (minutes)
4 2.5 5 2.0 6-8 1.5 9-12 1.0 13-19 0.5
9
Appendix V. Notes on completing Observation Period Information for a moving platform.
Platform name, agency and type: Agency may include company (e.g., Shell, CN Marine, etc.), or government agency (e.g., DND, DFO, GGC). Type may include seismic ship, supply vessel, fishing boat, research ship, ferry, destroyer, etc.
Date: Date that the observation period occurred (use format 20 July 2004 to avoid ambiguity).
Time start / Time end: Time (using 24 hour notation) at the start and end of the ten-minute observation period. Use local (L) or Universal Time (UTC) and indicate which was used by circling appropriate letter or writing in appropriate space. If local, record as AST, EDT, etc., to avoid ambiguity.
Latitude and longitude at start of observation period: Indicate position of platform in either decimal degrees or degrees minutes seconds.
Activity of moving platform: Activity may include steaming, on patrol, fishing, conducting research, seismic array active or inactive, etc.
Visibility: Estimate visibility in km from 0.3 (which is 300m) to 20km; estimates should also be made on foggy days.
Sea state code: Use Sea state code from Appendix IX.
Swell height: Estimate the height of the swell, as this may also influence the detectability of the birds.
Wind speed or force: Indicate the speed of the wind in knots if recorded on the platform, or use Beaufort code from Appendix IX. If using the wind speed recorded from a moving platform, be sure to record the TRUE speed, as it takes into account the ‘apparent’ wind generated from the forward momentum of the vessel.
Note on wind speed, sea state and Beaufort codes: Although there is often a direct relationship among these three variables (i.e., when sea state is a 2, Beaufort is a 3, and wind speed is between 7 and 10 knots – see Appendix IX), this is not always the case. For example, it may take some time for the state of the sea to reflect an increase in the wind speed. When possible, record the wind speed in knots and note the sea state using the descriptions in Appendix IX.
Wind direction: Indicate compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW ) of the wind. If using the wind direction recorded from a moving platform, be sure to record the TRUE direction, as this takes into account the ‘apparent’ wind generated from the forward momentum of the vessel.
Platform speed (knots): If speed changes during observation period, indicate new speed and time at which change occurred.
10
Platform direction: Indicate compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW); if direction changes during the observation period, indicate new direction and time at which change occurred.
Observation side: Circle Starboard or Port.
Height (meters): Indicate height of observer’s eye above water from observation point in meters.
Outdoors or Indoors: Circle Out when conducting observations from a position outdoors and In for indoor observations.
With snapshot? Indicate if snapshot method for birds in flight is being used by circling Y or N.
11
Appendix VI. Notes on completing Scan Information for a stationary platform.
Platform name, agency and type: Agency may include company (e.g., Shell, CN Marine, etc.), or government agency (e.g., DND, DFO, CCG). Type may include drilling rig, FPSO, supply vessel, seismic vessel, fishing boat, research ship, ferry, destroyer, etc.
Date: Date that the observation period occurred (use format 20 July 2004 to avoid ambiguity).
Time start / Time end: Time (using 24 hour notation) at the start and end of the ten-minute observation period. Use local (L) or Universal Time (UTC) and indicate which was used by circling appropriate letter or writing in appropriate space. If local, record as AST, EDT, etc., to avoid ambiguity.
Latitude and longitude at start of scan: Indicate position of platform in decimal degrees or degrees minutes seconds.
Platform activity: Activity may include drilling, off-loading, etc.
Scan type: Indicate at which angle scan is being conducted (recommended is 180º).
Scan direction: Indicate compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW) when looking straight ahead, at center of semi-circle.
Visibility: Estimate visibility in km from 0.3 (which is 30m) to 20km; estimates should also be made on foggy days.
Sea state code: Use Sea State code from Appendix IX.
Swell height: Estimate the height of the swell, as this may also influence the detectability of the birds.
Wind speed or force: Indicate the speed of the wind in knots if recorded on the platform, or use Beaufort code from Appendix IX. If using the wind speed recorded from a moving platform, be sure to record the TRUE speed, as it takes into account the ‘apparent’ wind generated from the forward momentum of the vessel.
Note on wind speed, sea state and Beaufort codes: Although there is often a direct relationship among these three variables (i.e., when sea state is a 2, Beaufort is a 3, and wind speed is between 7 and 10 knots – see Appendix IX), this is not always the case. For example, it may take some time for the state of the sea to reflect an increase in the wind speed. When possible, record the wind speed in knots and note the sea state using the descriptions in Appendix IX.
Wind direction: Indicate compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW ) of the wind. If using the wind direction recorded from a moving platform, be sure to record the TRUE direction, as this takes into account the ‘apparent’ wind generated from the forward momentum of the vessel.
12
Observer height (meters): Indicate height of observer’s eye above water from observation point in meters.
Outdoors or Indoors: Circle Out when conducting observations from a position outdoors and In for indoor observations.
13
Appendix VII. Notes on completing Bird Information.
Species: Identify each individual bird seen to species. If this is not possible for various reasons (e.g., because of brief opportunity to view, poor lighting condition, etc.), identify to genus or family. Record all unknowns, even if they are identified only as “gull” or “bird”.
In transect or semi-circle?: Indicate if bird observed is in (Y) or out (N) of the transect (moving) or semi-circle (stationary). Give priority to birds that are in the transect or semi- circle; record birds seen outside of the observation area if this does not affect “in-transect or semi-circle” observations.
Behaviour: Record which activity a bird or group of birds is engaged in by marking in appropriate column.
Associated with platform? Indicate if birds are following the moving platform or somehow associated with the stationary platform with either a Y(es) or N(o).
Age: Age is based on plumage, where J(uvenile) = first coat of true feathers acquired before leaving nest and I(mmature) = the first fall or winter plumage that replaces the juvenile plumage and may continue in a series that includes first-spring plumage, but is not the complete A(dult) plumage.
Plumage: Adult plumage can be further categorized, where B(reeding) = spring and summer plumage, NB (non-breeding) = fall and winter plumage, and M(oult) = transitional phase between these two plumages, often with some flight feathers are missing.
Flight direction: Indicate which compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW) birds in flight are heading if they are not associated with the platform. Ensure that a magnetic compass has been corrected for local declination.
Notes: Space is provided to record other pertinent information, such as the presence of fishing vessels in the survey area, if a particular bird was carrying fish, etc.
14
Appendix VIII. List of species code for seabirds seen within the Atlantic Waters of Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Common name Species code Latin name
COMMON, REGULAR OR FREQUENTLY SEEN SPECIES Atlantic puffin ATPU Fratercula arctica Black Scoter BLSC Melanitta nigra Black-legged Kittiwake BLKI Rissa tridactyla Common Eider COEI Somateria mollissima Common Murre COMU Uria aalge Double-crested Cormorant DCCO Phalacrocorax auritus Dovekie DOVE Alle alle Great Black-backed Gull GBBG Larus marinus Glaucous Gull GLGU Larus hyperboreus Great Cormorant GRCO Phalacrocorax carbo Greater Shearwater GRSH Puffinus gravis Great Skua GRSK Stercorarius skua Herring Gull HERG Larus argentatus Iceland Gull ICGU Larus glaucoides Leach‘s Storm-Petrel LHSP Oceanodroma leucorhoa Long-tailed Jaeger LTJA Stercorarius longicaudis Manx Shearwater MASH Puffinus puffinus Northern Fulmar NOFU Fulmarus glacialis Northern Gannet NOGA Morus bassanus Parasitic Jaeger PAJA Stercorarius parasiticus Pomarine Jaeger POJA Stercorarius pomarinus Razorbill RAZO Alca torda Red-breasted Merganzer RBME Mergus serrator Sooty Shearwater SOSH Puffinus griseus Surf Scoter SUSC Melanitta perspicillata Thick-billed Murre TBMU Uria lomvia White-winged Scoter WWSC Melanitta fusca Wilson’s Storm-Petrel WISP Oceanites oceanicus
CODES FOR BIRDS IDENTIFIED TO FAMILY OR GENUS ONLY Uknown UNKN Unknown Alcid ALCI Unknown Gull UNGU Unknown Jaeger UNJA Unknown Murre UNMU Unknown Shearwater UNSH Unknown Storm-Petrel UNSP Unknown Tern UNTE
INFREQUENTLY OR RARELY SEEN BIRDS Audubon’s Shearwater AUSH Puffinus lherminieri Black-headed Gull BHGU Larus ribindus Black Guillemot BLGU Cepphus grylle
15
INFREQUENTLY OR RARELY SEEN BIRDS (CONT’D) Black Scoter BLSC Melanitta nigra Common Tern COTE Sterna hirundo Cory’s Shearwater COSH Calonectus diomedea Great Cormorant GRCO Phalacrocorax carbo Harlequin Duck HARD Histrionicus histrionicus Ivory Gull IVGU Pagophila eburnea Lesser Black-backed Gull LBBG Larus fuscus King Eider KIEI Somateria mollissima Long-tailed Duck LTDU Clangula hyemalis Red Phalarope REPH Phalaropus fulicaria Red-necked Phalarope RNPH Phalaropus lobatus Ring-billed Gull RBGU Larus delawarensis South Polar Skua SPSK Catharacta maccormicki
16
Appendix IX. Codes for sea state and Beaufort wind force.
Wind Sea state code and description Beaufort wind Speed force (knots) scale code and description 0 0 0 Calm, mirror-like calm 01 – 03 0 1 Ripples with appearance of scales but crests do not foam light air 04 – 06 1 2 Small wavelets, short but pronounced; crests do not break light breeze 07 – 10 2 3 Large wavelets, crests begin to break; foam of glassy appearance; perhaps scattered white caps gentle breeze 11 – 16 3 4 Small waves, becoming longer; fairly frequent white caps moderate breeze 17 – 21 4 5 Moderate waves with more pronounced form; many white caps; chance of some spray fresh breeze 22 – 27 5 6 Large waves formed; white foam crests more extensive; probably some spray strong breeze 28 – 33 6 7 Sea heaps up; white foam from breaking waves blows in streaks in direction of wind near gale
34 – 40 6 8 Moderately high long waves; edge crests break into spindrift; foam blown in well-marked streaks gale in direction of wind 41 – 47 6 9 High waves; dense streaks of foam in direction of wind; crests of waves topple and roll over; strong gale spray may affect visibility
48 – 55 7 10 Very high waves with long overhanging crests; dense foam streaks blown in direction of wind; storm surface of sea has a white appearance; tumbling of sea is heavy; visibility affected
56 - 63 8 11 Exceptionally high waves; sea is completely covered with white patches of foam blown in violent storm direction of wind; edges blown into froth; visibility affected
64 + 9 12 Air filled with foam and spray; sea completely white with driving spray; visibility seriously hurricane affected
17
Appendix X. Example of completed record sheet for a moving platform.
Ten-minute period record sheet for a moving platform
Observation Period Information: Company/agency Shell Sea state code 4 Platform name and type Odin Explorer (seismic) Swell height (m) 1 Observer (s) Amelia Bird Wind speed (knots) OR 5 (Beaufort scale) Beaufort code Date (Day Month Year) 23 November 2005 Wind direction N Time at start ( UTC or L ) 12:50 UTC Platform speed (knots) 12 Time at end (UTC or L ) 13:00 UTC Platform direction NW Latitude at start 43º 54.086N Observation side Starboard Port Longitude at start 63º 26.391W Observer’s height (m) 12 Platform activity Seismic array active Outdoors or Indoors Out or In Visibility (kilometres) 1 Snapshot Used? Yes or No Notes:
Bird Information: *this field must be completed for each record Species Count In transect? Behaviour* Assoc. with Age1 Plum.2 Sex Dir. 3 Comments platform? * * * Fly Sea Feed HERG 1 N X X N A NB NOFU 2 N X N A M S light morph BLKI 3 Y X N A NB NE BLKI 1 I UNMU 5 N X N A NB GBBG 1 Y X Y A NB ND NOGA 5 Y X X N A NB NOGA 4 I COEI 6 Y X N A M M COEI 3 F
1J(uvenile), I(mmature), or A(dult) 2B(reeding), NB(non-breeding), M(oult) 3Indicate compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW); ND = no apparent direction
18
Appendix XI. Example of completed record sheet for a stationary platform.
Record sheet for a stationary platform (hydrocarbon industry)
Scan Information: Company/agency Canadian Superior Scan type 180º or other (specify: ) Platform name and type Drill Rig RG-5 Scan direction SW Observer (s) Jason Snipe Visibility (kilometres) 1 Date (Day Month Year) 15 August 2005 Sea state code 4 Time at start (UTC or L ) 12:50 UTC Swell height (m) 1 Time at end (UTC or L ) 12:53 UTC Wind speed (knots) OR 5 (Beaufort scale) Beaufort code Latitude at start 43º 54.086N Wind direction NW Longitude at start 63º 26.391W Observer’s height (meters) 15 Platform activity Not drilling Outdoors or Indoors Out or In Notes:
Bird Information: *this field must be completed for each record Species Count In semi- Behaviour* Assoc. with Age1 Plumage2 Sex Dir.3 Comments circle? platform? * * Fly Sea Feed * HERG 1 N X X N A B HERG 6 Y X Y I BLKI 3 Y X N A B NE BLKI 1 J COMU 5 Y X N A B COMU 1 Y J GBBG 9 Y X Y A B GBBG 5 Y X Y I NOFU 4 Y X X N A B S light morph ALCI 1 Y A B
1J(uvenile), I(mmature), or A(dult) 2B(reeding), NB(non-breeding), M(oult) 3Indicate compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW); ND = no apparent direction 19
Appendix XII. Check-list of materials required while conducting seabird surveys.
Multiple pens or sharp pencils (required)
Multiple copies of blank recording sheets (required)
Binoculars (required)
Hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine platform position, vessel speed and vessel direction (required)
Watch or clock (required) – with countdown timer that can beep on snapshot intervals would be prefered
Compass or GPS to determine flight direction of birds (required)
Copy of protocol (recommended)
Spotting telescope (recommended)
Seabird identification guide (recommended)
Slide calliper or range finder (recommended)
Warm and waterproof clothing (recommended)
Calculator if using slide calliper to determine 300m observation distance (recommended)
20
Appendix XIII
Blank record sheets for moving and stationary platforms (hydrocarbon industry)
21 Ten-minute period record sheet for a moving platform (hydrocarbon industry)
Observation Period Information: Company/agency Sea state code Platform name and type Swell height (m) Observer (s) Wind speed (knots) OR Beaufort code Date (Day Month Year) Wind direction Time at start ( UTC or L ) Platform speed (knots) Time at end (UTC or L ) Platform direction Latitude at start Observation side Starboard Port Longitude at start Observer’s height (m) Platform activity Outdoors or Indoors Out or In Visibility (kilometres) Snapshot Used? Yes or No
Notes:
Bird Information: *this field must be completed for each record Species Count In transect? Behaviour* Assoc. with Age1 Plum.2 Sex Dir. 3 platform? * * * Fly Sea Feed
1J(uvenile), I(mmature), or A(dult) 2B(reeding), NB(non-breeding), M(oult) 3Indicate compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW); ND = no apparent direction
Record sheet for a stationary platform (hydrocarbon industry)
Scan Information: Company/agency Scan type 180º or other (specify: ) Platform name and type Scan direction Observer (s) Visibility (kilometres) Date (Day Month Year) Sea state code Time at start (UTC or L ) Swell height (m) Time at end (UTC or L ) Wind speed (knots) OR Beaufort code Latitude at start Wind direction Longitude at start Observer’s height (meters) Platform activity Outdoors or Indoors Out or In Notes:
Bird Information: *this field must be completed for each record Species Count In semi-circle? Behaviour* Assoc. with Age1 Plum.2 Sex Dir.3 platform? * * * Fly Sea Feed
1J(uvenile), I(mmature), or A(dult) 2B(reeding), NB(non-breeding), M(oult) 3Indicate compass direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW); ND = no apparent direction