Port Au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment

Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment

Prepared by

Prepared for

June 2007 SA930

Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment

Prepared by

LGL Limited environmental research associates P.O. Box 13248, Stn. A St. John’s, NL A1B 4A5 709-754-1992 (p) 709 754-7718 (f)

in association with

Prepared for

PDI Production Inc. Suite 201 Baine Johnston Centre 10 Fort William Place St John's, NL A1C 1K4

June 2007 SA930

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Contents...... ii List of Figures...... vi List of Tables ...... viii 1.0 Introduction...... 1 1.1. The Proponent...... 1 1.1.1. EA Contact...... 1 1.1.2. Operator ...... 1 1.1.3. Partners ...... 1 2.0 Project Overview...... 4 2.1. Purpose of the Project ...... 4 2.2. Relevant Legislation and Regulatory Approvals ...... 5 2.3. Document Organization...... 6 3.0 Project Description...... 7 3.1. Name and Location...... 7 3.2. Alternatives...... 7 3.3. Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits...... 7 3.3.1. Required Resources...... 9 3.3.2. Off-Site Facilities...... 9 3.4. Consultations...... 10 3.5. Project Components, Structures, and Activities ...... 10 3.5.1. Project Phases...... 10 3.5.2. Project Scheduling...... 11 3.5.3. Site Plans...... 11 3.5.4. Mobile Drilling Units...... 11 3.5.5. Drilling...... 13 3.5.6. Well Testing...... 15 3.5.7. Vertical Seismic Profiling...... 15 3.5.8. Well Abandonment or Suspension...... 15 3.5.9. Emissions and Waste Discharges...... 16 3.5.10. Sound ...... 18 3.6. Environmental Management...... 18 4.0 Physical Environment ...... 19 4.1. Geology...... 19 4.1.1. Bedrock and Surficial Geology...... 19 4.1.2. Topography...... 19 4.1.3. Bathymetry...... 20 4.1.4. Surface Water Bodies and Groundwater...... 20 4.2. Weather Conditions and Climate...... 22 4.2.1. Wind...... 24 4.2.2. Waves...... 27

4.2.3. Air and Sea Surface Temperatures ...... 27 4.2.4. Visibility ...... 27 4.3. Physical Oceanography...... 27 4.3.1. Currents...... 29 4.3.2. Tides...... 29 4.3.3. Temperature and Salinity...... 30 4.3.4. Ice...... 31 4.4. Land Use and Resources...... 31 4.4.1. Roadways...... 32 4.4.2. Municipal and Residential Land Use...... 32 4.4.3. Agricultural Land Use...... 34 4.4.4. Recreational Land Use...... 34 4.4.5. Historic Resources...... 34 4.4.6. Industrial Land Use...... 36 5.0 Biological Environment...... 40 5.1. Ecosystems...... 40 5.1.1. Marine Ecosystem...... 40 5.1.2. Terrestrial Ecosystem...... 94 5.1.3. Species at Risk ...... 109 5.2. Notable Areas...... 119 5.2.1. Marine Invertebrates/Fish and Associated Habitat...... 119 5.2.2. Marine-associated Birds...... 121 5.2.3. Marine Mammals...... 122 5.2.4. Terrestrial...... 122 6.0 Effects Assessment Methodology...... 123 6.1. Scoping ...... 123 6.2. Consultations and Issue Identification...... 123 6.2.1. Issues and Concerns...... 124 6.3. Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) ...... 127 6.3.1. Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat...... 128 6.3.2. Marine Macroinvertebrates/Fish...... 128 6.3.3. Marine Commercial Fisheries...... 128 6.3.4. Marine-associated Birds...... 129 6.3.5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles ...... 129 6.3.6. Rare Terrestrial Vegetation...... 129 6.3.7. Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 129 6.3.8. Species at Risk ...... 130 6.4. Other Issues...... 130 6.5. Boundaries ...... 130 6.5.1. Temporal...... 130 6.5.2. Spatial ...... 130 6.6. Effects Assessment Procedures...... 131 6.6.1. Identification and Evaluation of Effects ...... 131 6.6.2. Classifying Anticipated Environmental Effects...... 132 6.6.3. Mitigation...... 132 iii

6.6.4. Application of Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects...... 132 6.6.5. Cumulative Effects...... 134 6.6.6. Integrated Residual Environmental Effects ...... 134 6.6.7. Significance Rating...... 135 6.7. Monitoring/Follow-Up...... 135 6.8. Effects of the Environment on the Project...... 136 7.0 Routine Project Activities...... 137 7.1. Potential Zones of Influence ...... 137 7.1.1. Presence of Structures/Activity Zone ...... 138 7.1.2. Lights and Flaring...... 138 7.1.3. Drill Fluids (Muds) and Cuttings...... 138 7.1.4. Other Waste Discharges/Emissions ...... 139 7.1.5. Well Testing...... 140 7.1.6. Noise ...... 141 7.1.7. Well Suspension...... 142 7.1.8. Well Abandonment ...... 142 7.2. Potential Effects of Routine Activities ...... 143 7.2.1. Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat...... 143 7.2.2. Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish ...... 145 7.2.3. Marine Commercial Fisheries...... 147 7.2.4. Marine-associated Birds...... 149 7.2.5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles ...... 152 7.2.6. Rare Terrestrial Vegetation...... 155 7.2.7. Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 157 7.2.8. Species at Risk ...... 159 8.0 Accidental Events...... 164 8.1. Spill Events Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration Activities...... 164 8.1.1 Spills in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area (NLOA) ...... 167 8.2. Potential Accidental Events for Port au Port Project...... 167 8.2.1. Loss of Well Control...... 170 8.2.2. Release of Crude Oil from Surface Equipment ...... 171 8.2.3. Releases from the Crude Oil Holding Tank...... 172 8.2.4. Release of Diesel Fuel ...... 172 8.2.5. Release of Contaminated Drilling Fluids...... 173 8.2.6. Vehicle Incidents...... 173 8.2.7. Determination of Release Size Scenarios ...... 174 8.3. Port au Port Oil Characterization...... 174 8.4. Oil Spill Trajectory Modeling...... 176 8.4.1. Methods...... 176 8.4.2. Results...... 176 8.5. Spill Response...... 179 8.6. Estimation of Potential Cleanup Effectiveness...... 179 8.6.1. Best-Practicable Containment/Recovery System ...... 180 8.6.2. FTRP: Fraction of Time that Recovery is Possible...... 180 8.7. Alternatives to Containment and Recovery ...... 180 iv

8.8. Potential Effects of Accidental Events ...... 181 8.8.1. Proposed Mitigations for Port au Port Drilling Project ...... 181 8.8.2. Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat...... 182 8.8.3. Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish ...... 184 8.8.4 Marine Commercial Fisheries...... 188 8.8.5 Marine-associated Birds...... 189 8.8.6 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles ...... 191 8.8.7 Rare Terrestrial Vegetation...... 192 8.8.8 Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 194 8.8.9 Species at Risk ...... 195 9.0 Summary and Conclusions ...... 197 9.1 Residual Effects of the Project...... 197 9.2 Cumulative Effects of the Project...... 198 9.3 Monitoring and Follow-up...... 198 10.0 Literature Cited...... 199

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1.1. Locations of Project Area and Study Area...... 1 Figure 1.2. Location of Offshore Exploration License EL-1070 and Onshore Production Lease 2002-01...... 2 Figure 3.1. Plan Layout of Drill Site for Existing K-39 Well...... 8 Figure 3.2. Aerial Photograph of Shoal Point Drill Site...... 8 Figure 3.3. Photograph of Typical Mobile Drilling Unit...... 12 Figure 3.4. Schematic of Deviated Onshore to Offshore Well...... 14 Figure 4.1. Shaded Relief Map of Study Area...... 20 Figure 4.2. Watersheds of the Study Area...... 21 Figure 4.3. Drilled Groundwater Well Locations...... 23 Figure 4.4. Wind Rose Diagrams for January, April, August, October...... 26 Figure 4.5. Percentage Exceedance of 10 m Wind Speed...... 28 Figure 4.6. Summer Surface Circulation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence...... 29 Figure 4.7. Field Surface of the Geostrophic Currents in the Gulf of St. Lawrence during August...... 30 Figure 4.8. Seasonal Temperature Cycle for NAFO Unit Area 4Rc...... 30 Figure 4.9. Average Vertical Temperature Distribution in NAFO Division 4R in February and August...... 31 Figure 4.10. Road System in the Study Area...... 32 Figure 4.11. Town Boundaries, Water Supplies, Road System, Waste Management Sites, and Infilling Limits...... 33 Figure 4.12. Locations of Regional Pastureland, Private Parks, Archaeological Sites, and Silviculture Sites in the Study Area...... 35 Figure 4.13. Mines, Quarries, Mineral Claims, and Fee Simple Mining Leases in the Study Area...... 38 Figure 4.14. TekOil’s Proposed 3D Seismic Survey and Location of Oil Wells Recently Drilled on the Port au Port Peninsula...... 39 Figure 5.1. Study Area Bathymetry...... 41 Figure 5.2. Macroinvertebrate and Fish Spawning Areas, Marine-associated Bird Breeding Colonies, and Rare Plant Areas/Associated Habitat in the Study Area...... 46 Figure 5.3. Project, Study and Fisheries Unit Areas...... 59 Figure 5.4. Historical Harvest from 4Rc, All Species...... 60 Figure 5.5. Historical Harvest from 4Rc, Groundfish...... 61 Figure 5.6. Historical Harvest from 4Rc, All Other Species...... 61 Figure 5.7. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, All Species, 2004-2006 Average...... 63 Figure 5.8. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, All Species, Aggregated...... 64 Figure 5.9. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Fixed Gear, Aggregated...... 65 Figure 5.10. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Mobile Gear, Aggregated...... 66 Figure 5.11. Location of Area Statistical Sections (SS)...... 67

Figure 5.12. 2004-2006 4Rc Harvest, All Species, by Statistical Section of Landing (Adjacent to 4Rc)...... 67 Figure 5.13. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Groundfish, Aggregated...... 69 Figure 5.14. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Groundfish, 2004-2006 Average...... 70 Figure 5.15. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Herring, Aggregated...... 71 Figure 5.16. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Herring, 2004-2006 Average...... 71 Figure 5.17. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Mackerel, Aggregated...... 72 Figure 5.18. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Mackerel, 2004-2006 Average...... 73 Figure 5.19. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Capelin, Aggregated...... 74 Figure 5.20. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Capelin, 2004-2006 Average...... 74 Figure 5.21. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Snow Crab, Aggregated...... 75 Figure 5.22. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Snow Crab, 2004-2006 Average...... 76 Figure 5.23. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Lobster, 2004-2006 Average...... 76 Figure 5.24. Notable Biological Areas within and Adjacent to the Study Area...... 120 Figure 7.1. Approximate Activity Zone at Tip of Shoal Point...... 138 Figure 8.1. Coastal Sectors Considered in the Study...... 177

vii

List of Tables

Page

Table 4.1. Percentage of Wind by Direction...... 25 Table 4.2. Monthly Highest 10 Metre Wind Speed (rounded to the nearest m/s) from each Direction...... 25 Table 5.1. Spawning Specifics of Important Invertebrate and Fish Species Likely to Spawn Within or Near the Study Area...... 56 Table 5.2. 4Rc Harvest by Species, 2004 - 2006 (Annual)...... 62 Table 5.3. 4Rc Average Harvest by Species, Quantity and Value, 2004 – 2006...... 62 Table 5.4. 4Rc Harvest by Gear Type, 2004-2006 Average...... 64 Table 5.5. Unit Area 4Rc Harvest Landed in SS 42 and SS 43 Ports (2004-2006 Averages)...... 68 Table 5.6. General Distributions, Seasonal Abundances, and Foraging Strategies of Seabirds that Occur in the Study Area...... 78 Table 5.7. Estimated Numbers of Individuals of Colonial, Marine-associated Birds and Bird Species of Conservation Concern Nesting in or near the Study Area...... 80 Table 5.8. Marine-associated Birds Nesting in or Near the Study Area...... 81 Table 5.9. Nesting, Hatching and Fledging Information for Marine-associated Birds that Nest in or Near the Study Area...... 81 Table 5.10. Foraging Strategy and Types of Prey for Seabirds that Frequent the Study Area...... 82 Table 5.11. The Habitat, Occurrence, and Conservation Status of Marine Mammals in the Study Area...... 85 Table 5.12. Habitat, Abundance, and Conservation Status of Sea Turtles Potentially Occurring in the Study Area...... 93 Table 5.13. Definition of ‘S-Ranks’ Used by the Atlantic Canadian Conservation Data Centre...... 95 Table 5.14. Study Area Plants and Associated S-Ranks...... 103 Table 5.15. SARA-, COSEWIC- and ESA-listed Species with Reasonable Liklihood of Occurrence in the Study Area...... 111 Table 7.1. Estimates of Various Project Activity Frequencies and Durations...... 137 Table 7.2. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat VEC...... 143 Table 7.3. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish VEC...... 145 Table 7.4. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine Commercial Fisheries VEC...... 148 Table 7.5. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine-associated Birds...... 149 Table 7.6. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine-associated Bird, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VECs...... 152 Table 7.7. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Rare Terrestrial VegetationVEC...... 155 Table 7.8. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat VEC...... 157 Table 7.9. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Species at Risk...... 160

viii

Table 8.1. Number and Volume of Spills of More than One barrel of all Pollutants from Facilities and Operations on US Federal OCS Leases, 1970-1995...... 165 Table 8.2. Blowouts and Spillage from US Federal Offshore Wells, 1972-2005...... 166 Table 8.3. Oil Spill (> 1 Litre) Data Pertaining to the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2007...... 168 Table 8.4. Small and Medium Hydrocarbon Spills (1-1,000 bbl) During the Drilling of Exploration/Delineation Wells in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore Area, 1997-2007...... 169 Table 8.5. Volume Statistics of Small and Medium Crude or Diesel Spills During Exploration/Delineation Drilling in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2007...... 169 Table 8.6. Density, API and Wax Content of Port au Port Oil...... 175 Table 8.7. Viscosity Characteristics of Port au Port Oil...... 175 Table 8.8. Port au Port Oil Analysis...... 175 Table 8.9. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat...... 182 Table 8.10. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish...... 185 Table 8.11. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine-associated Birds...... 190 Table 8.12. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles...... 192

1.0 Introduction

Shoal Point Energy Ltd. (the “Operator”) and partners PDI Production Inc (PDIP) and Canadian Imperial Venture Corporation (CIVC) are proposing an exploration drilling program with a target located within offshore Exploration License EL-1070 (Figure 1.1). The proposed drilling site is situated on Shoal Point, a promontory extending into Port au Port Bay, on the Port au Port Peninsula in western Newfoundland. The proposed well will be directionally drilled from an onshore surface location to an offshore subsurface target within EL-1070.

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was conducted for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board in 2005, entitled Western Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment (C-NLOPB 2005) and provides the background to much of the information contained in this document.

This document is submitted to C-NLOPB by PDIP, on behalf of itself and its partners who hold an interest in EL-1070, to fulfil the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) for a screening level environmental assessment (EA) of the proposed exploratory drilling program.

1.1. The Proponent

1.1.1. EA Contact

The sections below describe the various firms, or partners, that hold an interest in Exploration License EL-1070. Collectively, these firms are referred to in this document as the “Proponent”.

This EA has been prepared on behalf of the Proponent by PDIP, and queries arising from this EA may be directed to:

Mr. Mick Hibbert General Manager PDI Production Inc. Suite 201 Baine Johnston Centre 10 Fort William Place St John's, NL, A1C 1K4 telephone: (709) 754-8149 fax: (709) 754-8170 email: [email protected]

Environmental Assessment Page 1 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 1.1. Locations of Project Area and Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 1 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

1.1.2. Operator

Shoal Point Energy Ltd. is a petroleum exploration and development company based in Calgary, Alberta.

The Company was formed in December 2006 to pursue oil and gas exploration opportunities through farm-ins, joint ventures and Crown land offerings within Atlantic Canada. The Company benefits from a management team which includes, not only many decades of experience in the oil and gas industry, but experience that is specific to the eastern Canadian geological and operational environment. The company’s initial targets include the Mid-Ordovician dolomitized carbonate platform play (approximately equivalent to the Trenton-Black River) on the Port au Port Peninsula of western Newfoundland, as well as fluvio-lacustrine reservoirs at South Stoney Creek in the Devonian- Carboniferous Moncton Subbasin of New Brunswick.

The company is in the process of opening an East Coast office to support its Newfoundland-based operations, in St. John's Newfoundland.

1.1.3. Partners

1.1.3.1. PDIP

PDI Production Inc. (PDIP), headquartered in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, is an independent oil and gas company committed to the identification, development and operation of value-creating hydrocarbon opportunities.

PDIP currently holds interests in the following assets on and around the Port au Port Peninsula: offshore exploration license EL-1070, and onshore production lease 2002-01 (see Figure 1.2).

The company manages detailed design, construction, operations and decommissioning, and provides these services throughout the asset life cycle of an oil and gas project.

PDIP's operations are guided by a number of objectives:

• Investment in local people and resources, wherever possible; • Management of its operations to the highest safety, design and environmental standards; • Development of alliances with leading companies to continually improve efficiency, productivity and decision-making; and • Continual identification and acquisition of opportunities with the potential to create significant value for shareholders.

Environmental Assessment Page 1 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 1.2. Location of Offshore Exploration License EL-1070 and Onshore Production Lease 2002-01.

Environmental Assessment Page 2 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

1.1.3.2. CIVC

Canadian Imperial Venture Corporation (CIVC) is an independent, public oil and gas exploration and production company based in St. John's Newfoundland, and listed on the TSX Venture Exchange (Symbol: CQV).

CIVC's strategy is to explore for commercial reserves from strategic positions in high potential exploration plays in order to create and deliver shareholder value. In the implementation of this strategy, CIVC focuses on geographical positions that are capable of providing the potential for significant finds. Recently, CIVC has refined its operation and now are concentrating on the geographic region of Newfoundland in Eastern Canada. Operations have yielded finds and exploration positions along Western Newfoundland will continue.

It is CIVC’s strategy to identify commercial reserves from strategic positions along the Western Newfoundland seaboard. This will eventually result in the creation and delivery of viable commercial finds and leading to increased shareholder value. CIVC focuses its exploration on areas that have indicated potential with respect to operational studies.

Western Newfoundland has already resulted in a number of oil and gas discoveries and still offers the prospect of significant further value creation.

CIVC’s edge is the ability to utilize its experience to assist in developing common infrastructures for a continued long term exploration effort in the area. The bottom line for CIVC is to ensure that it is creating and realizing value from the successful implementation of its strategy.

Environmental Assessment Page 3 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

2.0 Project Overview

2.1. Purpose of the Project

Newfoundland’s petroleum potential was recognized almost 200 years ago along the province’s west coast when in 1812 Mr Parsons skimmed oil from the surface of Parson’s Pond to use as a treatment for his rheumatism. In 1867, Newfoundland’s first oil well was drilled near this location. Numerous oil and gas seeps, bituminous residues, and oil shales were later found in other areas, including the Port au Port Peninsula where hydrocarbon occurrences have been found in all three of its major geological units. For over a century particular attention has been paid to the peninsula. Between the early 1900s and the mid 1960s nine oil wells were drilled at Shoal Point (NLDNR 2007a). Modern geophysical techniques and drilling methods, coupled with advances in geologic theory, have boosted exploration efforts on and around the peninsula since 1994, with promising results.

Since acquiring the rights to explore for oil in offshore Exploration Licence EL-1070 in 2002, the Proponent has been evaluating existing data around the Port au Port Peninsula and has been developing its exploration and development program in this and its nearby onshore prospects. In order to meet the license extension granted to EL-1070, drilling must commence into this area before January 15, 2007.

Prior to this deadline, the Operator intends to begin drilling a deviated (i.e., onshore to offshore) well at Shoal Point, where in 1999 Pan Canadian drilled its K-39 well. Over the next three to five years the Operator (and/or the other partners) may also choose to drill up to a maximum of four more deviated wells (either exploration or production) into EL-1070 from various onshore locations around Port au Port Bay (most likely from Shoal Point or Long Point), or it may choose to modify any of its exploration wells to development wells. Decisions on future drilling, including the number, locations, and types (e.g., exploration, development, or production) of additional wells will evolve with time, based on the results of the initial drilling and other exploration data that is available.

For the planned exploration well at Shoal Point, if a discovery is made, the well will be temporarily suspended prior to completion as a development well. If no significant discovery is made, the well will be plugged and abandoned. In both cases, suspension and abandonment will conform to the appropriate federal and/or provincial regulations (e.g.. Newfoundland and Labrador’s Petroleum Drilling Regulations, federal Offshore Petroleum Drilling Regulations).

There are two distinct options for exploration drilling at Shoal Point, each of which will target a subsurface location in EL-1070. These are to drill a sidetrack well from the existing (abandoned) K-39 well, or to drill a new deviated well from an onshore location near K-39. The wellhead locations for both of these options are onshore and therefore in either case the well will be drilled using conventional onshore drilling techniques.

Environmental Assessment Page 4 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

2.2. Relevant Legislation and Regulatory Approvals

The Project will require an authorization pursuant to Section 138 (1)(b) of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and Section 134(1)(a) of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act (the 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 environmental assessment of the Project under Section 5 of the CEA Act is required.

Pursuant to Section 12.2 (2) of the CEA Act, the C-NLOPB will assume the role of the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) for this screening and will be responsible for coordinating the review activities by the expert government departments and agencies that will participate in the review.

The C-NLOPB intends that the environmental assessment submitted with any supporting documents, as may be necessary, will fulfill the requirements for a screening environmental assessment. The C- NLOPB, therefore, pursuant to Section 17 (1) of the CEA Act, has formally delegated the responsibility for preparing an acceptable screening assessment to PDIP, on behalf of the Proponent. The C-NLOPB will prepare the Screening Report, which will include the determination of significance for the Project as a whole.

The C-NLOPB has developed an Environmental Assessment Scoping Document (C-NLOPB, 2007), in consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Environment Canada (EC), the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation (NLDOEC) and other advisory agencies of the Governments of Canada and of Newfoundland and Labrador. This Scoping Document describes the scope of the project that is to be assessed, factors to be considered in the assessment, and the scope of those factors. The Scoping Document was used to guide those involved in preparing this screening level Environmental Assessment.

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has reviewed the Project Description and concluded that this drilling program does not require registration under the provincial Environmental Assessment Regulations, 2003.

Legislation that is relevant to the environmental aspects of this Project include:

Federal Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Oceans Act Fisheries Act Navigable Waters Protection Act

Environmental Assessment Page 5 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Canada Shipping Act Species at Risk Act Migratory Birds Convention Act Canadian Environmental Protection Act

Provincial Environmental Protection Act Water Resources Act

Additional federal and provincial permits and approvals will be required for specific activities, and these will be obtained following approval of this Environmental Assessment.

The drilling program will be wholly funded by the Proponent. This Project will not require funding in the form of a grant or loan from any federal or provincial government body, program, agency, or department.

2.3. Document Organization

This Environmental Assessment is organized under the following major headings: Introduction Project Description Physical Environment Biological Environment o Marine o Terrestrial Overview of Effects Assessment Effects Assessment o Routine Project Activities o Accidental Events Summary and Conclusions Literature Cited

Environmental Assessment Page 6 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

3.0 Project Description

This section is based upon information available at the time of writing. At present, not all Project details are known because not all contractors and suppliers have been selected and the specific numbers and locations of wells beyond the initial one planned for Shoal Point will depend on several factors, including the success (or lack thereof) of this initial well. Nonetheless, the project description presented here will be refined as the Project progresses.

3.1. Name and Location

The name of this Project is the Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program. Drilling at the surface will begin at an onshore location near the northern tip of Shoal Point, as shown Figures 3.1 and 3.2 (at or near Pan Canadian’s existing (abandoned) K-39 well), and will be deviated towards an offshore subsurface target within the area of EL-1070. The geographical coordinates of K-39 are 5389192.133 N, 364249.278 E (UTM Zone 21, NAD27).

The Project Area is defined in Figure 1.1, and includes much of the shoreline that borders EL-1070. The Study Area of this Environmental Assessment is also defined in Figure 1.1.

3.2. Alternatives

A potential alternative to the Project is to not drill any wells with targets within EL-1070, but to explore for oil and gas elsewhere in order to satisfy market demand, such as at the Proponent’s onshore Production Lease 2002-01. However, the Proponent has been awarded rights to explore within offshore Exploration License EL-1070 through a regulated competitive bidding process and is now seeking to fulfil commitments made as part of this process.

An alternative means is to drill a vertical hole from an offshore location (as an example, using a jack-up rig) into a subsurface target in EL-1070; however, because onshore operations are an option, and because onshore operations of this type are safer than offshore operations, less environmentally invasive, and more economical, this offshore alternative is not currently viable.

3.3. Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits

The Proponents are committed to bringing maximum benefits associated with the Port au Port operations to Newfoundland and Labrador, where commercially achievable. The Proponents seek to strengthen the involvement of Newfoundland and Labrador residents, particularly those in Western Newfoundland, and other Canadians in the oil and gas developments in the Port au Port area. As such, the Proponents strive to provide these individuals and companies with full and fair opportunity to participate in Project activities on the Port au Port peninsula.

Environmental Assessment Page 7 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Source: Yates & Wood Survey: Drawing #97260-3R, dated 23 Dec 1998.

Figure 3.1. Plan Layout of Drill Site for Existing K-39 Well.

Source: NLDOEC.

Figure 3.2. Aerial Photograph of Shoal Point Drill Site.

Environmental Assessment Page 8 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

In hiring required individuals and companies, the Proponent will give preference to those from the Port au Port Peninsula and following this, others from western Newfoundland, the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the rest of Canada will be given preference, in this order, over those from other countries where they are competitive in terms of fair market price, quality, and delivery. Contractors and subcontractors working with the Operator must also subscribe to and apply these principles of adjacency in their own operations.

3.3.1. Required Resources

3.3.1.1. Personnel and Project Management

The Project will be managed jointly by the Operator's East Coast office in St. John's, NL, supported by the head office in Calgary and by Ross Energy Services, who the Operator has engaged to design and engineer the aspects of the drilling of the Shoal Point well on the Port au Port Peninsula.

During these drilling operations, the Operator will be represented at the site by members of this contracted engineering team. Other key members of the management team will be onsite to provide geological input during periods when the reservoir target is being approached and drilled.

3.3.1.2. Other Equipment, Supplies, Materials

In addition to the drilling unit, the exploratory drilling of the well at Shoal Point will require other equipment, supplies, and materials. Examples include office accommodation modules, power generating modules, mud and cement mixing systems, bottom hole assembly (BHA) tools and drill bits, wellhead and well casing materials. Material such as drilling muds, cements and additives will also be required to properly drill the well. Since it is expected and hoped that hydrocarbons will be found, well testing equipment will be used to undertake drill stem testing.

A number of supporting services will also be required from capable contracting companies for the exploratory drilling. Examples could include rig operation, directional drilling, wellhead, casing running, mud, cementing, LWD/MWD (logging while drilling/measurement while drilling), logging, coring, geological, and communications services.

3.3.2. Off-Site Facilities

Aside from those identified above, there will be no other offsite facilities to support the drilling program. Support for the drilling operations will be controlled by the Operator, its engineering contractor and by and the drilling contractor, and will draw on a supply chain based throughout Canada. The primary communications link to the drill site will be a satellite based internet service and high powered cell phone located on site.

Environmental Assessment Page 9 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

3.4. Consultations

In May 2007, public consultations, meetings, and open houses were held in Piccadilly and Cape St. George on the Port au Port Peninsula, in Stephenville and in St. John’s with various community agencies, businesses, local/area interest groups, government agencies, and area residents. These sessions allowed the Proponent, which was represented by PDIP, to present information about the Project, and to identify issues and concerns of the participants relevant to this EA. Furthermore, these sessions provided the Proponent an occasion to gather additional information required for project planning.

In addition, copies of the Project Description and draft Scoping Document for the proposed EL-1070 exploration drilling program were sent to various St John’s-based agencies and interest groups in early May 2007.

Overall, consultations were undertaken with the following agencies and interest groups:

Fisheries and Oceans Environment Canada Fisheries Food and Allied Workers Long Range Economic Development Board Natural History Society One Ocean Local Business Groups Cape St George Town Council Ktaqamkuk Heritage Foundation Local Residents of the Port au Port area

3.5. Project Components, Structures, and Activities

3.5.1. Project Phases

The proposed exploration drilling program at Shoal Point consists initially of a single exploratory well drilled from shore to an offshore target. Subsequent drilling will depend on the results of analysis of the first well. The drilling of the first well (and of subsequent wells) consists of four phases:

Drilling of the exploration well, including routine activities and well evaluation; Testing of encountered hydrocarbons; Vertical Seismic Profiling; and Well abandonment (or well suspension)

If additional drilling is determined to be desirable after analysis of the first well (and/or available seismic data), it is anticipated that the maximum of four additional onshore to offshore wells will be drilled into EL-1070 over the next three to five years.

Environmental Assessment Page 10 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

It is important to note that the potential for onshore to offshore drilling routine activities to interact with either the marine or terrestrial environment in any substantial manner is negligible (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.2.4.3). Any potential interaction can be minimized with appropriate mitigative measures.

3.5.2. Project Scheduling

The Shoal Point well is expected to be spudded in the third quarter of 2007. It is anticipated that drilling (or drilling/re-entry combination) will take approximately 90-120 days to complete all four phases. Given that this well may be difficult to drill and that the work will be carried out during the winter, the final schedule will be dictated by such circumstances.

3.5.3. Site Plans

A site plan showing surface features associated with Pan Canadian’s activities is shown on Figure 3.1. Although, the site plan for the Operator's proposed drilling activities is still undergoing design, it is expected that the layout will be comparable to that shown in the Figure 3.1. Should a new well be decided upon, the location will be near to that of the existing. (It should also be noted that the footprint of any future drill sites will be of comparable size).

The main site gate will likely be situated where the road meets the site boundary, as indicated on Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

All equipment containing liquids will be contained inside a bermed area to protect the environment and personnel from potential spills. The berm(s) will be constructed in one of two ways, depending on which is most practical and economical: (1) a berm around the entire facility; or (2) individual berms constructed around each piece of equipment containing hydrocarbons, drilling fluids and other industrial fluids.

This purpose of the berm(s) will be to intercept all spilled liquids and prevent them from flowing unabated towards the marine environment. In the event of a fuel spill, free oil that is contained within the bermed area or that has seeped into the subsurface will be recovered as soon as equipment is mobilized to the site. Furthermore, soil and groundwater that has been impacted above NLDOEC’s TIER I levels will be removed for off site treatment.

The total vertical depth of the well is expected to be approximately 1816 m at the target, with about a 2200 m deviation from the surface.

3.5.4. Mobile Drilling Units

The Operator intends to utilize a triple cantilever mobile drilling unit (MDU) for its onshore to offshore drilling program at Shoal Point. In part, this type of drill rig has been chosen to meet the harsh weather conditions anticipated at this location

Environmental Assessment Page 11 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The MDU will have a depth rating near 5,000 m using sufficient sized drill pipes and collars. The clearance between the ground and the Blow-Out Preventers (BOPs) will be in the range of about 6 m.

An MDU of this capacity, with associated ancillary equipment (e.g. required fuel tanks, doghouse, tool house, generation facilities, etc.) will likely have a footprint of about 80 m by 30 m. Mobilizing a rig of this size to the site will require about 60 truck loads of equipment.

Given the high winds anticipated at Shoal Point, the rig derrick will be stabilized using high strength guy wires secured by drilled and grouted anchors.

A photograph of a typical MDU suitable for this application is shown in Figure 3.3 below.

Figure 3.3. Photograph of Typical Mobile Drilling Unit.

Environmental Assessment Page 12 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

3.5.5. Drilling

Two alternatives are being considered for the initial well, one is to re-enter the K-39 well and drill a deviated sidetrack towards the subsurface target. The other option is to drill a deviated well spudded onshore near K-39. Figure 3.4 is a schematic that shows the general layout of the well, whichever option is chosen. As mentioned previously, the total vertical depth of the well is expected to be approximately 1816 m at the target, with about a 2200 m deviation from the surface.

3.5.5.1. Re-entering K-39 Well

The K-39 well is currently abandoned with the wellhead removed at a point below ground level. The first operation for re-entry will be to remove the welded plate to reveal the casing strings and to weld on a surface casing extension and integral wellhead. This will provide the structural support and pressure containment interface for subsequent re-entry operations.

Once in place, existing bridge plugs will be removed, the intermediate casing will be re-established back to surface and BOPs will be installed.

A window will then be cut in the intermediate casing in the desired direction of the wellbore. Once the window is cut, the drilling of the well will commence while steering the well towards the target.

The direction of the wellbore will be verified using downhole logging while drilling (LWD) and measurement while drilling tools (MWD). Just prior to the target formation being penetrated, another string of casing will be run and cemented in place. Final hole drilling will then continue through the target formation.

3.5.5.2. New Well

To drill a new well, the process starts with drilling a conductor hole into which a well conductor is inserted and cemented in place. The conductor provides the foundation for the subsequent casing string which includes the wellhead.

Once the surface casing string and wellhead are in place, the drilling BOP will be installed which will enable drilling the long-hole section of the well to accommodate the intermediate casing set, which will be cemented just above the target zone. This section of the well will be steered towards the well target, building the well angle to that required by the well design.

Final hole drilling will then continue to evaluate the target zone.

Environmental Assessment Page 13 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 3.4. Schematic of Deviated Onshore to Offshore Well.

Environmental Assessment Page 14 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

3.5.6. Well Testing

When the well has reached its target, a geological evaluation will be undertaken to determine whether well testing is necessary. If well testing is carried out, the outcome will establish the quality, quantity, and content of the hydrocarbon-bearing formations and reservoir encountered. Well testing will require specialized contractors and equipment, personnel and procedures in addition to the drilling contractors, in order to facilitate flowing of the well.

During the testing of the well, fluids will be produced from the wellbore. Produced fluids may contain hydrocarbons, produced water or both. Two options may be employed to handle these produced fluids. The preferred option is to flare the produced gas and to store the produced liquids on site. However, depending on the quantities produced, the Operator may need to burn both the produced gas and oil through an on-site burner. As required, appropriate approvals will be obtained for flaring/burning, and for on-site storage facilities. In addition, in all cases of flaring/burning, the most efficient combustion flare types will be used to minimize emissions. Produced water, if it occurs, will be stored on site and removed by a qualified waste disposal contractor.

3.5.7. Vertical Seismic Profiling

The Operator is planning to undertake an “Incident” Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) program. This program will involve no activities in the marine environment and is similar to that which was carried out in May 1999 by Pan Canadian on the original K-39 well.

The VSP program will include two Litton 318 truck-mounted vibroseis units that will be positioned on land and 50 to 60 m from the location of the drill rig, and a geophone that will be lowered to the bottom of the well to measure ground motion. Seismic energy will propagate from the surface through bedrock and be recorded by the geophone at its position in the well. The geophone will then be raised to the next level at which time additional energy will be initiated and recorded. This procedure will be repeated about 100 times at different levels up the bore hole over an estimated 8-hour period.

3.5.8. Well Abandonment or Suspension

3.5.8.1. Well Suspension

After initial well testing and evaluation, should it be determined that the well is capable of commercial production, the well will be temporarily suspended while production planning and engineering activities are undertaken. Well suspension procedures will follow industry standard and practices and be in accordance with the Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Drilling Regulations and the Provincial Petroleum Drilling Regulations under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

As required by the regulations, suspended wells will be inspected yearly, and reports made as required. Also, as indicated in the regulations, a well will not be suspended for more than six years, at which time it must be completed or abandoned.

Environmental Assessment Page 15 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

3.5.8.2. Well Abandonment

As required under the Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Drilling Regulations and the Provincial Petroleum Drilling Regulations under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Operator will ensure that any well (or a portion of a well) that is not suspended or completed is abandoned to prevent formation fluids from flowing out of the well. The well abandonment procedures will follow industry standard practices and will comply with these regulations.

The Operator will ensure that the abandoned well will first be filled with fluid of sufficient density to over-balance the formation pressures found in the well. The well will then be permanently plugged. Well log data will be analyzed to determine how the well should be plugged to ensure that any formations that may contain fluid or gas are isolated. Typically, the well(s) will be plugged using cement and bridge plugs in accordance with the current regulations, and will be appropriately tested as required. Following this, the Operator will ensure that the wellhead and associated equipment is removed and that all exposed casing will be cut off below the ground level to an appropriate depth.

3.5.9. Emissions and Waste Discharges

3.5.9.1. Drilling Fluids (Muds) and Cuttings

Because planning for the drilling program is at a preliminary stage, drilling fluid specifications have not been finalized. However, the exploration and development wells covered under this Project will likely be drilled using water-based and synthetic drilling muds. Furthermore, since under-balanced drilling will possibly be used to pierce the production matrix, weighted drilling fluids (such as potassium chloride (KCl)) may also be used. In all cases, there will be no operational discharges of drilling waste to the environment. Drilling waste will be collected, stored, and trucked from site using an appropriate waste management contractor.

3.5.9.2. Produced Water

If hydrocarbons are encountered during drilling and testing then small amounts of produced water may be generated. Should this be the case, it will be discharged by atomizing with hydrocarbons and flared, or stored in an appropriate storage tank and removed from site by a qualified waste management contractor.

3.5.9.3. Grey/Black Water

Grey and black water include the non-industrial waste water and sewage associated with operations at site. Grey water includes waste water from appliances, sinks, showers, etc., but does not include waste water from toilets which is considered black water.

Grey and black water at site will be stored in appropriate storage tanks and removed by a qualified waste management contractor for disposal.

Environmental Assessment Page 16 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

3.5.9.4. Machinery Space Discharges

Machinery space discharges will be contained within their enclosed modules. Any spills will be collected with oil sorbents, stored on site in leak proof containers, and collected and disposed of by a qualified waste management contractor.

From other machinery such as diesel light towers, there is also the potential for ground spills through leaky lubricants and diesel spills during refuelling. To mitigate this, spill pans will be used while refuelling. Any engine oil discharges that reach the soil will be removed along with the contaminated soil and disposed of in accordance with provincial regulatory requirements.

3.5.9.5. Cooling Water

The drives and brakes on the rigs will be water cooled. It is anticipated that the cooling water system will be a closed system and that the water may be treated with chlorine as a biocide. The treated cooling water will be disposed of at the end of the campaign using a qualified waste management contractor. Should any cooling water need to be disposed of during the drilling process, it too will be disposed of using a qualified waste management contractor.

3.5.9.6. Solid Waste

As part of the Operator’s goal to minimize the Project’s environmental footprint, a waste recycling program will be implemented during operations. All trash and garbage that cannot be recycled will be stored in suitable containers at site and disposed of at an approved waste disposal site.

Combustible waste (such as oily rags, paint cans, etc.) will be stored appropriately and disposed of, as required, by a certified contractor. Hazardous wastes will be suitably stored, and where necessary sealed, prior to disposal by a qualified waste management contractor.

3.5.9.7. Atmospheric Emissions

A certain amount of fugitive emissions are unavoidable (i.e., air emissions other than those released from vents or stacks, etc., for example, fugitive air emissions from equipment leaks or fuel storage tanks). In addition, combustion gases are expected from diesel combustion systems (e.g., engines and generators used during operations) and the well testing flare/burner. Such combustion exhaust gases typically contain oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons and some particulate matter.

The amount of diesel fuel used by the drill rig is estimated to average between 4,000 to 4,500 litres per day. This will not generate significant air emissions at the site. This rate of fuel consumption is below NLDOEC’s Type I emission source threshold of 15,000,000 litres/year. Above this level, industry is required to undertake air dispersion modelling, stack testing, and ambient air monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the province’s Air Pollution Control Regulations, 2004.

Environmental Assessment Page 17 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

3.5.10. Sound

Noise will be emitted from the machinery involved in drilling the well. The noise levels associated with an MDU such that described above range from about 70 dBA in the dog house area to about 110 dBA in the generator, motor house, and vacuum pump areas. However, since noise levels diminish with distance, it is anticipated that the site noise will not reach annoyance or disturbance levels outside of the drilling area boundary.

3.6. Environmental Management

The Operator commits to carrying out all drilling related activities in compliance with federal and provincial environmental regulations, generally accepted industry practice, and its own environmental policies. In order to undertake this work in an environmentally responsible manner, Spill Contingency and Waste Management Plans are being developed and will be finalized prior to the start of the work. All site personnel, including contractors and visitors, will be required to adhere to the provisions of these documents. Considering the many mitigative measures to be used, the likelihood of an accidental event during onshore to offshore drilling resulting in substantial effect on either the marine and or environment is very low.

Environmental Assessment Page 18 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

4.0 Physical Environment

Figures 1.1 shows the Project Area and Study Area, as well as the location of Shoal Point with respect to the rest of the Port au Port Peninsula. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the proposed drilling location on Shoal Point. Any of the four additional wells that may be required in the future will also be directionally drilled from an onshore surface location (likely on Shoal Point or Long Point, but conceivably at any permitted onshore location within the Project Area) to an offshore subsurface target in EL-1070.

The following sections provide information about the existing physical environment within the Study Area.

4.1. Geology

4.1.1. Bedrock and Surficial Geology

The bedrock geology of the Study Area primarily consists of Ordovician and Cambrian carbonate and clastic sedimentary rock units that are cut by several northeast trending fault zones, the most notable of which on the Port au Port Peninsula is the Round Head Thrust. The area has been affected by Acadian and Taconic deformation, with thrust slices being transported from the east during Paleozoic tectonism. The Appalachian Front lies offshore to the west of the Port au Port Peninsula (Williams 1985; Williams and Cawood 1989; C-NLOPB 2005).

In the terrestrial portion of the Study Area bedrock is exposed on ridges, concealed by vegetation, or overlain by a thin veneer of soil over most of the southern and central parts of the peninsula. The remaining half of the peninsula, and most of the Project Area, is overlain by either glacial till, which generally is to be found in the interior, or marine deposited clay, silt, gravel, and diamicton occurring as beach ridges, deltas, terraces, or bars, which typically can be found bordering the peninsula’s shoreline. Minor, isolated areas of peat, colluvial, and fluvial deposits occur over less than about 10% of the peninsula. Shoal Point consists principally of organic peat overlying marine sediments (Batterson 2000a,b,c; Batterson et al. 2001).

4.1.2. Topography

The highest point in the Study Area is on Table Mountain, with a measured elevation of 376 metres above sea level (masl). This mountain range flanks the eastern boundary of the Project Area. On the Port au Port Peninsula the highest point at 354 masl is found in the White Hills located between the communities of Cape St George, Sheaves Cove, and Mainland. Other prominent topographic areas include Pierways Hill (240 masl) to the north of Campbell’s Creek and Round Head (253 masl) east of Salmon Cove.

Gentler slopes grading to the shoreline are found on the west coast near the communities of Mainland and Three Rock Cove, and along most of the shoreline of Port au Port Bay. Figure 4.1 shows a shaded relief map of the peninsula.

Environmental Assessment Page 19 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Source: NL Department of Natural Resources.

Figure 4.1. Shaded Relief Map of Study Area.

4.1.3. Bathymetry

The sea bed in West Bay and Piccadilly Bay is in relatively shallow water, at depths typically less than 20 m below sea level. The sea floor in East Bay reaches to depths of over 40 m. In other parts of the Study Area, maximum water depths approach 200 metres as can be seen on Figure 1.1.

4.1.4. Surface Water Bodies and Groundwater

4.1.4.1. Streams and Ponds

There are seventy watersheds within the Study Area, as shown on Figure 4.2. These watershed divisions are based on information contained on 1:50,000 topographic maps for the area (NRCan 2000). These watersheds include a few, relatively short (i.e., on average about 1.8 km long) first order streams that typically have no tributaries or headwater ponds, and which derive their flows from hillsides and bogs. There are several higher order streams in the area that generally cover much larger watersheds (i.e. up to 4,113 Ha) and which characteristically reach further inland.

The flow of all streams is likely influenced locally to some extent by groundwater recharge and discharge, and tidal influences are noted in some water bodies near the shoreline such as Victor’s Brook, where a well developed salt marsh exists (Batterson et al. 2001), and Gravels Pond at the isthmus.

Environmental Assessment Page 20 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Source: NRCan (2000).

Figure 4.2. Watersheds of the Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 21 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Only a few, relatively small freshwater ponds are found on the peninsula, as shown in Figure 4.2. In fact, the total area of all ponds accounts for less than 1% of the Port au Port Peninsula land mass. A pond, roughly 3.7 Ha in area, borders a wetland on the northern tip of Shoal Point. This pond is about 200 m from the proposed drill site at K-39.

4.1.4.2. Groundwater

The NLDOEC maintains a database of drilled bedrock groundwater wells on the peninsula, most of which are used to supply domestic or community potable water (K. Guzzwell, NLDOEC, pers. comm.). There are currently 173 listed wells, and Figure 4.3 shows the locations of those for which geographical coordinates are given in the database. The listed wells range in depth from six to 154 metres, and only nine of these are “abandoned” due to insufficient supply or poor water quality.

The total area of the peninsula underlain by a shallow water table is relatively small. Such areas are typically associated with wetlands, bogs, ponds, and along streams. Both Shoal Point and Long Point have the largest continuous wetlands on the peninsula. Small bogs occur in other isolated areas of the peninsula, with more extensive bogs inland of Mainland and Three Rock Cove, and to the north of Lower Cove.

Overburden deposits on the Port au Port Peninsula have been divided into two hydrostratigraphic units: glacial till with low yield (mean of 9.5 lpm, or litres per minute), and a sand and gravel unit with moderate to high yield (mean of 50.4 lpm). Bedrock hydrostratigraphy on the peninsula has been divided into three units: carboniferous clastic sedimentary rocks with characteristically high yield (mean of 54.4 lpm); cambro-ordovician clastic sedimentary rocks with moderate yield (mean of 28.8 lpm); and cambro-ordovician carbonate rocks with moderate yield (mean of 36.7 lpm) (Golder Associates 1986).

4.2. Weather Conditions and Climate

The Study Area’s climate is governed by the movement of low and high pressure regimes within the prevailing westerly flow of the upper atmosphere. This flow is induced by temperature gradients that span from tropical to polar regions, and westerlies are strongest during the winter when these gradients are most intense1.

In winter, the Port au Port area is affected by cold arctic air flowing from the Quebec North Shore as it crosses the relatively warm waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence (prior to the formation of ice). The cold air picks up heat and moisture from these waters resulting in streamers of snow showers that hit the west coast of Newfoundland.

1 This section adapted and condensed from C-NLOPB (2005). Environmental Assessment Page 22 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Source: NLDOEC (Water Resources Management Division) (2007b).

Figure 4.3. Drilled Groundwater Well Locations.

Environmental Assessment Page 23 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Intense low-pressure systems frequently slow down or stall under an upper air low-pressure centre as they move through Newfoundland. This may result in an extended period of little change in weather conditions that may range, depending on the position, overall intensity and size of the system, from relatively benign to heavy weather.

By summer, the main storm tracks have moved further north resulting in less frequent and weaker low- pressure systems. Increasing solar radiation throughout the spring causes the atmosphere to warm and the north-south temperature contrast to decrease. This lowers the kinetic energy of the westerly flow aloft and decreases the potential energy available for storm development.

With low pressure systems normally passing to the north of the region in combination with the northwest shoulder of the sub-tropical high to the south, the prevailing flow across the Gulf of St. Lawrence is from the south to southwest during the summer season. Wind speed is lower during the summer and gale or storm force winds are relatively infrequent. There is also a corresponding decrease in significant wave height.

The prevailing south to south-westerly flow during late spring and early summer tends to be moist and relatively warmer than the underlying waters of the Gulf. Cooling from below coupled with mixing of air in the near-surface layer often produces advection fog, which can persist for days at a time. The incidence of advection fog and the frequency of poor visibility are normally highest during July.

4.2.1. Wind

C-NLOPB (2005) reviewed AES-40 meteorological data for a grid point located just to the west of the Port au Port Peninsula, and has used this information to base its discussion on winds that affect the study area.

The percentage of observations of wind speed by direction is shown in Table 4.1. The table shows that winds occur most often from the west to northwest from November to March. In April, winds most often occur from the southwest to northwest. South to southwest winds dominate from May to August. Southwest to west winds are predominant in September and October.

January, April, August, and October wind rose diagrams are given in Figure 4.4. Dominant wind directions are from the northwest, west, southwest and south. There is a strong annual cycle in the wind direction. In winter, the winds are from west to northwest, whereas in summer the winds are from south to southwest. In the transition month of April, winds are distributed throughout all directions.

Table 4.2 shows the highest winds (maximum 1-hour sustained winds) that occur by month in each of eight directions. The strongest winds with speeds of 25 m/sec occur in December and January. In January, the strongest are from the northwest to north whereas in December they are from the southwest. The lowest maximum wind speeds are in July.

Environmental Assessment Page 24 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 4.1. Percentage of Wind by Direction.

Month Direction Total NE E SE S SW W NW N Reports January 8.1 6.1 5.8 8.4 14.2 25.5 21.9 10.1 6076 February 8.8 6.4 6.2 8.4 14.0 23.3 20.7 12.2 5536 March 12.6 7.5 7.0 10.4 13.9 16.7 17.3 14.6 6076 April 12.4 9.8 10.5 11.4 13.9 13.4 14.0 14.6 5880 May 10.3 9.1 9.4 18.7 18.9 11.9 10.8 10.8 6076 June 6.5 6.4 8.8 22.5 26.6 12.7 8.9 7.5 5880 July 2.8 4.1 7.6 26.3 33.2 15.2 6.6 4.2 6076 August 4.6 4.7 6.0 19.1 32.9 18.2 8.5 5.9 6076 September 5.5 5.0 5.9 15.6 24.9 22.4 12.8 7.9 5880 October 5.7 4.6 7.1 13.0 20.4 21.6 17.1 10.5 6076 November 7.2 6.4 6.9 12.1 16.4 21.9 19.7 9.6 5880 December 6.7 5.7 6.5 9.3 13.5 23.6 22.0 12.6 6076 Years Mean 7.6 6.3 7.3 14.6 20.2 18.9 15.0 10.0 Source: AES grid point 5817 in C-NLOPB (2005). Lat 48.75°N, Long 59.17 °W, 1954 to 2003.

Table 4.2. Monthly Highest 10 Metre Wind Speed (rounded to the nearest m/s) from each Direction.

Month Direction Monthly NE E SE S SW W NW N Min Max January 23 24 21 23 21 21 25 25 21 25 February 24 20 21 20 20 21 22 20 20 24 March 20 23 19 18 18 24 23 21 18 24 April 19 19 17 16 17 18 18 21 16 21 May 16 19 14 19 19 19 16 15 14 19 June 17 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 13 17 July 14 10 15 15 14 13 13 15 10 15 August 14 14 17 15 14 16 13 16 13 17 September 15 21 15 18 19 18 19 18 15 21 October 21 20 19 20 17 21 19 19 17 21 November 18 20 22 22 20 22 21 21 18 22 December 20 18 22 22 25 22 22 24 18 25 Years Max 24 24 22 23 25 24 25 25 Source: AES grid point 5817 in C-NLOPB (2005). Lat 48.75°N, Long 59.17°W, 1954 to 2003.

Environmental Assessment Page 25 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Source: C-NLOPB (2005).

Figure 4.4. Wind Rose Diagrams for January, April, August, October.

Environmental Assessment Page 26 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The percentage exceedance of wind speeds at the grid point is shown in Figure 4.5. It should be noted that winds predicted from the AES40 data are representative of an areal average as well as an hourly average and that local winds may exceed these values

4.2.2. Waves

The wave climate of the Gulf of St. Lawrence is dominated by extra-tropical storms that occur primarily from October to March. However, severe storms occasionally happen at other times of the year. Storms of tropical origin may arise during early summer, but most often occur between late-August and October. Hurricanes are usually reduced to tropical storm strength or evolve into extra tropical storms by the time they reach the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Occasionally these storms retain hurricane force winds and subsequently produce high waves.

Based on mean values, the highest waves typically occur between October and January. The maximum significant wave height of 9.43 m was recorded in January. Significant wave heights greater than 5 m occur in every month except for June, July and August.

The spectral peak period of the waves varies seasonally. The typical peak period during summer is approximately four seconds. In winter, the typical peak period is approximately six to seven seconds.

4.2.3. Air and Sea Surface Temperatures

Air temperatures follow a normal annual cycle with minimum mean and maximum mean temperatures of -6.5°C in February and 16°C in August.

Sea surface temperatures also follow an annual cycle with minimum mean and maximum mean temperatures of -0.79°C in February and 15.52°C in August.

4.2.4. Visibility

Visibility is reduced primarily during January, February, and March due to snow. Reduced visibilities frequently occur as well in May, June, and July due to advection fog, which results from warm moist air flowing over cooler water.

4.3. Physical Oceanography

The Gulf of St. Lawrence is a highly stratified semi-enclosed sea which exchanges salt with the North Atlantic Ocean and receives considerable input of fresh water from the St. Lawrence River and other rivers. As a consequence, the Gulf of St. Lawrence acts like a large estuary where Coriolis effects (from force generated by the earth’s rotation), geostrophic currents, baroclinic processes, formation of eddies, and wind stress effects are all important2.

2 This section adapted and condensed from C-NLOPB (2005). Environmental Assessment Page 27 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Percentage Exceedance of 10 metre wind speed

100

January 60 February March April 50 May June July August Percentage Exceedance Percentage 40 September October 30 November December

0 >0 >2.5 >5 >7.5 >10 >12.5 >15.0 >17.5 >20.0 >22.5 >25.0 >27.5 >30.0

Wind Speed (m/s)

Source: AES grid point 5817 in C-NLOPB (2005). Lat 48.75°N, Long 59.17°W , 1954 to 2003.

Figure 4.5. Percentage Exceedance of 10 m Wind Speed.

Environmental Assessment Page 28 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

4.3.1. Currents

The circulation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is forced by such factors as tides, local and regional meteorological events, freshwater runoff, and water exchange through the Strait of Belle Isle and Cabot Strait. In general, the circulation near the surface is counter-clockwise (cyclonic), as shown on Figure 4.6.

Source: Trites 1972 in C-NLOPB (2005) (Current speed ranges are given in cm/sec).

Figure 4.6. Summer Surface Circulation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

According to El-Sabh (1976), the usual flow in the Study Area is towards the northeast along the west coast of Newfoundland. However, clockwise and anticlockwise mesoscale gyres are characteristic of the Gulf’s circulation pattern (Figure 4.7). These gyres sometimes move along with the general flow, and their presence suggests a complex ocean circulation pattern in the study area.

4.3.2. Tides

The tides in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are dominated by the semi-diurnal M2 constituent of 12.4 hours in the northeast sector of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and mixed in the centre of the Gulf (Godin 1979). The amplitudes of the M2 constituent vary between 0.46 m and 0.53 m in the Study Area. With the exception of the St. Lawrence Estuary, these are the largest tides in the Gulf due to an amphidromic point being located near the Magdalen Islands. Tidal currents seldom exceed 30 cm/sec (Koutitonsky and Bugden 1991).

Environmental Assessment Page 29 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Source: C-NLOPB (2005). Figure 4.7. Field Surface of the Geostrophic Currents in the Gulf of St. Lawrence during August.

4.3.3. Temperature and Salinity

The water in the Gulf of St Lawrence is characterized by a surface layer with low salinities and a seasonally variable thickness. The range in daily surface temperature oscillations in the Study Area is shown on Figure 4.8 for all months of the year. This range is greatest (i.e. about 16°C) in July. During the summer, this temperature variance decreases significantly with depth. Seasonal temperature variances also significantly decrease with depth as can be seen in Figure 4.9.

Source: C-NLOPB (2005). Figure 4.8. Seasonal Temperature Cycle for NAFO Unit Area 4Rc.

Environmental Assessment Page 30 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

NAFO R4 0

-50

-100

-150 Depth (m)

-200

-250

August February

-300 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Month Source: data from B.I.O. System Polygons, Hydrographic Database in C-NLOPB (2005).

Figure 4.9. Average Vertical Temperature Distribution in NAFO Division 4R in February and August.

4.3.4. Ice

The Study Area is subjected to seasonal incursions of ice, primarily sea ice, which forms in the Gulf of St Laurence. All sea ice in the Study Area is first-year ice, ranging in its un-deformed thickness from 30 to 120 cm. Total ice coverage ranges from 100% in areas north of the Study Area to 60% in the inshore areas. The pack ice-free season for the Port au Port region was determined to be May to December (C- CORE 2005).

The number of iceberg sightings in the Study Area is low. Normalized iceberg drift indicates that bergs travel down the Strait of Belle Isle and then follow the primary current along the Quebec shore of the Gulf.

Based on icebergs, the ice-free season for the Port au Port region was determined to be the entire year (C-CORE 2005). In water depths <150m off Bay of Islands and Gros Morne National Park, icebergs have been infrequently recorded between March and June during the 1960 to 2003 period.

4.4. Land Use and Resources

Land in the Study Area is used for subsistence, recreation, industry, and commerce. In addition, there are several documented archaeological sites on the peninsula. Descriptions of various land uses and resources are provided below.

Environmental Assessment Page 31 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

4.4.1. Roadways

Road access in the Study Area is provided via the provincial highway system linking various communities, as shown on Figures 4.10 and 4.11. A system of secondary roads, forestry roads, and paths also provide access to parts of the interior, as well as Shoal Point and Long Point. The road to the proposed exploration well at Shoal Point was constructed in the late 1990s. Minor grading and filling will be required to improve vehicular access to the proposed site.

Source: NLDOEC (2007b).

Figure 4.10. Road System in the Study Area.

4.4.2. Municipal and Residential Land Use

Residential areas in the Study Area are generally found along the coastline. These communities are administered as unincorporated Local Service Districts or incorporated Towns (the Towns of Cape St George, Lourdes, and Port au Port West - Aguathuna - Felix Cove).

There is one active municipal waste disposal site on the peninsula, located near Lourdes and West Bay. In addition, there are a few older sites: one near Ship Cove which has not been used for over twenty years and which was never officially closed. Another site exists at Lower Cove, which was closed about two years ago (B. Wright, NLDGS, pers. comm.). The location of the Lourdes and Ship Cove sites, municipal boundaries, road network, and infilling limits are shown on Figure 4.11.

Environmental Assessment Page 32 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 4.11. Town Boundaries, Water Supplies, Road System, Waste Management Sites, and Infilling Limits.

Environmental Assessment Page 33 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

There are several protected water supplies and wellheads on the peninsula in addition to unprotected potable water supplies. These are also shown on Figure 4.11.

4.4.3. Agricultural Land Use

Most of the Study Area, with the exception of the interior portion of the peninsula, is designated as an Agricultural Development Area by the Department of Natural Resources; however, this designation is only for administrative purposes and none of the crown land is considered significant from an agricultural perspective (I. Bell, NLDNR, pers. comm.).

Minor agricultural activity is found in the Study Area. There is an alpaca and llama farm in Felix Cove, and vegetable farm in Black Duck Brook. A regional pasture exists near the community of West Bay which is owned and operated by the Port au Port Economic Development Association. Another regional pasture exists on Long Point. Smaller pastures exist within various communities of the peninsula, as do some sheep and cattle farms (JW 2006). Figure 4.12 shows the location of regional pastures on the Port au Port Peninsula.

4.4.4. Recreational Land Use

4.4.4.1. Hunting and Trapping

The Study Area represents Moose and Black Bear Management Areas #43 and part of #6. The hunting season for moose is from September 10 through December 10 each year. There is no caribou management area in the Study Area.

4.4.4.2. Parks and Natural Areas

There are a number of parks and natural areas in Newfoundland and Labrador that are protected by federal or provincial legislation. Those under provincial jurisdiction include: wilderness, ecological, wildlife, and public reserves; and provincial and wildlife parks. Those under federal jurisdiction include: national parks, national historic sites, and migratory bird sanctuaries.

There are no special areas, as listed above, in the Study Area that are protected by either federal or provincial legislation (P. Taylor, NLDOEC, pers. comm.); however, there are two private parks and lookouts in the area. Piccadilly Park, owned and operated by the Port au Port Economic Development Association is located at South Head on the western shore of Piccadilly Bay and is used for camping. At Cape St George there exists a small park, which is sometimes used for camping, and walking trails that follow the coastline. The locations of these parks are shown on Figure 4.12.

4.4.5. Historic Resources

There are a number of archaeological sites in the Study Area that provide evidence of early European, Palaeoeskimo, and Recent Indian presence. These sites are shown on Figure 4.12 and include the following (K. Reynolds, NLDTRC, pers. comm.):

Environmental Assessment Page 34 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 4.12. Locations of Regional Pastureland, Private Parks, Archaeological Sites, and Silviculture Sites in the Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 35 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

a 19th to 20th century former fishing community; a wooden shipwreck of unknown age and origin; Recent Indian flakes, dating 1,000 to 1,500 AD; aircraft wreckage originating from the former Ernest Harmon Air Force Base, dating 1953; hearths and refuse pits associated with late Palaeoeskimo and Recent Indian cultures, dating about 1,300-1,350 and 790 years before present; late Paleoeskimo or Recent Indian chert beds and boulders; 18th to 20th century European foundations and garden enclosures; Palaeoeskimo artifacts; several sites containing artifacts, or evidence of work/habitation areas of either Palaeoeskimo, Recent Indian, and/or European cultures.

4.4.6. Industrial Land Use

4.4.6.1. Timber Harvesting

Most of the Study Area is characterized as being “Productive Forest Area”, land that is capable of producing at least 35 cubic meters per hectare (m³/ha) at rotation. The largest part of this area is owned by the crown, with minor areas of private ownership (NLDOEC 2007). Most timber harvesting activities took place on the Port au Port Peninsula during the 1990s, although limited harvesting in the area has taken place since (JW 2006).

The Study Area falls within Forestry District No. 14. Currently no pulp and paper firms have tenure in the Study Area. Kruger once owned a large “Reid Lot” to the south of Port au Port Bay, but this was sold to the crown in 1994.

The province manages a number of silviculture sites, as shown on Figure 4.12 (B. English, pers. comm.).

4.4.6.2. Mining, Quarrying, and Mineral Exploration

Located at Lower Cove on the Port au Port Peninsula, Atlantic Minerals Limited (AML) operates limestone and dolomite quarries, a modern two million tonne-per-year processing plant and deepwater shiploading facilities. The chemical-grade high-calcium limestone and chemical-grade dolomite are sold to the iron ore industry in Labrador West and Quebec, and are exported for various chemical/industrial uses (NLDNR 2007).

AML owns 2,900 acres of land and has an additional 13,000 acres of Licensed Claims on the Port au Port Peninsula. AML has over a billion metric tonnes of reserves, including proven reserves of over 50 million metric tonnes of chemical grade high calcium limestone and 70 million metric tonnes of chemical grade dolomite. The remaining reserves are suitable for construction aggregate (ALM 2007).

Environmental Assessment Page 36 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Total shipments of limestone and dolomite from Lower Cove were forecasted to increase from approximately 1.6 million tonnes in 2006 to 2.0 million tonnes in 2007. The company seasonally employs approximately 90 people.

AML’s activities in Lower Cove consist of drilling, blasting, and crushing followed by grading, stockpiling, and loading of finished product onto marine vessels by loading conveyors, with a capability of loading 3,000 tonnes/hr into Panamax-class vessels (AML 2007).

In addition to AML’s operation, there are several other active quarries throughout the Study Area which produce mainly sand and gravel construction aggregate (F. Kirby, NLDNR, pers. comm.).

No other active mines exist in the Study Area; however, there are a number of mineral claims that cover a significant portion of the peninsula where exploration activities may occur. In addition, there is an area to the west of Piccadilly Bay and another located northeast of the isthmus that comprise “Fee Simple Mining Leases”. The holders of these leases retain mineral and oil & gas rights in perpetuity within the area, subject to certain conditions (K. Andrews, NLDNR, pers. comm.). Figure 4.13 shows various areas that are used as quarry and mine sites, staked as mineral claims, or are defined fee-simple mining lease areas.

4.4.6.3. Oil & Gas Exploration

Since the early 1900s the occurrence of oil seeps in the Study Area has provoked interest in its oil and gas resources. In 1995 Hunt Oil drilled PAP#1 at Garden Hill South. Since then, in 2001/02 Canadian Imperial Venture Corporation performed further work in the area, drilling a new well, and two sidetracks to the existing PAP#1 well. In addition, several organizations have explored for oil and gas in the area, both onshore and offshore.

Over the past several months PDIP has worked at Garden Hill South where, in its capacity as operator, the company has re-entered the PAP#1-ST#2 well and carried out well testing operations. In addition, there are three other oil wells that have been drilled in recent years at Long Point, Shoal Point, and Campbells Cove. Their locations are all shown on Figure 4.14.

Although it currently holds no lease in the area, TekOil and Gas Corporation, a Texas-based exploration and production company, is proposing to conduct a three-dimensional onshore to offshore seismic survey in the western part of the Port au Port Peninsula between Cape St George and Lourdes, as shown on Figure 4.14 (JW 2006). This area also coincides with the Proponent’s planned onshore geophysical survey, which is to be conducted in the future.

Environmental Assessment Page 37 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Source: NL Land Use Atlas.

Figure 4.13. Mines, Quarries, Mineral Claims, and Fee Simple Mining Leases in the Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 38 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 4.14. TekOil’s Proposed 3D Seismic Survey and Location of Oil Wells Recently Drilled on the Port au Port Peninsula.

Environmental Assessment Page 39 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

5.0 Biological Environment

An ecosystem is an inter-related complex of physical, chemical, geological, and biological components that can be defined at many different scales from a relatively small area that may only contain one habitat type to a relatively large regional area ecosystem with numerous habitat types. This section presents an overview of the Study Area ecosystems, both marine and terrestrial, with emphasis on Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) which are ecologically and/or commercially important and have potential to interact with the Project. The VEC approach to environmental assessment is detailed in Section 6.0. The VECs used in this EA include marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat, marine macroinvertebrates/fish, commercial fisheries, marine-associated birds, marine mammals and sea turtles, rare terrestrial vegetation, freshwater fish habitat and fish, and species at risk. The VECs and/or their respective groups are discussed in this section.

The Study Area includes the Port au Port Peninsula as well as marine areas with water depths ranging from the intertidal zone to 200 m (Figure 5.1). The Project Area includes some of the coastal terrestrial region of the northern Port au Port Peninsula (including Shoal Point and Long Point) and the eastern shore of Port au Port Bay, and marine areas with depths ranging from the intertidal zone to between 50 and 100 m (Figure 5.1).

5.1. Ecosystems

As already indicated, two general ecosystem types will be considered in both the Study Area and the Project Area; the marine ecosystem and the terrestrial ecosystem. The associated VECs will be described in each section.

5.1.1. Marine Ecosystem

The marine biological environment within the Study Area is diverse and its description in this environmental assessment is presented by its various major components.

5.1.1.1. Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat

Coastal algal communities (including associated invertebrates), plankton and benthic invertebrates occurring within the marine portion of the Study Area are discussed in the Western Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (C-NLOPB 2005, Sections 3.1 to 3.3). The algae, zooplankton and benthic invertebrates are the primary biotic components of macroinvertebrate/fish habitat.

Environmental Assessment Page 40 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 5.1. Study Area Bathymetry.

Environmental Assessment Page 41 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Demersal and Pelagic Habitat

Warm summer seawater temperatures, due primarily to the existence of an inshore, northerly flowing water current, characterize the west coast of Newfoundland. The intertidal and shallow subtidal of the open coast is scoured by ice driven ashore by prevailing westerly winds, resulting in these zones being dominated by annual algal species. Luxuriant growth of perennials (e.g., Fucus, Ascophyllum, Chondrus) occurs only locally in more sheltered sites where there is periodic removal by ice. There is limited variability in estuarine communities occurring around the island of Newfoundland. Substrate type tends to be the major factor affecting community differences (South 1983).

Plankton refers to free-floating organisms that form the basis of the pelagic ecosystem. Members of this group of organisms include bacteria, fungi, phytoplankton (plants), zooplankton (small invertebrates), macro invertebrate eggs and larvae, and ichthyoplankton (eggs and larvae of fish). In simplest terms, the phytoplankton (e.g., diatoms) produces carbon through the utilization of sunlight and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon). This process is called primary production. Herbaceous zooplankton (e.g., calanoid copepods, the dominant component of Northwest Atlantic zooplankton) feed on phytoplankton. This growth process is called secondary production. The herbivores are eaten by predators (i.e., tertiary production) such as predacious zooplankton (e.g., chaetognaths, jellyfish) which in turn are consumed by higher predators such as fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. This food web also links to the ecosystem on the seabed (the benthos, see below) through bacterial degradation processes, dissolved and particulate carbon, and direct predation (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 3.2).

Plankton production is important because areas of enhanced production and/or biomass tend to be congregation areas for fish, seabirds, marine mammals, and possibly sea turtles. Production is enhanced in areas of bottom upwelling where nutrient-rich bottom water is brought to the surface by a combination of bottom topography, wind and currents. An example of a well-known area of bottom upwelling is the anchovy fishery off the west coast of South America. Frontal areas are where two dissimilar water masses meet to create lines of convergence and often concentrate plankton and predators alike. A well-known example of this phenomenon is the semi-permanent front between waters of Gulf Stream origin and waters of Labrador Current origin. The two physical processes (upwelling and fronts) may be found together in varying degrees, particularly in coastal areas (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 3.2).

More details of plankton in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are provided in the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 3.2).

Benthic Habitat

Benthic invertebrates are important to consider because they are potentially affected by disturbances to the seabed. They form an important link to higher trophic levels such as fish, birds and mammals (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 3.3).

Environmental Assessment Page 42 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Several literature reviews of coastal benthic resources of Newfoundland and Labrador are available (MacLaren 1977; South et al. 1979; Campbell and Sutterlin 1981; Thompson and Aggett 1981; Barrie et al. 1984; LeDrew 1984; Hardy 1985; Gilkinson 1986). In a literature review for marine benthic molluscs in the Newfoundland and Labrador waters, Gilkinson (1986) cites 147 references, noting that while several species have been studied rather intensively, most species have received only very cursory attention. These reviews highlight large gaps in the current knowledge of benthic ecosystems of coastal and offshore waters in the Newfoundland-Labrador region (Coady and Maidment 1984; Gilkinson 1986), with the exception of commercially important species such as the Atlantic sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus and the common blue mussel Mytilus edulis. A number of zoobenthic inventories have been compiled such as the Offshore Labrador Biological Studies program (OLABS) (Barrie and Browne 1980; Barrie et al. 1984) and others (Denbeste and McCart 1979; Gilbert et al. 1982), with studies targeted at specific coastal areas in Labrador.

For coastal Newfoundland waters, the majority of benthic community composition data exist as a result of EIS-support studies associated with offshore exploration for oil and gas (Barrie et al. 1980; Hutcheson et al. 1981; Hardy 1984) or data associated with research conducted at Memorial University or DFO. While benthic research in many cases has been intensive, the studies tend to be targeted to specific coastal areas or are concentrated in restricted time periods. In general, much of the coastline fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador remains to be inventoried (Gilkinson 1986) and there are considerable data gaps for certain geographic regions and deep-sea environments such as the continental margin and slope environments. Surveys that assess benthic community composition rather than species- specific studies are limited for this region.

Catto et al. (1999) presented intertidal biological shoreline units that were based on a scheme developed for the West Coast Newfoundland Oil Spill Sensitivity Atlas (Dempsey et al. 1995). These shoreline units have been designated on the basis of key biological indicators. They are as follow:

• Saltmarsh (fine substrate) • Eelgrass (Zostera) (fine substrate) • Fucus anceps Surf Zone (coarse substrate) • Seabird-dominated Shores (coarse substrate) • Ascophyllum Rockweed Shores (coarse substrate) • Capelin Spawning Beaches (coarse substrate) • Temporary Intertidal Communities (coarse substrate) • Barachois Estuaries (fine substrate) • Vertical Biological Zones (coarse substrate) • Rockweed Platforms (coarse substrate) • Periwinkle Shores (coarse substrate)

Benthic data from the Grand Banks are of some relevance to those parts of the Study Area with similar physical conditions (e.g., substrate depth, etc.). Generally, data from studies conducted on the continental shelf of the Grand Banks suggest the diversity of benthic communities in this area is high. Polychaetes, crustaceans, echinoderms and molluscs were the dominant biota of these communities.

Environmental Assessment Page 43 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Small-scale variations in species distributions with changing sediment type were also observed. While the results of the Grand Banks studies may not closely reflect the biota comprising the subtidal communities in the Study Area, the community variability as it relates to substrate type and depth is likely similar in the Study Area.

Tropical shallow-water corals have been well studied and are noted for their high diversity. It is less well known, however, that corals (e.g., scleractinians and gorgonians) are widespread in cold temperate waters (Mortensen et al. 2006), and have similarly high faunal assemblages associated with coral reefs constituting high biodiversity habitats (Jensen and Frederiksen 1992; Mortensen 2001).

Corals are typically abundant on hard substratum including cobbles and large boulders and in high current areas (Tendal 1992). Since these conditions do occur within the Study Area, vulnerable coral- assemblage communities may be present in the Study Area.

5.1.1.2. Invertebrates/Fish

A diverse group of marine macroinvertebrates and fish occur within the Study Area. The following subsections describe numerous species that are commercially and/or ecologically important. The Study Area occurs in the southeastern portion of Unit Area 4Rc, a NAFO area to which frequent referrals are made in the following sections.

Profiles of Commercially-Important Species

American Lobster

Lobsters (Homarus americanus) are distributed nearshore around the island of Newfoundland, including the west coast of Newfoundland. Lobster populations tend to be quite localized in nature. The major lobster life history events (i.e., molting, spawning, larval hatching) typically occur between mid-summer and early fall, following the spring fishery (DFO 2006a). Mating between male and female American lobsters usually occurs immediately following the female’s shedding of her old shell (molting or ecdysis) during the summer months (Aiken and Waddy 1980). The sperm is stored in a receptacle on the underside of the female’s body and carried by the female until she spawns the following year. At that time, the eggs are pushed from the ovaries and fertilized as they pass through the sperm receptacle. The fertilized eggs are extruded and attached to long hairs on the female’s pleopods.

The female carries the embryos until the following summer when the pre-larvae hatch. They remain attached until they molt into the first larval stage within 24 hours of hatching (Charmantier et al. 1991). Hatching can occur over a wide range of temperatures during the May to July period on the Atlantic coast of North America (Ennis 1995). Hatching generally begins around 10 to 15 ºC and is most intense at 20 ºC (Hughes and Matthiessen 1962). The female then releases the first stage larvae by fanning her pleopods. The larvae may be released over a period of time from a few days to a few weeks. There is normally a two-year period between mating and pre-larval hatch (i.e., a two-year reproductive cycle) (Ennis 1995).

Environmental Assessment Page 44 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The three distinct larval stages are planktonic, generally found in the upper 2 to 3 m of the water column during a two to eight-week period (Hudon et al. 1986) Field studies have suggested that the maximum depth of decapod larval vertical migration is related to the depth of the thermocline (Harding et al. 1987). During this time, lobster larvae are passive drifters so their gross movements are largely controlled by the direction of the wind and water currents. Both are generally onshore during the regular time of larval release.

Settling postlarval lobster typically prefer inshore habitat with gravel/cobble substrate (Palma et al. 1999) and kelp cover. During their study in the Gulf of Maine, Palma et al. (1999) observed a conspicuous lack of newly settled lobsters on adjacent finer-sediment substrata. However, lobsters more than 1 year old were found on the finer-sediment substrata. In terms of settlement depth, newly settled lobsters were found on collectors at five and 10 m but not at 20 m.

During consultations with fishermen in July 2005 (C-NLOPB 2005, Appendix 1), the inshore area located between outer Port au Port Bay and Shag Island (northeastern part of Project Area) was identified as prime lobster spawning area (Figure 5.2). Fishermen indicated that that lobster fishing grounds in the area between Long Point (outer Port au Port Bay) and Shag Island (northeastern part of Project Area) generally yield very large females. Fishers also noted lobster nursery areas near Shoal Point (Project Area) and Outer Bay of Islands above North Head (north of Study Area). This latter area is presently closed to the lobster fishery as a means of conservation and is defined by the following corner coordinates (UTM Zone 21, NAD83):

409914E, 5464170N 409475E, 5464486N 409896E, 5465561N 410295E, 5465245N

Increases in lobster landings were reported in Unit Area 4Rc in 2001 and 2002. However, these landings are still low compared to those of the early 1990s. Fishermen consulted in July 2005 identified the Port au Port Bay region as having both male and female lobsters larger than those in other areas along the coast. The lobster is an important commercial species throughout the nearshore area in the Study Area, particularly within the Project Area

Snow Crab

Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) is a decapod crustacean that occurs over a broad depth range (50 to 1,300 m) in the Northwest Atlantic. The distribution of this decapod in waters off Newfoundland and southern Labrador is widespread but the stock structure remains unclear. Snow crabs have a tendency to prefer water temperatures ranging between –1.0 and 4.0ºC. Large snow crabs (≥95-mm carapace width or CW) occur primarily on soft bottoms (mud or mud-sand) (DFO 2006b), particularly in water depths of 200 to 500 m. Small snow crabs appear to be most common on relatively hard substrates (DFO 2006b). Mating generally occurs during the early spring and the females subsequently carry the fertilized eggs for about two years. Large numbers of sexually paired snow crabs have been observed in

Environmental Assessment Page 45 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 5.2. Macroinvertebrate and Fish Spawning Areas, Marine-associated Bird Breeding Colonies, and Rare Plant Areas/Associated Habitat in the Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 46 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

relatively shallow water (10 to 40 m) during late April/early May at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland (Taylor et al. 1985; Hooper 1986; Ennis et al. 1990). The pairs were found in algal covered boulder slopes less than one kilometre away from areas of depth >100 m. Level sand or mud substrates supported lower densities of paired snow crab but were the main sites where feeding was observed. The larvae hatch in late spring or early summer, and then remain in the water column for 12 to 15 weeks before settling on the bottom (DFO 2006b).

Comeau et al. (1998) studied a relatively unexploited stock in Bonne Bay, Newfoundland. In that study, relative abundance of early benthic to commercial-size individuals suggested that small immature crabs migrate from shallow rocky areas to deep muddy bottom areas. The patchy spatial distribution observed for the snow crab in Bonne Bay appeared to be determined more by substrate and intraspecific factors than by depth. Seasonal movements to shallow waters by larger crabs were related to density- and temperature-dependent factors associated with the reproductive and growth cycle.

Snow crab typically feed on fish, clams, polychaete worms, brittle stars, shrimp and crustaceans, including smaller snow crab. Hooper (1986) observed the feeding behaviour of sexually paired snow crabs in shallow water at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland during April and May. The most favoured natural prey types of the snow crab were polychaetes, ophiuroids and bivalves although the most frequently eaten food was fish used as lobster bait.

It is not possible to infer trends in exploitable biomass of snow crab in the Study Area from commercial fishery data because of recent changes in the spatial distribution of fishing effort. Additionally, fishery independent data are insufficient to assess resource status (DFO 2006b)

During recent years, a large proportion of snow crab catches on the west coast of Newfoundland have occurred in Unit Area 4Rc. In 2005, the crab fishery remained strong in both inshore and offshore areas in the region of Bay of Islands (north of the Study Area) (DFO 2006b).

Northern Shrimp

Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) mating takes place in the fall and the females carry the fertilized eggs for about eight months (September to April). Larvae are pelagic upon hatching in the spring but eventually settle to the bottom by late summer. Shrimp migrations tend to be associated with breeding (berried females move into shallower waters in winter) and feeding (upward movement in water column at night to get to plankton). Northern shrimp are generally found in areas with water depths ranging between 150 and 350 m (DFO 2007a).

Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence shrimp diet composition has remained relatively constant during the past twenty to twenty-five years although proportions of the main constituents have shifted slightly. Detritus, small zooplankton (e.g., copepods), large zooplankton (e.g., euphausiids, chaetognaths, amphipods, jellyfish, mysids, tunicates and ichthyoplankton) and phytoplankton have been the primary diet items during that time. During the early 2000s, the proportion of small zooplankton in the shrimp diet increased (Savenkoff et al. 2006a).

Environmental Assessment Page 47 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

During the mid-1990s, with decreases in cod (Gadus morhua) and redfish (Sebastes spp.) biomass in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, total predation on shrimp decreased. Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) became the primary predator of shrimp. During the early 2000s, total predation on shrimp increased, primarily because of small Greenland halibut (Savenkoff et al. 2006a).

Most of the shrimp catches in the Study Area are made in Unit Area 4Rc. Division 4R falls within the Gulf of St. Lawrence shrimp fishing area 8, otherwise known as Esquiman. Biomass indices indicate an increasing trend in Esquiman since 2002 while the Estuary and the other two areas of the Gulf show decreasing trends (DFO 2007a).

Iceland Scallop

Iceland scallop (Chlamys islandicus) typically occur in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in water depths ranging from 20 to 60 m on substrates of gravel, shell and/or rock. Spawning usually occurs in late summer and hatched larvae remain in the water column for approximately five weeks before settlement. Larvae tend to be concentrated in the upper 10 m of the water column, exhibiting some diel vertical migration whereby they move closer to surface at night (JW 2007).

Atlantic Cod

Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence cod (Gadus morhua) (NAFO Divisions 3Pn and 4RS) undertake extensive migrations. In winter, they aggregate off southwestern and southern Newfoundland (Unit Area 4Rd) at depths of more than 400 m (Castonguay et al. 1999). In April/May, they move towards the Port au Port Peninsula (Unit Areas 4Rcd) where spawning commences (DFO 2007b; Ouellet et al. 1997). In 2002, a new zone called the Cape St. George Cod Spawning Area was established off the west coast of Port au Port Peninsula (Figure 5.2). The designated area is closed to all groundfish fishing between April 1 and June 15, the period during which cod spawn in the area (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 3.2). The Cape St. George Cod Spawning Area is currently defined by the following corner coordinates (UTM Zone 21, NAD83):

326792E, 5346719N 329911E, 5448605N 281320E, 5450317N 277308E, 5348439N

Surveys of inshore waters between Port au Port Bay and Bonne Bay (northern Study Area and north of Study Area) in July 2004 and July 2005 indicated that cod eggs and larvae were among the most notable fish eggs and larvae collected (Grégoire et al. 2005; Grégoire et al. 2006a,b).

During summer, the cod continue their migration and disperse towards the coastal zones along the west coast of Newfoundland and towards Quebec’s Middle and Lower North Shore. This migration towards the coastal regions appears to be associated with warmer water and the presence of capelin, the primary prey of the cod (DFO 2007b).

Environmental Assessment Page 48 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The main prey items of small cod in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s were large zooplankton, capelin, and shrimp. By the early 2000s, capelin had been replaced by planktivorous small pelagic feeders, primarily Atlantic herring. Large cod showed a more significant shift in diet between the mid-1980s and the early 2000s. Capelin, redfish, and large zooplankton were the dominant prey items of large cod in the mid-1980s, with fish comprising 86% of the diet. In the mid-1990s, the proportion of fish in the diet had fallen to 59% with small crabs and shrimp comprising larger proportions. By the early 2000s, fish species comprised only 32% of the diet of large cod in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Large zooplankton represented the largest proportion of the diet (Savenkoff et al. 2006b).

The main predators of small cod in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence between the mid-1980s and the early 2000s included seal, cetaceans, and large cod. Seals were the dominant predator of large cod during the same time (Savenkoff 2006b).

According to DFO, the abundance and spawning stock biomass of the northern Gulf stock remain low despite that since 1997, the commercial fishery has been conducted by fixed gears only (longlines, gill nets and handlines) (Fréchet et al. 2003). The spawning stock biomass increased between 1994 and 1999 but subsequently declined between 2000 and 2002. Slight increases in estimated biomass of 3+ year-old and mature individuals have been seen since 2003 (DFO 2007b). The cod fishery was under moratorium in 2003 and then re-opened under small quotas in 2004. The 2004 cod catches were distributed primarily to the north of the Study Area, from nearshore to the extreme offshore.

Atlantic Mackerel

The Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) is a pelagic fish common to temperate waters of the open sea and is one of the most active and migratory of fishes. Not having a swim bladder, the Atlantic mackerel must swim continually in order to maintain hydrostatic balance. In winter, this species occurs outside of the Gulf of St. Lawrence but in spring and summer, it migrates to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to spawn in the Magdalen Shallows (outside of the Study Area). Spawning typically occurs between mid- June and mid-July in open water, resulting in a concentration of fertilized eggs in the upper 10 m of the water column. The largest concentrations of eggs are found in waters west of the Magdalen Islands. Larval hatching generally occurs within five to seven days at water temperatures of 11 to 14ºC (Scott and Scott 1988; DFO 2006c). Surveys of inshore waters between Port au Port Bay and Bonne Bay (northern Study Area and north of Study Area) in July 2004 and July 2005 indicated that mackerel eggs larvae were among the most notable fish eggs collected (Grégoire et al. 2005; Grégoire et al. 2006a,b).

Data collected in the mid-1980s, mid-1990s and early 2000s indicated that small and large zooplankton were the dominant prey of Atlantic mackerel in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, particularly in the mid-1980s. In the mid-1990s, capelin constituted 15% of the mackerel diet but by the early 2000s, capelin accounted for only 4% of the diet. Northern shrimp had become an important prey of mackerel by the early 2000s (14%). These data also indicated that cetaceans, large cod and large demersals were the primary predators of Atlantic mackerel in the mid-1980s but by the mid-1990s and early 2000s, cetaceans appeared to be the only primary predator group (DFO 2006c).

Environmental Assessment Page 49 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The purse seine fishery for mackerel in 4R has grown substantially during recent years. In 2003 and 2004, landings of 4R catches have been 3 to 4 times the 1990 to 2003 average (DFO 2005). In 2004, Atlantic mackerel landings on the west coast of Newfoundland were highest in 4Rc (11,426 t) and 4Rd (7,492 t) (Grégoire et Savenkoff 2005). Highest catches of mackerel in the Study Area typically occur in September and October. Mackerel catches commonly occur in the nearshore areas of northern 4Rc (DFO 2005).

Atlantic Herring

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus harengus) is primarily pelagic and often schools, particularly just prior to spawning. Along the Canadian coast, Atlantic herring may spawn in any month between April and October, but spawning is concentrated in May (spring spawners) and September (fall spawners) (Ahrens 1993).

Atlantic herring are demersal spawners depositing their adhesive eggs on stable bottom substrates (Scott and Scott 1988; Reid et al. 1999). Spawning may occur in offshore waters (e.g., Georges Bank) at depths of 40 to 80 m; however, most Atlantic herring stocks spawn in shallow (<20 m) coastal waters, and it appears that in the Newfoundland region Atlantic herring spawn in coastal waters only. In the case of coastal spawning, spring spawning generally takes place in shallower waters than fall spawning. For example, in coastal waters in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Tibbo et al. (1963) suggested that spring spawning largely takes place in waters four to six m deep while fall spawning takes place at depths of 18 to 22 metres. Tibbo (1956) also adds that the main spawning areas are located at the heads of the various bays and deepwater inlets around insular Newfoundland. In their review of Atlantic herring spawning grounds in the Northwest Atlantic, Reid et al. (1999) report that spawning on stable substrates in shallow waters close to shore insures that the eggs will be exposed to well-mixed water, and tidal currents averaging .75 to 1.5 m/sec have been recorded in the area of Atlantic herring spawning beds. These high-energy environments provide aeration and reduce siltation and accumulation of metabolites (Reid et al. 1999). Recently hatched Atlantic herring larvae are pelagic. The duration of the larval stage of fall spawned herring is more extensive (i.e., lasts through the winter months) than spring spawned herring. Some larvae are retained in tidally energetic areas near the spawning site for several months after hatching, while other larvae are dispersed soon after hatching and drift with residual currents. A survey of inshore waters between Port au Port Bay and Bonne Bay (northern Study Area and north of Study Area) in July 2004 indicated that herring larvae were among the most notable fish larvae collected (Grégoire et al. 2005; Grégoire et al. 2006a).

The last acoustic survey intended to measure the abundance of the two herring stocks of the west coast of Newfoundland was conducted in the fall of 2002. Bottom trawl surveys conducted annually in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence regularly report herring by-catch and these data are used to calculate a dispersion index. This index has shown a considerable increase between 1998 and 2001, followed by a drop in 2003 and 2004 and slight increase in 2005. However, there is an absence of information regarding the size of the two herring spawning stocks on the west coast of Newfoundland, and the number, locations and sizes of the spawning grounds (DFO 2006d).

Environmental Assessment Page 50 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Large herring catches are made in the Study Area, primarily with purse seiners. Gill nets are also used after the seine fishery. In 2005, some of the most significant herring landings on the west coast of Newfoundland occurred in the Study Area (Unit Areas 4Rc) (DFO 2006d). Most of the 1995-2005 herring catches in Unit Area 4Rc occurred during the September to November period. Herring catches commonly occur in the northern nearshore areas of Unit Area 4Rc.

Capelin

Capelin (Mallotus villosus) overwinters in offshore waters, move shoreward in early spring to spawn on beaches throughout the region in the spring-summer, and return to offshore waters in autumn. A combination of factors determines beach suitability as well as when and where beach spawning will occur, these include temperature, substrate type, tidal phase, and light conditions (Templeman 1948). Generally, where substrate conditions are suitable (see below), spawning beaches may be found in exposed, moderately exposed, and sheltered locations throughout the region. Beach spawning is demersal with the eggs being deposited in the intertidal zone. However, occurrence of egg masses indicate that subtidal spawning occurs to depths ranging from approximately one to 37 m and up to approximately 400 m from shore in years and areas where water temperatures on the beaches exceeds the preferred spawning temperatures (Templeman 1948). In the Newfoundland region beach spawning may occur over a wide range of temperatures from 2.5 to 10.8° C (Frank and Leggett 1981). Subtidal spawning is assumed to be variable from year-to-year.

The size of the substrate on the beach will determine the suitability of the beach for spawning with capelin usually preferring gravel five to 15 mm in diameter (Templeman 1948). When the most favoured substrate is occupied, or not available because of tidal conditions beach spawning capelin may spawn on sand less than 2 mm in diameter or on larger gravel up to 25 mm in diameter (Templeman 1948). This pelagic does not spawn on larger substrates or mud (Templeman 1948). However, it appears that eggs may incidentally adhere to rocks, large boulders, and macroalgae when they are present among preferred substrates (Templeman 1948). Subtidal spawning inshore appears to be predominantly on sand (Templeman 1948).

Spawning occurs with one or two males accompanying a female as they are carried onto the beach by an incoming wave. They swim up the beach as far as possible, where they are temporarily stranded as the wave recedes. Eggs and sperm are shed on the beach surface, then the fish return to the water on the next series of waves. Fertilized eggs adhere to the substrate while wave and tidal action distributes the eggs over the breadth of the intertidal zone to depths of 15 cm or more below the beach surface. The eggs develop and hatch in the beach substrate. Juvenile capelin are found in bays surrounding insular Newfoundland; however, most larvae are rapidly carried out of the bays and inshore areas by surface currents.

Surveys of inshore waters between Port au Port Bay and Bonne Bay (northern Study Area and north of Study Area) in July 2004 and July 2005 indicated that capelin larvae were among the most notable fish larvae collected (Grégoire et al. 2005; Grégoire et al. 2006a,b).

Environmental Assessment Page 51 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Capelin have been principal prey species in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence marine ecosystem during the past twenty years (DFO 2006e). While large cod and redfish were the dominant predators of capelin in the mid-1980s, cetaceans and seals became the dominant predators in the mid-1990s and early 2000s. West coast Newfoundland capelin have shown a recent size increase but are still smaller than those observed in 1980s. The dispersion index for this species in the estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence has shown an upward trend since 1990. However, a drop in dispersion has been measured since 2004 in Division 4R (west coast of Newfoundland, including the Study Area) (DFO 2006e).

The capelin fishery is primarily a purse seine fishery along with some catches by trap. The most intensive capelin fishery in 4R occurs in June and July. The purse seine fishery typically occurs near the stretch of coast between Bonne Bay and Port au Port (Unit Area 4Rc). Between 2000 and 2004, the most highly concentrated capelin catches occurred in Port au Port Bay and between Bay of Islands and Bonne Bay (DFO 2006e), north of the Study Area.

Redfish

Redfish (Sebastes spp.) typically occur in cool waters (3.0 to 8.0ºC) along the slopes of fishing banks and deep channels in depths of 100 to 700 m. In the western Atlantic, redfish species range from Baffin Island in the north to the waters off New Jersey in the south. The three redfish species that occur in the Northwest Atlantic include Sebastes mentella, S. fasciatus, and S. marinus. The latter species is relatively uncommon except in the area of the Flemish Cap so for the purposes of this assessment, only S. mentella and S. fasciatus will be considered. S. mentella is typically distributed deeper than S. fasciatus (Gascon 2003).

Redfish are described as lecithotrophic viviparous with internal fertilization. Mating occurs in the fall months and the larvae subsequently hatch from the eggs inside the female. The larvae feed exclusively on energy stored in the yolk, develop inside the female and eventually are released as young fish sometime between April and July (Gascon 2003; Ollerhead et al. 2004). Based on DFO research vessel survey data collected from 1995 to 2002, Ollerhead et al. (2004) indicated the peak of redfish spawning to be in April/May, with some spawning occurring as late as July. Release of the young occurs in NAFO Subdivisions 3Ps and 4Vn, particularly along the western slope of the St. Pierre Bank, in the deeper waters of the Laurentian Channel, and along the slope region of southern St. Pierre Bank to south of Green Bank (JW 2003; Ollerhead et al. 2004).

The live young aggregate in the surface waters at night but during the day they are found in or below the thermocline at a depth of 10 to 20-m (Fortier and Villeneuve 1996 in JW 2003). Smaller redfish often inhabit shallower waters while the larger redfish occur at greater depths (McKone and LeGrow 1984 in JW 2003). Redfish are pelagic predators, feeding primarily on copepods, amphipods, and shrimp (Rodriguez-Marin et al. 1994 in JW 2003), and sometimes on capelin (Frank et al. 1996 in JW 2003).

Redfish have large swimbladders and exhibit semi-pelagic shoaling behaviour. Gauthier and Rose (in Gascon 2003) reported that redfish perform regular diel vertical migrations. They exhibited consistent patterns of vertical migration in winter, spring and summer that appeared to be limited by hydrostatic

Environmental Assessment Page 52 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

pressure. Gauthier and Rose (in Gascon 2003) found that the hydrostatic pressure at the upper range of the vertical migration was never less than 67% of the pressure at the bottom. This vertical migration seemed to be a foraging strategy used to follow the movement of their euphausiid prey. The authors reported that redfish were on or near bottom during the day and higher up in the water column at night. Gascon (2003) indicated that the migration and movement patterns of redfish in the Laurentian Channel are poorly understood.

One of the currently identified concentrations of Gulf redfish is located in the Cabot Strait area in NAFO Division 4R (i.e., southern Unit Area 4Rd) (DFO 2004a).

Greenland Halibut

The Greenland halibut (turbot) (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) is a deepwater flatfish species that occurs in water temperatures ranging between –0.5 to 6.0ºC but appears to have a preference for temperatures of 0 to 4.5ºC. In the Northwest Atlantic off northeastern Newfoundland and southern Labrador, these fish are normally caught at depths exceeding 450 m. Reported depths of capture range from 90 to 1,600 m. The larger individuals tend to occur in the deeper parts of its vertical distribution. Unlike many flatfishes, the Greenland halibut spends considerable time in the pelagic zone (Scott and Scott 1988).

These halibut are believed to spawn in Davis Strait during the winter and early spring at depths ranging from 650 to 1,000 m. They are also thought to spawn in the Laurentian Channel and the Gulf of St. Lawrence during the winter. The large fertilized eggs of this species (4.0 to 5.0-mm diameter) are benthic but the hatched young move upwards in the water column and remain at about 30 m below surface until they attain an approximate length of 70 mm. As they grow, the young fish move downward in the water column and are transported by the currents in the Davis Strait southward to the continental shelf and slopes of Labrador and Newfoundland (Scott and Scott 1988). This flatfish is typically found in the channels of the Gulf of St. Lawrence at depths ranging from 130 to 500 m. Based on genetic research, there are indications that the Gulf of St. Lawrence stock of Greenland halibut may complete its entire life cycle within the Gulf (DFO 2006f). Spawning typically takes place during winter between January and March.

Greenland halibut are voracious bathypelagic predators that feed on a wide variety of prey. Summer and fall appear to be the seasons of most intense feeding. Prey items include capelin, Atlantic cod, polar cod, young Greenland halibut, grenadier, redfishes, sand lance, barracudinas, crustaceans (e.g., northern shrimp), cephalopods and various benthic invertebrates. Major predators of Greenland halibut include the Greenland shark, various whales, hooded seals, cod, salmon and Greenland halibut (Scott and Scott 1988).

Newfoundland-landed catch distributions in 2004 indicated that some Greenland halibut were caught in St. George’s Bay and along the southwest coast in Unit Area 4Rd, south of the Study Area. Most catches in 2004 occurred between May and July.

Environmental Assessment Page 53 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Atlantic Halibut

Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), the largest of the flatfishes, is typically found along the slopes of the continental shelf. Atlantic halibut move seasonally between deep and shallow waters, apparently avoiding temperatures below 2.5ºC (Scott and Scott 1988). The spawning grounds of the Atlantic halibut are not clearly defined. The fertilized eggs are slightly positively buoyant so that they naturally disperse and only gradually float toward the ocean’s surface. Once hatched, the developing larvae live off their yolk for the next six to eight weeks while their digestive system develops so they can begin feeding on natural zooplankton. After a few weeks of feeding, they metamorphose from a bilaterally symmetrical larva to an asymmetrical flatfish, and are ready to assume a bottom-living habit. At this point they are approximately 20-mm long. As juveniles, Atlantic halibut feed mainly on invertebrates, including annelid worms, crabs, shrimps, and euphausiids. Young adults (between 30 to 80-cm in length) consume both invertebrates and fish, while mature adults (greater than 80-cm) feed entirely on fishes (Scott and Scott 1988).

Overall, the 4RST Atlantic halibut stock remains at a very low level. Although recent commercial fishery landings have been increasing, the average of the landings over the last five years remains well below those in the 1960s (DFO 2007c).

Atlantic halibut in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence are most abundant in the Esquiman, Laurentian and Anticosti Channels at depths >200 m. Scattered catches within the Study Area were reported in 2004 (DFO 2007c).

Witch Flounder

Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) are typically found in the deeper waters of the North Atlantic. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, spawners aggregate in channel waters in January and February, followed by spawning in late spring/early summer. The fertilized eggs float near surface and larval hatch occurs after several days. Larvae may remain pelagic for up to one year before juveniles eventually settle to the bottom in deep water areas. Gulf winter flounder move into deep water during the winter and cease feeding (DFO 2007d).

Surveys of inshore waters between Port au Port Bay and Bonne Bay (northern Study Area and north of Study Area) in July 2004 and July 2005 indicated that witch flounder eggs were among the most notable fish eggs collected (Grégoire et al. 2005; Grégoire et al. 2006a,b).

Landings of witch flounder in 4R during the mid 1990s were low but they recovered in 1998. Most of the recent 4R witch flounder fishing has occurred in Unit Area 4Rd between May and October in St. George’s Bay, south of the Study Area. Witch flounder are known to spawn in St. George’s Bay. The biomass index for witch flounder in 4R remains below that seen in 1980s (DFO 2007d).

Environmental Assessment Page 54 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Lumpfish

Lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) are generally considered as groundfish (DFO 2006). In early spring, lumpfish migrate inshore to coastal areas in order to spawn in May/June and then return to deeper waters in late summer/early fall. Male lumpfish movement to coastal areas precedes the female migration so that the males can establish territories for the nests. Eggs are laid in large spongy masses that adhere to rocks. Upon hatching, lumpfish larvae tend to remain in the vicinity of the nest until they develop to a stage appropriate for movement into deeper water. The larvae adhere to rocks/substrate during the early development (DFO 2006g). Lumpfish feed on a variety of invertebrates including euphausiid shrimps, pelagic amphipods, copepods, jellyfish, anemones and small fish including herring and sand lance. Lumpfish are known prey of seals and sharks (DFO 2006g).

Lumpfish appear to move little from one fishing season to another. If this species is that sedentary and the resource is distributed into several small units, it is likely more vulnerable to local overexploitation (DFO 2006g).

American Plaice and White Hake

Both American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) and white hake (Urophycis tenuis) occur primarily in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (DFO 2004b,c) but relatively small amounts of both species are taken as bycatch in the 4R fisheries.

Profiles of Non-Commercial Ecologically Important Species

Atlantic Salmon

While the commercial fishery for this species is under moratorium, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) remains an important recreational fishery species in Newfoundland and Labrador. This anadromous fish spends time in both freshwater (spawning) and at sea (feeding, growth), and therefore, could potentially be impacted by oil and gas activities in the Study Area during their migrations between the two systems. There are currently two active scheduled salmon rivers in the Study Area. Atlantic salmon were raised as an issue during consultations with Parks Canada in June 2005 (C-NLOPB 2005, Appendix 1). A review of marine mortality of Atlantic salmon and its measurement concluded that contributory factors are complex and attempts to identify a single, dominant factor have been unfounded (Potter et al. 2003 in Dempson et al. 2006). Survival was found to vary considerably among stocks and regions.

The only Atlantic salmon management area (salmon fishing areas or SFAs) that overlaps with the Study Area is SFA13 (Unit Area 4Rc) (Dempson et al. 2006; O’Connell et al. 2006). In this SFA, there are important large salmon components that contain a mixture of maiden fish (never spawned before) which have spent two or more years at sea, and repeat spawners which are returning to the rivers for a second or subsequent spawning. The large component in most other Newfoundland rivers consists primarily of repeat spawners.

Environmental Assessment Page 55 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Conservation requirements for rivers containing Atlantic salmon are considered to be threshold reference points. The status of salmon stocks is assessed on the basis of the proportion of the conservation egg deposition achieved in a given year and trends in abundance of various life stages. These requirements are established for certain individual rivers in Newfoundland (Dempson et al. 2006; O’Connell et al. 2006).

Two scheduled salmon rivers occur in the Study Area: (1) Fox Island River, and (2) Serpentine River. The mouth of the former is located within the Project Area along the eastern shore of Port au Port Bay and the mouth of the latter is located in the northeastern portion of the Study Area, outside of Port au Port Bay. The Humber River, a large high profile river with an Atlantic salmon run, empties into Humber Arm which is located off Bay of Islands (north of Study Area). Based on fishway and counting fence data, 27,000+ small salmon and 4,400+ large salmon were counted in the Humber River in 1999 (O’Connell et al. 2003).

Invertebrate and Fish Spawning

Important spawning locations have been identified in this section and some are discussed again in Section 5.2 (Notable Biological Areas). More specific information relating to macroinvertebrates and fish either known or assumed to spawn in the Study Area is provided in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Spawning Specifics of Important Invertebrate and Fish Species Likely to Spawn Within or Near the Study Area.

Occurrence of Timing of Eggs/Larvae Depth Distribution of Species Planktonic in Plankton Eggs/Larvae Eggs/Larvae Lobster Eggs: No Eggs remain attached to Developing fertilized eggs carried Larvae: Yes females from summer/fall by female at bottom. until larval hatch the following summer. Larvae occur in upper water column. Larvae remain planktonic in upper water column for 1-2 months. Snow Crab Eggs: No Larval hatch generally occurs Developing fertilized eggs carried Larvae: Yes in late spring/summer. by female at bottom.

Larvae remain planktonic for 3 Larvae occur in upper water to 4 months. column. Northern Shrimp Eggs: Yes (attached to Spawning typically occurs in Egg depth distribution depends on female) late June/early July. location of females in the water column. Larvae: Yes Eggs remain attached to females from late summer/fall Larvae are in upper water column. until larval hatch the following spring/summer.

Larvae remain planktonic in upper water column for a few months.

Environmental Assessment Page 56 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.1 Continued.

Occurrence of Timing of Eggs/Larvae Depth Distribution of Species Planktonic in Plankton Eggs/Larvae Eggs/Larvae Atlantic Cod Eggs: Yes Spawning primarily between Fertilized eggs and larvae may Larvae: Yes April and June. occur anywhere within the upper 100 m of the water column, eggs generally most concentrated in the upper 10 m. Herring Eggs: No Following spring spawning, Adhesive eggs typically deposited Larvae: Yes larvae planktonic in on stable bottom substrates; spring/early summer. sometimes on kelp.

Following fall spawning, Larvae are in upper water column. larvae planktonic in fall and perhaps throughout the winter. Capelin Eggs: No Following late spring Eggs either deposited in intertidal Larvae: Yes spawning, larvae planktonic in zone of gravel beaches or on the late spring/ summer. bottom in shallow subtidal areas. Eggs either deposited in intertidal zone of gravel beaches or on the bottom in shallow subtidal areas. Redfish Eggs: No Neither is planktonic Larvae hatch from eggs and Larvae: No continue to develop inside female. Young fish are subsequently released from female.

Atlantic Halibut Eggs: Yes Spawning likely between Fertilized eggs gradually move up Larvae: Yes January and May. into the surface waters. Larvae hatch and remain near surface for approximately six to eight weeks. Witch Flounder Eggs: Yes Spawning between April and Fertilized eggs and larvae are Larvae: Yes August at depths of 60 to 160 concentrated in the upper 10 to 55 m. m of the water column. American plaice Eggs: Yes Spawning between April and Fertilized eggs and larvae both Larvae: Yes June. occur in the surface waters. Wolffishes Eggs: No Spawning from early fall to Eggs are typically Larvae: Yes early winter. benthic/demersal while the larvae are semipelagic, sometimes occurring in near surface waters.

In July 2004 and July 2005, larval surveys were conducted in inshore waters (out to 25-30 km from shore) between Port au Port Bay and Bonne Bay (northern portion of Study Area). The surveys were a joint effort involving DFO and the fishing industry (Barry Group). More than 30 stations were sampled during the surveys. Fish eggs and larvae were found at all sampling stations. The two most abundant groups of eggs that were identified included CYT (cunner [Tautogolabrus adspersus] and yellowtail flounder [Limanda ferruginea]) and CHW (cod, haddock [Melanogrammus aeglefinus], and witch flounder). Mackerel eggs were also collected at most of the stations. Of the twenty species of larvae identified, the most notable included cunner, fourbeard rockling (Enchelyopus cimbrus), capelin, righteye flounder (Pleuronectidae), cod and herring (Grégoire et al. 2005; Grégoire et al. 2006a,b).

Environmental Assessment Page 57 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

5.1.1.3. Marine Commercial Fisheries

This section describes the commercial fisheries within the Project and Study areas (Figure 5.3). Discussion of the commercial fisheries includes a historical overview of those activities at the Unit Area (UA) level (i.e. UA 4Rc, which includes the Project and Study Areas) and by relevant Statistical Section. It also includes a description of key species fisheries and harvesting patterns and known harvesting locations.

Data and Information Sources

The statistical data and analysis in this report are based primarily on time-series data from the DFO Newfoundland and Labrador Region3 describing the quantity, month and location (fisheries management Unit Area) of fish harvesting. The datasets also include information on fishing gear, vessels and other information. They have been acquired from DFO in digital form, for the period from 1990 to 2006. The analysis for this document presents historical information about the area’s fisheries and then focuses on the current fisheries environment, i.e. the 2003-2006 period, which is the most recently-available data.

Most of the harvest by quantity from UA 4Rc has been specifically georeferenced (by latitude and longitude of harvest) in recent years (84% in 2004, 70% in 2005 and 77% in 2006).

Much of the analysis of harvesting activities describes species caught within the waters of fisheries management UA 4Rc (see map, below). This management and data area encompasses all of Port au Port Bay but also extends northward and includes the Bay of Islands and waters to the north and west of this. The UA data capture species harvested from 4Rc wherever they were landed or processed. Thus catches by fishers who are not based in Port au Port Bay or ports adjacent to 4Rc are included while catches made by Port au Port Bay-based vessels are excluded if they were harvested beyond the 4Rc area.

The calculation of the value of the fisheries is much more complex. In addition to variability that results from changes in the quantity of harvest from year to year (whether due to natural variability or changing quotas), prices also vary from year to year, and even within the fishing season, driven primarily by market conditions, which in turn are determined by supply and demand, currency exchange rates and other market factors. Quality issues also affect the prices paid for many species. Consequently, most of the analysis provided in this section involves quantity of harvests (tonnes of fish landed), which is directly comparable from year to year.

Other data sources include science advisory reports, fisheries management plans, quota information and other data available from DFO.

Further relevant information about commercial fish species and commercial fisheries in the region (Unit Area 4R) is included in the Western Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment (C-NLOPB 2005).

3 A very small proportion of the harvest from within some parts of UA 4Rc is landed in Quebec, Gulf or Maritimes Region (for example, less than half of 1% by quantity in total during 2004). Environmental Assessment Page 58 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Consultations related to the fisheries are included in a separate report.

Figure 5.3. Project, Study and Fisheries Unit Areas.

Historical Context, 1990s to the Present

Drastic changes occurred in the Gulf of St. Lawrence commercial fisheries in the early 1990s when fisheries moratoria and/or severe restrictions were imposed because of declining groundfish stocks. Between the landings highpoint in 1990 and the 1994 harvest, the quantity of fish taken from UA 4Rc declined from more than 18,000 tonnes to under 6,000 tonnes, a drop of 70%, as illustrated in the following graph (Figure 5.4).

Environmental Assessment Page 59 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

4Rc Harvest, All Species, 1990-2006 25,000

20,000

15,000 Tonnes

10,000

5,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 5.4. Historical Harvest from 4Rc, All Species.

Although the quantity of the harvest has increased again since 1994, the composition of the harvest has changed. Within 4Rc for the period 1984-1990, more than 43% of the catch by quantity, on average, was groundfish (mostly cod and redfish). In 2006, groundfish made up just 3% of the harvest, and pelagic species catches (herring, mackerel and capelin) increased to more than 91% by quantity. (The exceptionally larger harvest in 2004 was primarily the result of a very high recorded harvest of mackerel, though this is a relatively low-value fish.)

The following graphs (Figures 5.5 and 5.6) show groundfish harvests and all other species catches since 1990.

Since the mid-1990s, the fisheries and fisheries management and licencing regimes in Newfoundland have continued to evolve. Most significantly, a fish harvesting rationalization strategy was implemented in the province that reduced the number of participants in the harvesting sector, and a professionalization process was introduced which prescribed specific levels of experience and training required to be a professional fish harvester. Along with this system, DFO introduced the "core" harvesting enterprise designation, with restrictions on harvesting by those who are not part of such an enterprise.

The following sections provide more information on key aspects of the present-day fisheries.

Environmental Assessment Page 60 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

4Rc Harvest, Groundfish, 1990-2006 6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000 Tonnes

2,000

1,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 5.5. Historical Harvest from 4Rc, Groundfish.

4Rc Harvest, Other (Non-Groundfish) Species, 1990-2006 25,000

20,000

15,000 Tonnes

10,000

5,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 5.6. Historical Harvest from 4Rc, All Other Species.

Current Harvesting, Regional Level (Unit Area 4Rc)

Composition and Value of Harvest

Table 5.2 shows the composition of the harvest in 4Rc from 2004 to 2006. As these data show, the principal fisheries by quantity in recent years are for pelagic species, namely mackerel, herring and

Environmental Assessment Page 61 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

capelin. While cod constitutes the largest groundfish catch, it is small in comparison to the other harvests.

Table 5.2. 4Rc Harvest by Species, 2004 - 2006 (Annual).

2004 2005 2006 Average Species Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes % % Atlantic Cod 277.2 1.3% 366.8 3.4% 354.1 2.8% 2.2% Halibut 25.5 0.1% 13.9 0.1% 27.9 0.2% 0.1% Flounder 1.7 0.0% 7.6 0.1% 0.8 0.0% 0.0% Skate 4.5 0.0% 4.4 0.0% 14.1 0.1% 0.1% Herring 6,197.4 29.0% 5,886.0 54.5% 4,453.4 34.9% 36.8% Mackerel 11,519.8 54.0% 1,305.4 12.1% 4,550.2 35.6% 38.7% Capelin 2,159.5 10.1% 2,301.8 21.3% 2,664.4 20.9% 15.9% Lobster 310.5 1.5% 413.2 3.8% 421.9 3.3% 2.6% Snow Crab 848.8 4.0% 493.4 4.6% 268.7 2.1% 3.6% Lumpfish Roe 0.7 0.0% 0.8 0.0% 7.8 0.1% 0.0% All Other Species 4.8 0.0% 4.9 0.0% 5.3 0.0% 0.0% Totals 21,350.4 100.0% 10,798.2 100.0% 12,768.6 100.0% 100.0%

Although much smaller in quantity, the harvest of crustaceans (lobster and snow crab) is more important in economic terms than the lower-value mackerel, herring and capelin fisheries, though mackerel and herring in particular are also used as bait in other fisheries, such as for snow crab and lobster (most bait catches are not recorded in the DFO statistics). Table 5.3 shows the average value of the catch for 2004- 2006, based on mid-2007 Newfoundland and Labrador Region prices.4

Table 5.3. 4Rc Average Harvest by Species, Quantity and Value, 2004 – 2006.

Species Tonnes $/Tonne Value % by Value Atlantic Cod 332.7 1,309 435,496 4.3% Halibut 22.4 6,161 138,119 1.4% Flounder (Yellowtail) 3.4 653 2,213 0.0% Skate 7.7 292 2,234 0.0% Herring 5,512.3 $205 1,130,157 11.2% Mackerel 5,791.8 330 1,909,349 18.8% Capelin 2,375.2 281 668,560 6.6% Lobster 381.9 10,461 3,994,712 39.4% Snow Crab 537.0 3,428 1,840,735 18.2% Lumpfish Roe 3.1 1,986 6,175 0.1% All Other Species 5.0 800 3,997 0.0% Totals 14,972.4 - $ 10,131,748 100.0%

4 Average prices to June 12, 2007; for mackerel, capelin and lumpfish roe, average 2006 prices are used since these fisheries were not reporting prices at this date. See http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapports/Land_All_2007.htm Environmental Assessment Page 62 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Harvesting Seasonality

Most of the harvesting effort within 4Rc has been concentrated in the spring and the fall in recent years, with less activity in July-August, and none in the winter months. The following graph (Figure 5.7) show the timing of the 2004-2006 harvest, by quantity. Details on harvesting times for key species are provide in following sections.

4Rc Harvest by Month, All Species 2004-2006 Average 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500

Tonnes 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.7. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, All Species, 2004-2006 Average.

Harvesting Locations

Figure 5.8 shows the locations recorded in the DFO NL Region georeferenced dataset for all species, 2004 – 2006. Lobster, however, are not represented at all in the georeferenced data, nor are most bait catches. Maps for key species are included in later sections.

Fishing Gear, 4Rc

Some species in the area are harvested with one type of gear only (e.g. snow crab and lobster using pots), while other species may be harvested using a variety of gear types (e.g. herring and mackerel using different types of seines, and cod using gillnets and longlines). Table 5.4 shows the quantity of the harvest by each gear type for the 2003-2006 period.

Environmental Assessment Page 63 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 5.8. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, All Species, Aggregated.

Table 5.4. 4Rc Harvest by Gear Type, 2004-2006 Average.

Gear Tonnes % of Total Stern Otter Trawl 1.3 0.0% Danish Seine 1.2 0.0% Other Seines 381.8 2.6% Purse Seine 13,257.0 88.6% Gill Net (Set)* 154.6 1.0% Longline* 139.7 0.9% Handline* 101.8 0.7% Trap* 14.0 0.1% Pot* 919.0 6.1% Other 2.4 0.0% Total 14,972.7 100.0% * Fixed gear

Environmental Assessment Page 64 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The locations of the georeferenced fixed and mobile gear fisheries are shown on the following maps (Figures 5.9 and 5.10) for 2004 to 2006, combined. In general, industrial activities and vessel traffic have a greater potential to conflict with fixed gear fisheries than with mobile gear.

Figure 5.9. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Fixed Gear, Aggregated.

Environmental Assessment Page 65 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 5.10. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Mobile Gear, Aggregated.

Study and Project Area Ports

Since the Study and Project Area occupy only a small part of Unit Area 4Rc, additional analysis was conducted to provide some better indication of the locality of fisheries activity in relation to the Project. This additional analysis focuses on fish harvesting for 2004 - 2006, from the waters of 4Rc, based on the recorded Statistical Section (SS) of the port where the catch was landed (port of landing).5 It should be noted that Statistical Sections are coastal locations of ports. While they are adjacent to the ocean, they do not themselves represent any marine harvesting area.

In general, fishers prefer to land their catch in or close to their home ports, or else in ports closest to their harvesting locations, if possible. The SS of the port of landing of the harvest (i.e. where it is brought to port and off-loaded, though not necessarily processed) is indicated for 100% of the 4Rc catch for 2004-2006. Of the total 4Rc harvest, just over 80% was landed in ports in 4Rc-adjacent Statistical Sections (SS 42, 43 or 44). As indicated on the following map (Figure 5.11), SS 42 and 43 best “fit” the coastal zones of the Project and Study Areas. SS 44 to the north is also adjacent to Unit Area 4Rc but nearly all its ports are outside the Study Area.

5 DFO Newfoundland and Labrador Region does not disclose the specific homeport or port of landings for confidentiality reasons. Environmental Assessment Page 66 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 5.11. Location of Area Statistical Sections (SS).

Figure 5.12 compares the quantity of the harvest landed in 2004-2006 in these three SSs.

2004-06 Average Annual Landings from 4Rc by Statistical Section (Adjacent to 4Rc)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 SS 42 SS 43 SS 44

Figure 5.12. 2004-2006 4Rc Harvest, All Species, by Statistical Section of Landing (Adjacent to 4Rc).

Environmental Assessment Page 67 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.5 shows the composition of the harvest landed in SS 42 and SS 43 ports, i.e. those closest to the Study and/or Project Areas. In total for 2004-2006, about 9% of the UA 4Rc harvest was landed in these ports.

Table 5.5. Unit Area 4Rc Harvest Landed in SS 42 and SS 43 Ports (2004-2006 Averages).

Species Tonnes % of SS Total SS 42 Cod, Atlantic 71.7 41.1% Halibut 1.5 0.8% American Plaice 0.1 0.1% Skate 2.2 1.3% Mackerel 2.8 1.6% Lobster 50.7 29.1% Snow Crab 42.7 24.5% Roe, lumpfish 2.7 1.6% Total 174.5 100.0% SS 43 Cod, Atlantic 34.7 2.9% Halibut 3.6 0.3% Skate 3.4 0.3% Herring 357.0 29.4% Mackerel 580.0 47.8% Capelin 115.1 9.5% Lobster 101.3 8.3% Snow Crab 17.9 1.5% Roe, lumpfish 0.2 0.0% Total 1,213.2 100.0%

In particular, the lobster fishery (which is 0% georeferenced) is known to occur relatively close to the fishers’ home wharves, usually along rocky shorelines and nearshore islands, using small boats. This fishery – while making up less than 2.6% of the overall 4Rc harvest by quantity in 2004-2006 – accounted for almost 40% of the value of the Unit Area’s harvest.

Principal Fisheries

The following section provides additional information about the six principal fisheries (by quantity and/or value) in the general area of the Study and Project Areas, and within Unit Area 4Rc.

Groundfish

Although groundfish once made up a large part of the 4Rc harvest (in both quantity and value), they are currently very limited fisheries. Atlantic cod, which accounts for the largest part of the harvest in recent years (92% of the groundfish catch by quantity, 2004-2006), is now harvested under strict quota/total

Environmental Assessment Page 68 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

allowable (admissible) catch (TAC) regimes. The 2007 total allowed (4,547 tonnes for NAFO Division 4R and 3PN) includes by-catch fisheries as well as the sentinel (research-oriented) fisheries. (See http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapports/cod_2007.htm)

The most recent DFO Stock Status Report for northern Gulf of St. Lawrence cod states, “Cod landings in the Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence totalled more than 100,000 tons in 1983. They then regularly decreased until 1993. During the decline, boats using mobile gear usually caught their allocation, whereas those using fixed gear did not. The fishery was under moratorium from 1994 to 1996. Since 1997, catches and TACs have varied from 3,000 tons to 7,500 tons … , except in 2003 when the fishery was closed again” (DFO 2007b). That report also concludes that “Based on current productivity, the pressure exercised by the fishery between 2000 and 2006 was too high (except for 2003 which was under moratorium) to allow for this stock to rebuild.”

The following map (Figure 5.13) shows recorded cod harvesting locations for 2004-2006. The graph following (Figure 5.14) shows the distribution of the 4Rc groundfish catch by month.

Figure 5.13. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Groundfish, Aggregated.

Environmental Assessment Page 69 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

4Rc Groundfish Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average

300

250

200

150 Tonnes 100

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.14. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Groundfish, 2004-2006 Average.

Herring

The area’s herring fisheries are from the 4R Gulf herring stocks. The main commercial fishery uses seines, though gillnets are used mostly by the bait fishery. The most recent 4R science advisory report states, “The two herring stocks of the west coast of Newfoundland are harvested separately during spawning gatherings or collectively when the stocks are mixed between April and December. These stocks are mainly harvested by a fleet of large (>65’) and small (<65’) [seiners], and by several gillnet fishermen. Herring is also harvested for bait. These catches are not accounted for and could be substantial, especially since the snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) and lobster (Homarus americanus) fisheries have recently shown record highs” (DFO 2006d).

The following map (Figure 5.15) shows recorded commercial herring harvesting locations for 2004- 2006. The graph following (Figure 5.16) shows the distribution of the 4Rc commercial herring catch by month.

Environmental Assessment Page 70 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 5.15. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Herring, Aggregated.

4Rc Herring Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average

1600

1400

1200

1000

800 Tonnes 600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.16. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Herring, 2004-2006 Average.

Environmental Assessment Page 71 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Mackerel

The area’s mackerel harvest is from the Subarea 3 stocks, which include all of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Scotian Shelf.

As the most recent DFO science advisory report notes about the Atlantic mackerel fishery, “In the Maritime Provinces, Newfoundland, and Quebec (NAFO Subareas 3 and 4), over 15,000 commercial fishermen participate in the mackerel fishery. They fish mainly inshore using gillnets, jiggers, handlines, purse seines and traps. The type of gear used varies according to the region and time of the year. Landings reported by Canadian fishermen have been rather stable from one year to the next and have averaged around 22,000 t per year since the early 1980s. However, there has been a significant increase since the early 2000s, reaching a record high of 54,279 t in 2005. … Bait fishermen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are not required to fill a logbook, and since there is no dockside monitoring for mackerel, their catch may go unrecorded, as is the case for the recreational fishery, which occurs during summer months all along the Atlantic coast” (DFO 2007f).

Figure 5.17 shows recorded commercial mackerel harvesting locations for 2004-2006. Figure 5.18 shows the distribution of the 4Rc commercial catch by month.

Figure 5.17. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Mackerel, Aggregated.

Environmental Assessment Page 72 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

4Rc Mackerel Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average

3500

3000

2500

2000

Tonnes 1500

1000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.18. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Mackerel, 2004-2006 Average.

Capelin

Capelin in the area of the Project are part of the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (4RST) stock. In this region, seines, traps and weirs are the main fishing gears used for catching capelin commercially. DFO (2006e) reports that the harvesting seasons are short and correspond to the pre-spawning period for purse seines and to the spawning period for trap and weir fisheries. The purse seine and trap fisheries target mature females for the Japanese roe market. DFO notes, “The emergence of this market is responsible for the sharp increase in landings, up from 700 t/year between 1960 and 1976 to approximately 10,000 t in 1978, 1979, 1989, 1992, 1998 and 2005. The most significant landings for the entire Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence are made on the west coast of Newfoundland. In Divisions 4R and 4S (Quebec’s North Shore), the most intensive fishing usually occurs in June and July.”

The following map (Figure 5.19) shows recorded capelin harvesting locations for 2004-2006. The graph following (Figure 5.20) shows the distribution of the 4Rc catch by month.

Environmental Assessment Page 73 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 5.19. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Capelin, Aggregated.

4Rc Capelin Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average

2500

2000

1500

Tonnes 1000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.20. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Capelin, 2004-2006 Average.

Environmental Assessment Page 74 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Snow Crab

The Study and Project Area are focused in Crab Fishing Area (CFA) 12D (Cape St. George to Bear Head), within NAFO Division 4R. The most recent DFO science advisory report observes that Division 4R landings peaked in 2002 at 1,850 tonnes and since declined by 71% to their historic low of 540 tonnes in 2006, while the TAC remained high. Effort decreased during 2005-2006 to its lowest level since 1994 (DFO 2007e). The 2007 quota for 12D was set at a total of 80 tonnes (vs. 136 tonnes in 2005 and 110 tonnes in 2006).

The following map (Figure 5.21) shows recorded snow crab harvesting locations for 2004-2006. The graph following (Figure 5.22) shows the distribution of the 4Rc catch by month.

Figure 5.21. 2004-2006 Recorded Fishing Locations, All Months, Snow Crab, Aggregated.

Environmental Assessment Page 75 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

4Rc Snow Crab Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average

300

250

200

150 Tonnes 100

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.22. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Snow Crab, 2004-2006 Average.

Lobster

The Study and Project Areas are within Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 13B. Though the locations are not recorded in the DFO catch and effort datasets, the fishery is pursued by small open boats typically close to the fisher’s home port. The pots (traps) are set close to shore, usually at depths less than 20 m. Although there are no quotas, fishing effort is controlled through restrictive licensing and trap limits. In 13B, an additional restriction is a ban on Sunday lobster fishing, introduced in the 2003-2005 Management Plan (DFO 2006a). Figure 5.23 shows the distribution of the 4Rc lobster harvest by month.

4Rc Lobster Harvest by Month, 2004-2006 Average

250

200

150

Tonnes 100

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 5.23. Harvest by Month from 4Rc, Lobster, 2004-2006 Average.

Environmental Assessment Page 76 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

DFO and Fisher Science Surveys: Port au Port Bay and Vicinity

The FFAW’s Science Co-ordinator reports that there are two annual Mobile Gear RV surveys in 3Pn, 4R(ST): the DFO RV Survey in August and the FFAW’s Mobile Gear Sentinel Survey which usually starts July 1 but will start on 30 June in 2007. With respect to Port au Port Bay, neither of these research programs actually goes into the Bay.

The FFAW Co-ordinator notes that Port au Port Bay is generally defined as a straight line from Long Point to Long Ledge to Bear Head. In some years, there are one or two survey sets located just to the north of the Bay; the DFO survey is conducted to about 36 m and the industry survey is conducted as shallow as 18 m. It was also noted that there used to be a Sentinel research site in the vicinity of Fox Island River, but this was discontinued some years ago (J. Spingle, FFAW, pers comm.).

5.1.1.4. Marine-associated Birds

The Study Area supports a variety of seabirds, coastal waterfowl, and shorebirds during nesting season, migration, and winter. The density of seabirds in the Study Area is lower than along southern, northern or eastern coastal Newfoundland areas (Lock et al. 1994). This is probably due to less influence of major coastal currents on the west coast compared to the other areas, resulting in lower productivity, as well as to a smaller amount of breeding habitat (Lock et al. 1994).

Seabirds present in the Study Area are include shearwaters, fulmars, storm-petrels, jaegers, skuas, phalaropes, gannets, cormorants, alcids, kittiwakes, and various gulls (Table 5.6) (C-NLOPB 2005). These birds occur primarily in the pelagic zone of the Study Area (C-NLOPB 2005). During the nesting season, these seabirds come from at a small colonies in the Study Area, but many are from other colonies along other sections of Newfoundland’s west coast and from and from the Québec North Shore, for example Bonaventure Island (Rail and Chapdelaine 2002). Most notable of these are Québec colonies of Northern Gannets, Razorbills, Common Murres, and lesser numbers of Atlantic Puffins. Only Black-legged Kittiwake has large colonies in the Study Area (see discussion below). Foraging strategies of these seabird groups vary from plunge diving (gannets) and pursuit diving (alcids), through surface feeding (phalaropes) to kleptoparasitism (jaegars and skuas) (Table 5.6). Peak concentrations of seabirds vulnerable to oiling occur in the period including January to March, when abundances of 10 to 100 birds/km have be recorded during shipboard surveys (Lock et al. 1994).

Coastal waterfowl occurring in the Study Area include eiders, scoters, Harlequin Duck, Canada Goose, and American Black Duck (C-NLOPB 2005). These species occur primarily during the migration seasons and winter, although large concentrations do not occur in the Study Area.

Various species of plovers and sandpipers use intertidal and estuarine habitats in the Study Area for nesting or staging during migration (C-NLOPB 2005). Concentrations of staging birds may occur at some intertidal flats. The endangered Piping Plover has been sighted in the Study Area and nests on some beaches along other sections of the west coast of insular Newfoundland.

Environmental Assessment Page 77 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.6. General Distributions, Seasonal Abundances, and Foraging Strategies of Seabirds that Occur in the Study Area. Abundance General Area of Foraging Common Name Scientific Name Summer Autumn Winter Spring Distribution Strategy (June-Sept) (Oct-Dec) (Jan-Mar) (Apr-May) Fulmars and Shearwaters Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis Offshore, coastal Uncommon Uncommon Rare Uncommon SF Greater Shearwater Puffinus gravis Offshore, coastal Uncommon Uncommon Absent Scarce PP Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus Offshore, coastal Scarce Scarce Absent Rare PP Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus Offshore, coastal Rare Rare Absent Rare PP Jaegers and Skuas Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus Offshore Scarce Scarce Absent Scarce K Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Offshore Scarce Scarce Absent Scarce K Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus Offshore Rare Rare Absent Rare K Great Skua Catharacta skua Offshore Rare Rare Absent Absent K Gannets and Cormorants Northern Gannet Sula bassanus Offshore, coastal Common Uncommon Absent Uncommon DP Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus* Coastal Common Common Absent Common PD Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo* Coastal Common Common Uncommon Common PD Storm Petrels Wilson's Storm-Petrel Oceanites oceanicus Offshore Scarce Absent Absent Absent SF Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Offshore Uncommon Uncommon Absent Uncommon SF Red Pharalope Phalaropus fulicaria Offshore Scarce Scarce Absent Scarce SF Red-necked Pharalope Phalaropus lobatus Offshore Scarce Scarce Absent Scarce SF Gulls and Kittiwakes Herring Gull Larus argentatus* Coastal, offshore Common Common Uncommon Common SF Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides Coastal, offshore Absent Common Common Common SF Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Coastal, offshore Absent Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon SF Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus* Coastal, offshore Common Common Common Common SF Sabine's Gull Xema sabini Offshore Absent Rare Absent Absent SF Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea Offshore Absent Rare Rare Rare SF Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla * Offshore, coastal Uncommon Uncommon Scarce Uncommon SF Common Tern Sterna hirundo* Coastal, offshore Common Scarce Absent Common SF, PP Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea* Coastal, offshore Common Scarce Absent Common SF, PP Alcids (Auks) Dovekie Alle alle Offshore, coastal Absent Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon PD Common Murre Uria aalge Offshore, coastal Uncommon Uncommon Rare Uncommon PD Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia Offshore, coastal Scarce Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon PD Razorbill Alca torda Offshore, coastal Scarce Scarce Rare Scarce PD Black Guillemot Cepphus grille * Coastal Uncommon Uncommon Scarce Scarce PD Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica * Offshore, coastal Scarce Scarce Absent Scarce PD Source: C-NLOPB (2005) '*' indicates species that are known to nest along the western coast of Newfoundland 'SF' : surface feeding; 'PP' : pursuit plunging; 'DP' : deep plunging; 'K' : kleptoparasitism; 'PD' : pursuit diving In cases with two 'general area of distribution' designations, the species occurs primarily in the first area and secondarily in the second.

Environmental Assessment Page 78 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Nesting Populations and Breeding Biology

The breeding of marine-associated birds in the Study Area of Newfoundland is poorly known (C-NLOPB 2005). However, a small number of species of marine-associated birds have been found nesting in the Study Area.

At least six species of cormorants, gulls and terns nest in the Study Area, mostly in scattered, small colonies on the Port au Port Peninsula and coastal islands (Table 5.7). Two colonies of Black-legged Kittiwakes totalling 2,000 individuals or more were identified during Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) aerial surveys on and near Cape St. George (C-NLOPB 2005; P. Thomas, CWS, 2007, pers. comm.). There are small colonies of Common Eiders nesting on Shag Island and Long Ledge (C-NLOPB 2005; P. Thomas, CWS, 2007, pers. comm.). Double-crested or Great Cormorants nest on Shag Island (C- NLOPB 2005) and on the southwestern part of Port au Port Peninsula (B. Mactavish, LGL, 2007, pers. comm.; P. Linegar, 2007, pers. comm.). Small to medium-sized colonies of Great Black-backed and Herring Gulls are found on the southern and western coastlines of Port au Port Peninsula (C-NLOPB 2005; P. Thomas, CWS, 2007, pers. comm.). Terns of indeterminate species nest in small colonies at the base of the peninsula and along the eastern shore of Port au Port Bay (C-NLOPB 2005; P. Thomas, CWS, 2007, pers. comm.) (see Figure 5.24 in Section 5.2, Notable Biological Areas).

Shorebird species (plovers and sandpipers) nesting along the west coast of insular Newfoundland include the nationally endangered Piping Plover. Nesting has not been recorded in the Study Area but there have been sightings in the West Bay and Piccadilly Beach areas (P. Thomas, CWS, 2007, pers. comm.). The nearest confirmed nesting locations consist of Little Codroy (one to two pairs), Grand Codroy (one pair), Flat Bay Islands / Sandy Point (three pairs), and Stephenville Crossing (one pair) (C-NLOPB 2005).

Marine-associated birds nesting in the Study Area and adjacent areas are relatively long-lived and have low rates of population growth (Table 5.8). Egg-laying extends from mid- to late May into June (Table 5.9). The young of most species fledge by July or August. Nesting takes place on coastal islands, on Cape St. George, and in the case of shorebirds, terns, and gulls, on sandy beaches and peninsulas (C-NLOPB 2005).

Prey and Foraging Habitats

Marine-associated birds in the Study Area feed mainly on fish, cephalopods, crustaceans, mollusks, marine worms, and offal (Table 5.10). Prey species include capelin, sandlance, short-finned squid, copepods, amphipods. Foraging strategy depends on the bird species (Table 5.10). Foraging depths vary from the surface exploited by terns and phalaropes, to 20-50 m reached by diving alcids and loons. Periods of limited food availability may affect reproductive success (Bryant et al. 1999, Rodway et al. 1996, Regehr and Rodway 1999, Stenhouse and Montevecchi 1999b, Montevecchi and Myers 1997).

Environmental Assessment Page 79 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.7. Estimated Numbers of Individuals of Colonial, Marine-associated Birds and Bird Species of Conservation Concern Nesting in or near the Study Area.

Nesting Areas Fox Number Number of Long Shag Island Two Guts Gravel’s Ship Cape St. Red Species of Nesting Nesting Big Cove Ledge Island River Pond Pond Island George Island Sites Individuals delta 376873E 383167E 376533E 3768630E 372590E 354546E 332278E 332278E 335706E UTM Coordinates 5416348N 5414321N 5395105N 5389548N 5379754N 5374678N 5370654N 5370654N 5381101N Waterfowl Common Eider 2 ≤200 1-100 1-100 Cormorants Cormorant sp. 1 101-500 101-500 Gulls, Kittiwakes and Terns Herring Gull 2 ≤700 1-100 101-500 Great Black-backed Gull 2 ≤200 1-100 1-100 Black-legged Kittiwake 2 >1500 501-1000 >1000 Tern sp.1 3 >6 >1 >1 >1 TOTALS 12 ~2700 ≤100 ≤600 >1 >1 >1 ≤200 501-1000 >1000 ≤600 Source: P. Thomas, Canadian Wildlife Service, unpublished. 1 Provincially Sensitive.

Environmental Assessment Page 80 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.8. Marine-associated Birds Nesting in or Near the Study Area.

Age of Mean Adult First Clutch Breeding Species Survival Sources Breeding Size Success 1 Rate (yr) Seabirds Nelson (1966), Northern Gannet 0.95 4-7 1 0.81 Montevecchi and Porter (1980) Pierotti and Good (1994) Herring Gull 0.80-0.85 3-7 2-3 1.03-1.58 Haycock and Threlfall (1975) Kadlec (1976) Good (1998) Great Black-backed Gull - 4-5 3 0.50-2.11 Butler and Trivelpiece (1981) Baird (1994) Black-legged Kittiwake 0.81-0.86 3-7 2 0.54-0.58 Maunder and Threlfall (1972 Common and Arctic 0.86 2-4 1-3 0.59-0.77 Cullen (1956) Terns Black Guillemot Asbirk (1979) 0.77-0.89 2 1-2 0.12-0.78 Cairns (1981) Coastal Waterfowl Common Eider 0.90 2-5 3-5 0.5-0.93 Goudie et al. (2000) 1 Numbers of chicks fledged per breeding pair of adults.

Table 5.9. Nesting, Hatching and Fledging Information for Marine-associated Birds that Nest in or Near the Study Area.

Species Egg Laying Incubation Hatching Nesting Fledging Comments Seabirds NF breeding population represents 17% of the eastern Late Sept. Northern Mid - late Late June to 91 days(1,2) Canadian population. NF's 42 days (1,2) to early Gannet1 May(1,2) early July population is stable and Oct.(1) increasing

Nest singly or in colonies at many locations along NF East Herring Gull2; 45 days(12) Late July - Mid - late Mid-late Coast. Study Area breeding Great Black- 26-29days (3,4,5) 50-55 days early May(3,4,5) June population is only a small backed Gull3 (3,5) August proportion of total Canadian(6) population. Three major colonies along Black-legged Late May - Early Avalon Peninsula(8). NF group 27 days(7) Late June(7) 42 days(7) Kittiwake4 early June(7) Aug.(7) represents approx. 33% total Canadian breeding population. Late July- Occur singly or in small Common Tern5; First half 21 - 26 22 days (9) Mid July early colonies along the Avalon Arctic Tern6 June(9) days(9) Aug.(9) Peninsula(8)

Environmental Assessment Page 81 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.9 Continued.

Species Egg Laying Incubation Hatching Nesting Fledging Comments Seabirds No estimate of the number of Mid May - Mid June - 34 -39 Early - late breeding birds in the Study Black Guillemot7 28 - 33 days(10) early June(10) mid July(10) days(10) August(10) Area, but considered to be low(6,11). Coastal Waterfowl Mid Early May - Mid June - 35 - 40 August – Nest in high densities, Common Eider8 26 days mid June mid July days late sometimes in large colonies September 1 Mowbray (2002) (1) Kirkham (1980) 2 Pierotti and Good (1994) (2) Montevecchi and Porter (1980) 3 Good (1998) (3) Haycock and Threlfall (1975) 4 Baird (1994) (4) Pierotti (1982) 5 Nisbet (2002) ( 5) Butler and Trivelpiece (1981) 6 Hatch (2002) (6) Nettleship (1980) 7Butler and Buckley (2002) (7) Maunder and Threlfall (1972) 8 Goudie et al. (2000) (8) Brown et al. (1975) (9) Hawksley (1950) (10) Cairns (1981) (11) Nettleship (1972)

Table 5.10. Foraging Strategy and Types of Prey for Seabirds that Frequent the Study Area.

Species (Group) Foraging Strategy Prey Source Procellaridae Northern Fulmar Surface feeding Fish, cephalopods, crustaceans, offal Brown (1970) Greater Shearwater Pursuit plunging Capelin, squid, crustaceans, offal Brown.et al. (1981) Sooty Shearwater Pursuit plunging Capelin, squid, crustaceans, offal Brown et al. (1981) Storm-Petrels Surface feeding Myctophid fish, amphipods Linton (1978) Pelecaniformes Northern Gannet Deep plunging Mackerel, capelin, squid Kirkham (1980) Cormorants Pursuit Diving Mackerel, capelin, squid Brown et al. (1981) Charadriformes Phalaropes Surface feeding Copepods Brown (1980) Jaegers and skuas Kleptoparasitism Fish Hoffman et al. (1981) Herring Gull 1 Surface feeding Fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, offal Threlfall (1968) Iceland Gull Surface feeding Fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, offal Cramp and Simmons (1977) Glaucous Gull Surface feeding Fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, offal Cramp and Simmons (1977) Great Black-backed Gull 1 Surface feeding Fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, offal Threlfall (1968) Black-legged Kittiwake Surface feeding Fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, offal Threlfall (1968) Terns Surface and pursuit Fish, crustaceans Braune and Gaskin (1982) plunging

Environmental Assessment Page 82 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.10 Continued.

Species (Group) Foraging Strategy Prey Source Alcidae Dovekie Pursuit diving Amphipods, copepods Bradstreet (1982a) Common Murre Pursuit diving Fish, invertebrates Bradstreet (1982b) Thick-billed Murre Pursuit diving Fish, invertebrates Tuck (1961) Black Guillemot Pursuit diving Fish, invertebrates Cairns (1981) Razorbill Pursuit diving Fish, invertebrates Bradstreet (1982b) Atlantic Puffin Pursuit diving Fish, invertebrates Bradstreet (1982b) 1 These species feed on eggs and chicks of seabirds, and occasionally adults (Rodway et al. 1996; Stenhouse and Montevecchi 1999a). Geographic and Seasonal Distribution

During the nesting season the majority of individuals of seabird species are concentrated around larger nesting colonies (Lock et al. 1994). Since most species do not breed until four or five years of age, there are large cohorts of immature birds, which summer in adjacent waters and offshore. Large aggregations of alcids may include individuals from both Québec North Shore and Newfoundland colonies (C- NLOPB 2005).

Large numbers of the Southern Hemisphere breeding seabirds Greater Shearwater, Sooty Shearwater, and Wilson’s Storm-Petrel spend the austral winter in Newfoundland waters. However, only a small proportion of these populations occur in the western Newfoundland offshore region and an even smaller proportion occurs in the Study Area (C-NLOPB 2005).

During the northern winter, Arctic-nesting species winter south of the ice in Newfoundland waters. These consist of Northern Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Black-legged Kittiwake, Thick-billed Murre, and Dovekie (Lock et al. 1994).

Small populations of Common Eider and scoter species (notably Black Scoter) winter off the Port au Port Peninsula (Lock et al. 1994). However, the west coast has not systematically been surveyed for wintering coastal waterfowl. No coastal concentrations of Harlequin Duck are known in the Study Area, but small numbers have been sighted at Cape St. George (Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre 2006 in JWEL 2006; P. Thomas, CWS, 2007, pers. comm.). Common Loon winters in ice-free coastal areas of the Study Area (C-NLOPB 2005).

Sandpipers and plovers also stage in the Study Area during late summer/fall migration, although the numbers and species diversity are lower than at other sites along Newfoundland’s west coast (C-NLOPB 2005). Lock et al. 1994 identified St. George’s Bay and Port au Port Bay as areas where concentrations occur. Within Port au Port Bay concentrations are found at Point au Mal, Piccadilly Lagoon, West Bay, and Black Duck Brook (C-NLOPB 2005). The most abundant species are White-rumped and Semipalmated Sandpipers, Greater Yellowlegs, Semipalmated Plover, and Black-bellied Plover (C- NLOPB 2005). Smaller numbers of Least Sandpiper, Ruddy Turnstone and Sanderling may also occur in the Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 83 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Important Bird Areas

The Important Bird Area (IBA) program identifies habitat important to the survival of bird species. The program is coordinated by BirdLife International and administered in Canada by the Canadian Nature Federation and Bird Studies Canada (www.ibacanada.com). The criteria used to identify important habitat are internationally standardized and are based on the presence of threatened and endangered species, endemic species, species representative of a biome (keystone species), or a significant proportion of a species’ population. These criteria focus on sites of national and international importance and it is important to recognize that areas of regional and provincial significance can be over-looked if assessment of important habitat is limited to this approach.

There are no designated IBAs in the Study Area.

Bird Species at Risk

Piping Plover is designated endangered in Schedule 1 under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Endangered Species Act of Newfoundland and Labrador. This species has nested at a number of coastal sites within the Study Area discussed above. A national recovery plan has been developed (Goosen et al. 2002). Under the provincial Endangered Species Act recommendations for protecting critical and recovery habitat have been presented to the minister responsible (C-NLOPB 2005). Beaches with nesting Piping Plovers will likely be designated critical habitat and protected. However, management is area-specific and the minister may issue permits for economic activity that do not impact protected species or their habitat.

Harlequin Duck is designated a species of special concern under Schedule 1 of SARA. It occurs in low densities the coastal waters of the Study Area during spring and fall staging (C-NLOPB 2005). As discussed above, broods may also use coastal habitat.

The province designates Arctic, Common, and Caspian terns sensitive. These species nest coastally at sites discussed above. Caspian Tern was formerly designated a species of special concern by COSEWIC but has since been re-designated not at risk.

5.1.1.5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Marine Mammals

A total of 13 species of cetaceans (baleen whales, dolphins, and toothed whales) potentially could occur in the Study Area (C-NLOPB 2005). Many of these species are rare or uncommon in the western Newfoundland offshore region (Table 5.11). Of these species, North Atlantic right whale, blue whale, fin whale, and the St. Lawrence Estuary population of beluga whale are listed under Schedule 1 of SARA (Table 5.11). The harbour porpoise is currently not listed and has no status under SARA but is under consideration for listing under Schedule 1.

Environmental Assessment Page 84 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.11. The Habitat, Occurrence, and Conservation Status of Marine Mammals in the Study Area.

Species Habitat Occurrence in Area SARA Status* Mysticetes North Atlantic right whale Coastal and shelf waters Rare Schedule 1: Endangered (Eubalaena glacialis) Humpback whale Mainly nearshore waters and Common Not at Risk (Megaptera novaeangliae) banks Blue whale Coastal and pelagic Uncommon Schedule 1: Endangered (Balaenoptera musculus) Fin whale Schedule 1: Special Continental slope, pelagic Common (Balaenoptera physalus) Concern Minke whale Continental shelf, coastal Common Not Assessed (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Odontocetes Sperm whale Usually pelagic and deep seas Common Not Assessed (Physeter macrocephalus) Northern bottlenose whale Pelagic Uncommon Not at Risk1 (Hyperoodon ampullatus) Killer whale Widely distributed Uncommon Not Assessed (Orcinus orca) Long-finned pilot whale Common Mostly pelagic Not Assessed (Globicephala melas) Beluga whale Estuarine Rare Schedule 1: Threatened2 (Delphinapterus leucas) Atlantic white-sided dolphin Continental shelf and slope Common Not Assessed (Lagenorhynchus acutus) White-beaked dolphin Continental shelf Uncommon Not Assessed (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) Harbour porpoise No schedule: Continental shelf Common (Phocoena phocoena) No status3 Pinnipeds Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) Coastal Common Not Assessed Harp seal Ice Common Not Assessed (Phoca groenlandica) Hooded seal Ice Common Not Assessed (Cystophora cristata) Grey seal Coastal Common Not Assessed (Halichoerus grypus) *Species designation under SARA (EC 2006 website). 1 Davis Strait population; the Scotian Shelf population is listed under Schedule 1. 2 St. Lawrence Estuary population. 3 Currently under consideration for listing under Schedule 1.

Environmental Assessment Page 85 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Four species of pinnipeds (seals) potentially occur in the Study Area (Table 5.11). In addition, ringed and bearded seals have occurred in the Gulf of St. Lawrence but have not yet been recorded off of western Newfoundland (C-NLOPB 2005). The conservation status of three of these species has been assessed but none are considered at risk of changes in status (Table 5.11).

The North American river otter (Lontra canadensis) also uses the marine environment in coastal Newfoundland (C-NLOPB 2005). North American river otters occur in rivers and streams throughout much of North America; in the northern portion of their range, they occur in coastal marine areas as well (Estes and Bodkin 2002). The breeding season of this species is from December to April and pups are born between February and April (Larivière and Walton 1998). The abundance of this species along the Atlantic coast of North America is unknown (Estes and Bodkin 2002), but they are thought to be relatively common in most of Canada where suitable habitat exists (Melquist et al. 2003). Preferred habitat consists of rugged coastal areas with irregular shorelines that have short intertidal lengths (Melquist et al. 2003). Otters in Newfoundland belong to a distinct subspecies, L. canadensis degener (Parks Canada n.d.). Their abundance is unknown. The status of the North American river otter has not been assessed by COSEWIC.

Baleen Whales (Mysticetes)

North Atlantic Right Whale

See Section 5.1.3.4 for a descriptive profile of the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis).

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

The humpback whale has a worldwide distribution. It spends much of its time in coastal waters, but passes through deep pelagic areas during its migrations between high-latitude summering grounds and low-latitude wintering grounds (Winn and Reichley 1985). Newfoundland (including Labrador) and the Gulf of St. Lawrence are among the five areas in the North Atlantic where humpback whales aggregate in the summer to feed (Katona and Beard 1990). COSEWIC considers this species to be not at risk (COSEWIC 2003).

Humpback whales are often sighted singly or in groups of two or three; however, while in their breeding and feeding ranges, they may occur in groups of up to 15 individuals (Leatherwood and Reeves 1983).

Aerial surveys in the Gulf from late August to early September of 1995 and from late July to early August of 1996 suggest that there were about 100 humpback whales in Gulf during those times (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). Most humpback whale sightings occurred in the northeast portion of the Gulf, well north of the Study Area.

Humpback whales are much less common off the west and southwest coasts of Newfoundland than elsewhere off Newfoundland. Lynch (1987) provided summer (June-September) sighting frequencies that ranged from zero to 0.29 humpback whale sightings per week of land-based observations in survey

Environmental Assessment Page 86 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

blocks encompassing the western Newfoundland offshore region in 1979-1982. All sightings occurred in the northern portion of this region. She also reported no sightings of humpback whales during 865 nautical miles (of shipboard survey effort in the western Newfoundland offshore region between 48°N and 50°N in 1976-1983. However, these data should be viewed with caution, given the often limited visibility in the area. Similar to the Kingsley and Reeves (1998) study, humpback sightings in the shipboard portion of her survey in the Gulf of St. Lawrence occurred off the northwest coast of Newfoundland.

Blue Whale

See Section 5.1.3.4 for a descriptive profile of the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus).

Fin Whale

See Section 5.1.3.4 for a descriptive profile of the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus).

Minke Whale

Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) have a cosmopolitan distribution in ice-free seas (Stewart and Leatherwood 1985). In the Northern Hemisphere they migrate northward, at which time they are found in pelagic waters. The status of the minke whale has not been evaluated by COSEWIC, but their populations are generally considered to be much healthier than those of the other baleen whales.

The minke whale is generally sighted in waters <200 m deep (Hooker et al. 1999, Hamazaki 2002), and is believed to generally prefer shallow water. In the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence this species is often seen in areas with steep bottom topographys and depths from 20 to 40 m (Naud et al. 2003). It is usually associated with underwater sand dunes, which provide spawning habitat for sand lance.

The minke whale is usually seen alone or occasionally in pairs in the Gulf (Edds and MacFarlane 1987). In the Gulf it is sighted more often in the northern portion (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). One thousand minke whales were estimated to be present in the entire Gulf of which 600 minke whales were thought to be in the northern portion of the Gulf alone (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). As with the other baleen whale species, minke whales are less common off the west and southwest coasts of Newfoundland than elsewhere off Newfoundland. Lynch (1987) provided summer (June- September) sighting frequencies that ranged from zero to 0.64 minke whale sightings per week of land- based observations in survey blocks encompassing the western Newfoundland offshore region in 1979- 1982. The highest reported frequency (0.64 sightings per week) in this region was St. George's Bay, adjacent to the south side of the Study Area. Lynch (1987) also reported sightings rates of zero and 0.01 minke whale sightings per track line surveyed during 470 nautical miles of shipboard survey effort in the 1° × 1° square from 48°N to 49°N and 60°W to 59°W and during 395 nautical miles of shipboard survey effort in the 1° × 1° square from 49°N to 50°N and 59°W to 58°W, respectively, in 1976-1983.

Environmental Assessment Page 87 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Toothed Whales (Odontocetes)

Sperm Whale

The sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) has an extensive distribution in the world’s oceans. Males generally occur at higher latitudes outside of the breading season (Best 1979; Watkins and Moore 1982; Arnbom and Whitehead 1989; Whitehead and Waters 1990). In the North Atlantic, female sperm whales range only as far as about 45-50°N (Rice 1989), so most sperm whales encountered in the western Newfoundland offshore region are likely to be solitary, older males. There currently are no valid estimates for the size of any sperm whale population (Whitehead 2002); however, COSEWIC considers sperm whales to be not at risk.

The sperm whale is generally found in areas with high secondary productivity and steep bottom topography (Jacquet and Whitehead 1996); their distribution and relative abundance can vary in response to prey availability (Jaquet and Gendron 2002). When feeding they frequently dive to depths of hundreds of metres.

Whitehead et al. (1998) reported an average group size of 1.09 for 92 sightings of sperm whales off Nova Scotia.

The sperm whale has been recorded in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, including the western Newfoundland offshore region (Environment Canada, n.d.). This species is generally seen only sporadically in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; however, a few individuals can be seen there regularly (Reeves and Whitehead 1997). Sperm whale sightings are common in the western Newfoundland offshore region.

Northern Bottlenose Whale

The northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) is found almost exclusively in depths of >500 m (Gowans 2002). In the western North Atlantic it is occurs primarily off northern Labrador and near Sable Island in "the Gully" at the edge of the Scotian Shelf (C-NLOPB 2005). The Davis Strait population is designated not at risk, whereas the Scotian Shelf population is listed under SARA in Schedule 1 as endangered.

The northern bottlenose whale feeds primarily on deep water species of squid (Gowans 2002), and regularly dives to depths >800 m. Northern bottlenose whales can be found in groups ranging in size from one to 20 individuals (Gowans 2002).

Reeves et al. (1993) cite only two reports of northern bottlenose whale in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. However, Wimmer and Whitehead (2004) list four strandings in the Gulf. Consequently, this species is not likely to occur in the Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 88 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Killer Whale

The killer whale (Orcinus orca) also has a cosmopolitan distribution, but is more common at higher latitudes. Killer whales prey on a variety of items, including marine mammals, fish, and squid. Marine mammal prey species include 20 different species of cetacean and 14 different species of pinniped (Jefferson et al. 1991).

Killer whales are large and conspicuous, often traveling in close-knit matrilineal groups of a few to tens of individuals (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999).

Killer whales are known to occur throughout the Gulf of St. Lawrence, including the western Newfoundland offshore region. Their occurrence is somewhat regular near the Mingan Islands and at the western end of the Strait of Belle Isle (Baird 2001). Lien et al. (1988) report occasional sightings of this species over a 12-year period off western Newfoundland and suggest that the population of this species in all Newfoundland waters is quite small. Consequently, this species is likely to be uncommon in the Study Area.

Long-finned Pilot Whale

The long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) is widely distributed throughout the temperate and polar areas of the world's oceans (Olson and Reilly 2002).

Whitehead et al. (1998) reported an average group size of 11.44 for 54 sightings of long-finned pilot whales off Nova Scotia. Pilot whales pods are known to strand frequently en masse.

During an aerial survey from late August to early September of 1995, long-finned pilot whales were seen in the southeastern portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, near Cape Breton Island and southwestern Newfoundland (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). This species occurs regularly in that region and can be considered common in the western Newfoundland offshore region. Sightings in the region occurred in deep water with steep bottom topography (Kingsley and Reeves 1998).

Lynch (1987) provided summer (June-September) sighting frequencies that ranged from zero to 1.07 pilot whale sightings per week of land-based observations in survey blocks encompassing the western Newfoundland offshore region in 1979-1982. The highest rate (1.07 sightings per week) was reported north of the Study Area, while no pilot whales were sighted in the St. George's Bay area. An intermediate rate of 0.35 sightings per week was reported for the northern portion of the western Newfoundland offshore region. Lynch (1987) also reported sighting rates of 0.08 and 0.15 pilot whale sightings per track line surveyed during 470 nautical miles of shipboard survey effort in the 1° × 1° square from 48°N to 49°N and 60°W to 59°W and 395 nautical miles of shipboard survey effort in the 1° × 1° square from 49°N to 50°N and 59°W to 58°W, respectively, in 1976-1983.

Environmental Assessment Page 89 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Beluga Whale

See Section 5.1.3.4 for a descriptive profile of the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas).

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin

The Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) occurs in temperate and sub-Arctic portions of the North Atlantic, where it is abundant (Reeves et al. 1999a).

The Atlantic white-sided dolphin is fairly gregarious, commonly seen in groups of 50-60 and occasionally seen in groups numbering hundreds of individuals (Reeves et al. 1999a). Whitehead et al. (1998) reported a mean group size of 8.8 for this species off Nova Scotia.

This species can be seen throughout the Gulf of St. Lawrence; however, most sightings of this species occur in areas with steep bottom topography along the margins of the Gulf (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). It was seen frequently during aerial surveys from late August to early September of 1995, which provided an abundance estimate of 12,000 animals for the entire Gulf; however, surveys from the following year suggest that the number of these animals that visits the Gulf varies greatly from year to year (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). Atlantic white-sided dolphins were sighted often off southwest Newfoundland during those surveys, and this species is likely to be common in the western Newfoundland offshore region.

White-beaked Dolphin

The white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) is found in cold temperate and sub-Arctic waters in the North Atlantic (Reeves et al. 1999b). This species is less abundant in the western North Atlantic than in the eastern portion of their range, with the greatest abundances occurring in this region off Labrador and southwest Greenland (Kinze 2002). White-beaked dolphin occurs in schools up to several hundreds or thousands in number, although groups of 30 animals or so are most common (Kinze 2002).

Within the Gulf of St. Lawrence, this species is seen almost exclusively in shallow waters (<100 m deep) in the northeast corner of the Gulf near the Strait of Belle Isle (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). Aerial surveys from late August to early September of 1995 and from late July to early August of 1996 provided an abundance estimate of approximately 2500 of these animals for the entire Gulf (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). However, white-beaked dolphins are likely to be uncommon in the western Newfoundland offshore region. Hai et al. (1996) reported one stranding of three white-beaked dolphins in St. George's Bay during 1979-1990. Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

The harbour porpoise is found in shelf waters throughout the northern hemisphere, usually in waters colder than 17°C (Read 1999). The northernmost limit of their range is 70°N, but it is present in

Environmental Assessment Page 90 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

northern coastal waters only during the summer months (IWC 1996). This species currently has no SARA status or schedule, but is under consideration for listing on Schedule 1.

Harbour porpoises are usually seen in small groups of one to three animals, often including at least one calf; occasionally they form much larger groups (Bjørge and Tolley 2002). Harbour porpoises feed independently on small schooling fishes (Read 1999) and echolocate using frequencies in the range of 110-150 kHz (reviewed by Thomson and Richardson 1995).

The harbour porpoise was seen throughout the Gulf of St. Lawrence during aerial surveys from late August to early September of 1995 and from late July to early August of 1996 (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). It was most numerous in the northern portion of the Gulf but was also widely distributed in the southern and central Gulf. Sightings data collected during those surveys provided estimates of 12,000 and 21,000 harbour porpoises, respectively, for the entire Gulf during those two years (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). This species was seen frequently during those surveys in waters off central and southwestern Newfoundland and may occur in the Study Area.

Seals

Harbour Seal

The harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) has one of the largest distributions of any pinniped (C-NLOPB 2005). It can be found in most coastal waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific to as far north as about 80°N off Spitzbergen (Bigg 1981). The population of the harbour seal in eastern Canadian waters was estimated at 30,000-40,000 in 1993 (Burns 2002). The harbour seal is considered data deficient by COSEWIC (Table 5.11).

The harbour seal in Newfoundland waters preys primarily on winter flounder, Arctic cod, shorthorn sculpin, and Atlantic cod (Sjare et al. 2005). It is common in shallow, nearshore waters and haul-out sites (JW 2006). Whelping takes place in May and June and the pups are nursed for 24 days (Bowen et al. 2001).

The harbour seal is continuously distributed throughout the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Burns 2002) and is the only year-round resident pinniped of the St. Lawrence Estuary (MLI 1999). There may be 200 to 300 resident harbour seals around Port au Port Peninsula and St. George’s Bay (B. Sjare in JW 2006). The northern tip of the peninsula (“The Bar”) is a regularly used haul-out site, with 40 to 60 individuals using it in August and September (J. Lawson, DFO, in JW 2006). The largest whelping area (50 or more seals) is found well south of the Study Area at Cape Anguille. In April, May, and June there is a concentration of harbour seals south of the Study Area around Flat Island (inside St. George’s harbour). They also haul-out around the Stephenville Crossing bridge. The species is often found at the mouths of rivers flowing into St. George’s Bay (south of the Study Area), i.e., Highlands, Crabbes, Middle, Barachois, Fischcells, and Robinsons Rivers, but do not haul out at these locations (B. Sjare, DFO in JW 2006).

Environmental Assessment Page 91 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Harp Seal

The harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) ranges throughout the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Russia (Lavigne 2002). It is one of the most abundant pinniped species, with an estimated population size in 2000 of 5.2 million (95% C.I. = 4.0-6.4 million) in the Northwest Atlantic (Healey and Stenson 2000).

The Northwest Atlantic harp seal population summers in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland, migrating south to the Gulf of St. Lawrence or off southern Labrador and northern Newfoundland where pups are born on the ice in late February or March (DFO 2000). Females nurse their pups for about 12 days, then mate and disperse. Older seals aggregate to moult off northeastern Newfoundland and in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence in April and May. After that time, they disperse and migrate northward (DFO 2000). Harp seals dive to a maximum of about 370 m, and dives can last for up to 16 minutes (reviewed by Schreer and Kovacs 1997).

Moulting takes place in northern portions of the Gulf in April and May (DFO 2000; Lavigne 2002). This species is likely to be common in the western Newfoundland offshore region in the late fall to early spring and rare during other times of the year.

Hooded Seal

The range of the hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) encompasses a large portion of the North Atlantic from as far south as Nova Scotia to as far north as north of Svalbard in the Barents Sea (Kovacs 2002). It is not uncommon for hooded seals, particularly young animals, to be found outside their normal range. This species congregates to breed in spring in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, north of Newfoundland, in the Davis Strait, and east of Greenland (Kovacs 2002). Only a small portion of the hooded seal population visits the Gulf, with the bulk of the population whelping off northeast Newfoundland and in the Davis Strait (Hammill 1993). After breeding, hooded seals move to moulting areas on the southeast and northeast coasts of Greenland. Hooded seals disperse widely in the summer and fall (Kovacs 2002).

The hooded seal breeding season lasts only 2-3 weeks in each area. Females give birth in loose pack ice areas and nurse their pups for a mere four days (Kovacs 2002).

Hooded seals are likely to be common in the Newfoundland offshore region in the spring and rare during other times of the year.

Grey Seal

The grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) is distributed in coastal areas of the North Atlantic, off eastern Canada, Iceland, the United Kingdom, and Norway during the breeding season from September to December (Bonner 1981). Outside the breeding season, it ranges farther. The Northwest Atlantic stock of grey seals is found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and around Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Environmental Assessment Page 92 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The grey seal feeds on benthic and pelagic prey. Prey species include herring, cod, flounder, skate, squid and mackerel (JW 2006).

Female grey seals give birth between September and March (Hall 2002). In Canada, the peak pupping season occurs in January (Hall 2002). Pups are nursed for approximately 18 days and the female mates again near the end of the lactation period either on land or in the water (Hall 2002). Grey seals from Sable Island disperse after the breeding period, moult during May-June, and move northward during July-September, returning to Sable Island to breed in October-December (Stobo and Zwanenburg 1990). Grey seal dives last, on average, from 4-10 minutes, with a maximum duration of 30 minutes (Hall 2002).

Grey seals gather in breeding colonies from October to December. The largest breeding colony in the North Atlantic is on Sable Island, east of Nova Scotia, with about 85,000 individuals (Hall 2002). In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, colonies are located between the eastern end of Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton Island, mainly on Amet Island, and on the ice in St. George's Bay (Stobo and Zwanenburg 1990). The seals disperse following the breeding season, from January to April, but during the moulting season in May and throughout the summer, grey seals are also seen on Anticosti Island (Stobo and Zwanenburg 1990). This species was seen hauled out at the northern tip of Port au Port Peninsula during aerial surveys in August and September (J. Lawson, DFO in JW 2006). The Gulf of St. Lawrence population of grey seals has been estimated at 69,000 animals (Hall 2002). This species is likely to be common in the Newfoundland offshore region.

Sea Turtles

Three species of sea turtle could potentially occur in the Study Area, i.e., loggerhead turtle, leatherback turtle, and Kemp's Ridley turtle, (Table 5.12).

Table 5.12. Habitat, Abundance, and Conservation Status of Sea Turtles Potentially Occurring in the Study Area.

Species Occurrence in Study Area SARA Status* Leatherback turtle Seasonally common Schedule 1: Endangered (Dermochelys coriacea) Loggerhead turtle Uncommon Not Listed (Caretta caretta) Kemp's ridley turtle Very rare, Not Listed (Lepidochelys kempii) only juveniles *Species designation under SARA (EC 2006 website).

Leatherback Turtle

See Section 5.1.3.4 for a descriptive profile of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea).

Environmental Assessment Page 93 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Loggerhead Turtle

The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) is the largest hard-shelled turtle in the world (typically 85–100 cm) and also the most abundant sea turtle in North American waters (Ernst et al. 1994). It wanders widely throughout its range, found in coastal areas or sometimes more than 200 km out to sea. The loggerhead is omnivorous, predominantly consuming many types of invertebrates but also algae and vascular plants (Ernst et al. 1994). The North American population is thought to be declining (Ernst et al. 1994). This species is designated threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Loggerheads found in Canadian waters tend to be smaller than their counterparts in coastal U.S. waters (Witzell 1999), so are likely younger animals.

Seventy percent of 936 loggerheads caught incidentally by this fishery between 1992 and 1995 from the Caribbean to Labrador off the Grand Banks. Animals were caught in this region during all months from June to November with a peak in captures during September. Loggerheads are not observed as frequently as leatherbacks on the Scotian Shelf (Breeze et al. 2002). There is little information on the loggerhead turtle in the western Newfoundland offshore region, but it likely to be rare.

Ridley Turtle

Adult Kemp's Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) rarely range beyond the Gulf of Mexico, but juveniles can be found as far north as Newfoundland on the east coast of North America (Ernst et al. 1994). There are no estimates on the number of Kemp's Ridley turtles occurring in Canadian waters, but Breeze et al. (2002) lists it as an accidental visitor to eastern Canada and state that the Scotian Shelf is not an important habitat for the species. The number of nesting females (primarily in Rancho Nuevo, Mexico) dropped from as many as 40,000 over 50 years ago to a low of around 700 in the late 1980s, but saw a steady increase in the 1990s as a result of conservation measures (Marquez et al. 1999). The number of Kemp's Ridleys that visit the western Newfoundland offshore region is unknown, but this species is likely to be extremely rare there. The Kemp's Ridley turtle is designated endangered under the U.S. ESA.

5.1.2. Terrestrial Ecosystem

A description of the terrestrial biological environment within the Study Area is presented in three separate sections; vegetation, freshwater fish and fish habitat, and wildlife (birds and mammals).

5.1.2.1. Vegetation

This section provides background information on the terrestrial habitats and vegetation of the Study Area and of the entire Port au Port Peninsula. It provides a general overview of the terrain and vegetation of the Study Area and information on each of the habitats listed below. Each habitat type is described in terms of any rare species occurring within it, species that are of particular concern, and its ecological importance.

Environmental Assessment Page 94 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Information was collected through contact with experts of the terrestrial vegetation of the Study Area, by literature review, by data acquisition from the Atlantic Canadian Conservation Data Centre (ACCDC), and by examination of air photos of the Shoal Point and Long Point peninsulas. No field surveys or original research were undertaken by LGL for this section.

Information received from the Conservation Data Centre included a list of rare plant species recorded from the whole of the Port au Port Peninsula, their approximate survey location, and their “S-ranks”, which define the rarity of species or communities (ACCDC 2007). The S-ranks are defined in Table 5.13. The group of species with S-ranks of S1, S2 and S3 is considered a VEC for the purposes of this environmental assessment.

Much of the documented vegetation surveys that have been conducted have been in conjunction with the Rare Plant Project, 1999-2001. The purpose of this initiative was to learn more about the species listed in The Rare Vascular Plants of Newfoundland (Bouchard et al. 1991), as well as any additional rare species that may be encountered. It involved a concerted effort of botanists who surveyed selected sites on the Port au Port Peninsula and other locations on the west coast of Newfoundland thought to have rare species or plant species potentially threatened by human activities (Newfoundland Rare Plant Project). Other information has been garnered from opportunistic observations by botanists and naturalists, some dating back to observations recorded in the early part of the 20th century.

Table 5.13. Definition of ‘S-Ranks’ Used by the Atlantic Canadian Conservation Data Centre.

Extremely rare: May be especially vulnerable to extirpation (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few S1 remaining individuals). Rare: May be vulnerable to extirpation due to rarity or other factors (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining S2 individuals). S3 Uncommon, or found only in a restricted range, even if abundant at some locations (21 to 100 occurrences). Usually widespread, fairly common, and apparently secure with many occurrences, but of longer-term concern S4 (e.g., watch list) (100+ occurrences). S5 Widespread, abundant, and secure, under present conditions. Numeric range rank: A range between two consecutive ranks for a species/community. Denotes uncertainty about S#S# the exact rarity (e.g., S1S2). Historical: Previously occurred in the province but may have been overlooked during the past 20-70 years. SH Presence is suspected and will likely be rediscovered; depending on species/community. SU Unrankable: Possibly in peril, but status is uncertain - need more information. Source: ACCDC (2007).

Vegetation survey sites in the Project Area include the following (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2).

• Piccadilly Bay • Piccadilly Head • Piccadilly

Environmental Assessment Page 95 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• Round Head • West Bay Centre • Shoal Point • The Gravels

Other sites on the wider Port au Port Peninsula have also been surveyed and will be briefly discussed to provide a wider context for the vegetation found in the Study Area. These include the following (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2):

• Cape St. George • Garden Hills • Port au Port • Area between Cape St. George and Mainland (western coast of Port au Port Peninsula) • Lower Cove • Southwestern Port au Port Peninsula • White Hills

Overview of Study Area

The Study Area occurs within the Port au Port sub-region of the Western Newfoundland Forest Ecoregion. This subregion contains balsam fir forest, wetland, salt marshes, and is characterized by wind-exposed barrens, bedrock, and shallow soils (Meades 1990). Many calciphilous species are to be found due to the limestone substrate and there are a number of rare plants, including arctic-alpine species, Gulf endemics, and Cordilleran disjuncts (Meades 1990). Common species are those adapted to exposed windy conditions, such as: mountain avens (Dryas integrifolia), swamp birch (Betula pumila), red bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva ursi), dwarf willow (Salix herbacea), purple saxifrage (Saxifraga oppositifolia), Greenland primrose (Primula egaliksensis), sedges (Carex spp.), alpine bearberry (Arctostaphylos alpina), and moss campion (Silene acaulis) (PAA 2000).

Some plants have range restricted to parts of the Western Newfoundland Forest Ecoregion. Cypripedium reginae is an example of a rare species dependant on calcareous or serpentine soils that can’t tolerate the harsher climate on the limestone barrens of the Great Northern Peninsula (Damman 1983).

The proposed initial drilling location in the Project Area is at the northern end of Shoal Point (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2). Shoal Point is covered in peat and clay, and is characterized by stunted forest at the base, large extensions of peat bog, some patterned fens, several ponds close to the tip, and a small stretch of sand and gravel at the northern extremity. Much of the ground cover consists of sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), Labrador tea (Rhododendron groenlandicum), sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), sedge (Carex spp.), and blueberry (Vacinnium angustifolium) (Greenlea and Herringa 1984). There was a road leading up the 13-km long spit that is now largely degraded although still used by ATVs (B. Winsor, pers. comm.). Another possible drilling location within the Project Area is at the northern end of Long Point (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2Long Point extends 29 km from the northwest

Environmental Assessment Page 96 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

part of the Port au Port Peninsula, and is more developed with a highway, houses, and land developed for hay and pasture (Greenlea and Herringa 1984). Undisturbed areas consist up of peatlands and balsam fir forests that are more productive than those found on Shoal Point. Ground cover consists of juniper (Juniperus spp.), ferns, raspberry (Rubus idaeus) and grasses (Greenlea and Herringa 1984).

The following sections provide more detail relating to the primary habitat types occurring within the Study Area (i.e., Port au Port Peninsula and eastern coastal region of Port au Port Bay). Habitat types include the following:

• Wetlands • Limestone barrens • Salt marshes • Forest

Wetlands

Habitat Description

Wetlands are areas of land where the water table is at or above the level of the mineral soil, and include bogs, fens, marshes and swamps. Common species found in Newfoundland wetlands, like those on the Port au Port Peninsula, include bog rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla), leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata), pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea), and round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundiflolia) (Meades 1990).

Wetlands in the Study Area

The Port au Port Peninsula is in the Boreal Atlantic Maritime wetland region. The western Newfoundland portion of this region consists of Atlantic plateau bogs, 2-4 m deep, and slope fens. Atlantic plateau bogs are plateau-like with the surface raised above surrounding terrain. There are often large and scattered pools. Slope fens are small meadow-like springs in the forest, developed on poorly drained slopes but receiving nutrient enriched seepage water from surrounding soils. These are common in forested areas of western and northern Newfoundland, particularly on limestone substrate (Wells and Pollett 1983). The wetland forms in this part of the province tend towards extensive plateau bogs on coastal lowlands, smaller rich slope fens on forest clearings, and alluvial shrub swamps of mountain maple (Acer spicatum) or speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) (Meades 1993).

Bogs found within the Port au Port subregion are classified within the characteristic Kalmio-sphagnetum fusci association. Species groups characteristic for this association include Kalmia angustifolia, Rubus chamaemorus, Vaccinium angustifolium, Sphagnum fusicum, S. Rubellum, and Mylia anomala (Pollett 1972).

The characteristic fen association for much of the western part of the province, including Port au Port, is Potentillo-Campylietum stellati. This association is characterized by the species grouping of Thalictrum polyganum, Selaginella selaginoides, Campylium stellatum and Potentilla fruticosa. The indicators for

Environmental Assessment Page 97 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

rich fens within this same system are the association of the species Tofieldia glutinosa, Triglochin maritime, Primula mistanssinica, and Pinguicula vulgaris (Pollett 1972). While minimal survey work has been done on wetlands of the Port au Port Peninsula, all of the rich fen indicator species have been recorded on the Peninsula (ACCDC 2007).

Air photos of the Shoal Point and Long Point depict diverse wetland habitat, including meandering streams, fluvial fens, perched and kettle ponds and patterned systems such as ribbed and ladder fens. Such wetland structure is somewhat atypical of western Newfoundland. Peatland with ladder fens is more common in the central part of the province (Wells and Pollett 1983), and kettle formation is uncommon for the Island of Newfoundland. The streams and associated vegetation, and the high ratio of edge to open water of the ponds, along with the uniqueness of some of the wetland structures make these areas of potential scientific interest in terms of flora and habitat.

Extremely Rare, Rare and Uncommon Wetland Plants in the Study Area

One plant survey was done near the tip of Shoal Point (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2) in conjunction with the Newfoundland Rare Plant Project in 1999 (ACCDC 2007). This turned up the following rare and uncommon species.

• Saltmarsh bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus subsp. Paludosus) (S2 rank) • Beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata) (S3 rank) • Mackenzie’s sedge (Carex mackenziei) (S3 rank) • Hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus) (S3 rank) • Freshwater cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) (S3 rank)

Extremely rare, rare and uncommon wetland species recorded elsewhere in the Study Area include the following species (ACCDC 2007).

• Flat-stalked pondweed (Potamogeton friesii) (S1 rank) • Western threadleaf pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis subsp occidentalis) (S1 rank) • Showy ladyslipper (Cypripedium reginae) (S2 rank) • Slenderleaf sundew (Drosera linearis) (S2 rank) • Knotted rush (Juncus nodosus) (S2 rank) • Northern valerian (Valeriana dioica subsp. sylvatica) (S2 rank) • White addersmouth (Malaxis monophylla var. brachypoda) (S2S3 rank) (also found in moist limestone barrens)

Importance of Wetlands

Fens and marshes are rich habitats for flora and fauna, including a diversity of orchids for plant enthusiasts and berries for consumption, and habitat for a wide variety of waterfowl and other birds. Peatlands are essentially a non-renewable resource, considering they are formed over thousands of years of plant accumulation (National Wetlands Working Group 1988).

Environmental Assessment Page 98 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Limestone Barrens

Habitat Description

Limestone barrens are found in exposed locations with Arctic-like climatic conditions of low temperatures and high winds. Ground is consistently disturbed by frost heave, frost shattering and cryoturbation (Tilley et al. 2005). This distinctive habitat gives rise to many unique and rare plants, including many endemics and species that are at their southern limit (Tilley et al 2005). While the entire Port au Port Peninsula is often acclaimed for the interesting and unique limestone barren habitat, much of the Project Area is not significantly limestone-influenced (J. Maunder, pers. comm.). Parts of the peninsula having significant amounts of limestone as parent material are centered in the southwest and centre of the peninsula (Greenlea and Herringa 1984).

The barrens structure includes a series of terraces extending inland from the shoreline. The lower terraces are dominated by shrubs such as dwarf willow and swamp birch. The upper terraces become more and more exposed until they are open bedrock with little soil cover. These upper exposed areas are often called Dryas Rock Gardens because of their abundance of mountain avens (Dryas integrafolia) (PAA 2000).

Limestone Barrens in the Study Area

There are two particularly noteworthy limestone barrens’ locations in the Study Area. They are (1) Table Mountain, reaching the coast on the mainland side of the Port au Port isthmus, and (2) the barrens from Cape St. George on the southwest corner of the Port au Port Peninsula up to Mainland (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2). Both areas are quite rich in rare plants. Table Mountain is the only provincial location where certain species are found, including Neotorularia humilis, Carex petricosa var. misandroides, and Senecio cymbalaria, while Hedysarum boreale subsp. mackenzii is recorded only between Cape St. George and Mainland. The latter location has been subject to increasing disturbance over the past 15 years with the development of a road and an increase in human recreation, leading to concerns over the habitat with respect to rare plant conservation (L. Hermanutz, Memorial University of Newfoundland, pers. comm., N. Djan-Chékar, The Rooms Provincial Museum, pers. comm.).

Extremely Rare, Rare and Uncommon Limestone Barrens Plants in the Study Area

Some of the extremely rare, rare and uncommon plants associated with limestone barrens on the Port au Port Peninsula include the following (ACCDC 2007).

• Rock dwelling sedge (Carex petricosa var. misandroides) (S1 rank) • Dwarf arctic ragwort (Senecio cymbalaria) (S1 rank) • Handsome pussytoes (Antennaria pulcherrima) (S2 rank) • Low northern sedge (Carex concinna) (S2 rank) • Northern rough fescue (Festuca altaica) (S2 rank) • Alpine fescue (Festuca brachyphylla subsp. brachyphylla) (S2 rank)

Environmental Assessment Page 99 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• Dawson sandwort (Minuartia dawsonensis) (S2 rank) • Low northern rockcress (Neoturulia humilis) (S2 rank) • Hooker’s orchid (Platanthera hookeri) (S2 rank) • Crantz’s cinquefoil (Potentilla neumanniana) (S2 rank) • Dwarf tansy (Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp huronense) (S2 rank) • Selkirk’s violet (Viola selkirkii) (S2 rank) • Smooth cliffbrake (Woodsia glabella) (S2 rank) • Bering chickweed (Cerastium beeringianum subsp. beeringianum) (S2S3 rank) • Bulblet bladder fern (Cystopteris bulbifera) (S2S3 rank) • White adder’s-mouth orchid (Malaxis monophylla var. brachypoda) (S2S3 rank) • Howell’s pussytoes (Antennaria howelii subsp. gaspensis) (S3 rank) • Glacier sedge (Carex glacialis) (S3 rank) • Limestone oak fern (Gymnocarpium robertianum) (S3 rank) • Arctic bladderpod (Lesquerella arctica) (S3 rank)

Importance of Limestone Barrens

Limestone barrens are home to a unique suite of species and this habitat greatly increases the floral diversity and number of rare plants found in the region. The Port au Port Peninsula includes the southern extent of this habitat. Along with adjacent Table Mountain, this part of the limestone barrens is somewhat distinct from that found on the Great Northern Peninsula or in the Gros Morne Mountains (N. Djan-Chékar, The Rooms Provincial Museum, pers. comm.). Rare plants of the limestone barrens are sensitive to disturbance and some species have already been lost to the Cape St. George area of the Port au Port Peninsula due to human disturbance (L. Hermanutz, Memorial University of Newfoundland, pers. comm.). On the province’s northern peninsula, habitat loss of the limestone barrens due to quarrying, road construction, use of ATVs and uncontrolled development over the past 25 years has been responsible for endangering not only important plant species but the entire ecosystem (LBHSP website). Thus far, survey work on the limestone barrens of the Port au Port Peninsula has been limited to the more accessible areas, and plant surveys have been limited in extent rather than extensive leading many to believe that there is a high probability that more rare plants species are present in the limestone barrens habitat (J. Maunder, The Rooms Provincial Museum, pers. comm.; C. Hanel, Wildlife Division, NLDEC, pers. comm.; N. Djan-Chékar, The Rooms Provincial Museum, pers. comm.)

Limestone Barrens Plant Species of Particular Concern

Low northern rockcress (Neotorularia humilis) has been recorded from only one location in the province, Table Mountain (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2), and is listed as endangered under the ESA (Tilley et. al. 2005). The plant is a perennial herb in the Brassicaceae family that depends on high elevation limestone habitats. Habitat degradation could threaten the population. Some other areas of the Port au Port Peninsula have been surveyed for the presence of this species but thus far it has not been observed on the peninsula, despite the presence of suitable habitat (Tilley et al. 2005).

Environmental Assessment Page 100 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Long’s and Fernald’s braya (Braya longii and B. fernaldii, respectively) are both small perennial flowers endemic to the limestone barrens habitat of Newfoundland. Although occurrence of these species has not been documented on the Port au Port Peninsula, suitable habitat appears to exist in the area. Both species are briefly profiled in Section 5.1.3 on “Species at Risk”.

Salt Marshes

Habitat Description

Salt marshes are grass-dominated coastal ecosystems subject to inundation of saline tidal waters (National Wetlands Working Group 1988). They contain salt-tolerant terrestrial plants, and are characterized by a unique suite of characteristic vegetation. Common species in Newfoundland salt marshes include Spartina alterniflora, Spartina pattens, Limonium carolinianum, Salicornia europaea, Suaeda linearis, Atriplex patula, and Plantago maritime.

Salt Marshes in the Study Area

There are a few salt marsh locations in the Project Area, including Piccadilly Provincial Park around Piccadilly Head, Tea Cove on Long Point, and Point au Mal on the eastern shore of Port au Port Bay across from Shoal Point (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2). All of these locations occur within the Study Area.

Rare Saltmarsh Plants in the Study Area

The following are rare plants occurring in saltmarsh habitat in the Study Area (ACCDC 2007).

• Saltmarsh bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus subsp. paludosus) (S2 rank) • Sea lavender (Limonium carolinianum) (S2 rank) • Saltwater cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) (S2 rank)

Importance of Saltmarshes

In Newfoundland, salt marsh habitats harbour a suite of rare species, mainly because of the rarity of the habitat itself in the province (C. Hanel, Wildlife Division, NLDEC, pers. comm.). The characteristic high productivity of these systems can provide important food and habitat sources for fish and wildlife and their contribution to the fishery has often been indicated (National Wetlands Working Group 1998). To date, minimal surveying of salt marsh habitat has been conducted on Long Point, although salt marsh habitat at Tea Cove has been identified (Batterson and Sheppard 2000).

Environmental Assessment Page 101 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Forests and Scrub Forests

Habitat Description

As of 1984, the amount of productive forest in the Project Area was approximately 116.5 km2 and was dominated by softwoods (Greenlea and Herringa 1984). Forest cover in the Port au Port subregion is reduced compared to other parts of the Western Newfoundland Forest Ecoregion, due to high wind and storm exposure. Where they do occur, forests are often stunted due to wind and are often unproductive (Meades and Moores 1989). Soil drainage is a large factor in species composition, with the better drained sites, such as Long Point, containing balsam fir (Abies balsamea), white spruce (Picea glauca), white birch (Betula papyrifera), maple (Acer spp.), mountain ash (Sorbus sp.), and pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica). Areas with poor drainage are typically characterized by black spruce (Picea mariana), larch (Larix laricina), and speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) (Greenlea and Herringa 1984). Black spruce is less common than in other parts of the province (Meades and Moore 1989). Some species, such as bilberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium) and yew (Taxus canadensis), are common in forests occurring over limestone bedrock (Meades 1993).

Extremely Rare, Rare and Uncommon Forest Plants in the Study Area

The following are extremely rare, rare and uncommon plants occurring in forest habitat in the Study Area (ACCDC 2007).

• Hooked crowfoot (Ranunculus recurvatus var. recurvatus) (S1 rank) • Selkirk’s violet (Viola selkirkii) (S2 rank) • Northern woodland violet (Viola septentrionalis) (S2 rank) • Bulblet bladder fern (Cystopteris bulbifera) (S2S3 rank)

Importance of Forests and Scrub Forests

The limestone substrate found in the barrens continues under much of the forest in the Study Area, making this a scientifically interesting system with unique characteristics (N. Djan-Chékar, The Rooms Provincial Museum, pers. comm., Damman 1983). Little survey work has been done in the forested areas of the Port au Port Peninsula.

ACCDC Species Listings for Entire Study Area

Table 5.14 provides a complete listing of the 60+ extremely rare, rare and uncommon terrestrial vegetation species known to occur in the Study Area, as of May 2007.

Environmental Assessment Page 102 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.14. Study Area Plants and Associated S-Ranks.

Common Name Scientific Name Family S-Rank Fairyslipper Calypso bulbosa var. americana Orchidaceae S1 Rock dwelling sedge Carex petricosa var. misandroides Cyperaceae S1 Teaberry Gaultheria procumbens Ericaceae S1 Mackenzie's sweetvetch Hedysarum boreale subsp. mackenzii Fabaceae S1 Low northern rockcress Neoturulia humilis Brassicaceae S1 Flat stalked pondweed Potamogeton friesii Potamogetonaceae S1 Hooked crowfoot Ranunculus recurvatus var. recurvatus Ranunculaceae S1 Dwarf Arctic ragwort Senecio cymbalaria Asteraceae S1 Slender wedgescale Sphenopholis intermedia Poaceae S1 Western threadleaf pondweed Stuckenia filiformis subsp. occidentalis Potamogetonaceae S1 Broadlobed dandelion Taraxacum latilobum Asteraceae S1S2 Laurentian fragile fern Cystopteris laurentiana Dryopteridaceae S1S3 Handsome pussytoes Antennaria pulcherrima Asteraceae S2 Narrowleaf arnica Arnica angustifolia subsp. angustifolia Asteraceae S2 Saltmarsh bulrush Bolboschoenus maritimus subsp. paludosus Cyperaceae S2 Low northern sedge Carex concinna Cyperaceae S2 Showy ladyslipper Cypripedium reginae Orchidaceae S2 Slenderleaf sundew Drosera linearis Droseraceae S2 Northern rough fescue Festuca altaica Poaceae S2 Alpine fescue Festuca brachyphylla subsp. brachyphylla Poaceae S2 Knotted rush Juncus nodosus Juncaceae S2 Sea lavender Limonium carolinianum Plumbaginaceae S2 Dawson sandwort Minuartia dawsonensis Caryophyllaceae S2 Hooker's orchid Platanthera hookeri Orchidaceae S2 Crantz's cinquefoil Potentilla neumanniana Rosaceae S2 Macoun's buttercup Ranunculus macounii Ranunculaceae S2 Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens var. sempervirens Asteraceae S2 Giant burreed Sparganium eurycarpum Sparganiaceae S2 Saltwater cordgrass Spartina alterniflora Poaceae S2 Dwarf tansy Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp. huronense Asteraceae S2 Purple false oat Trisetum melicoides Poaceae S2 Northern valerian Valeriana dioica subsp. sylvatica Valerianaceae S2 Selkirk's violet Viola selkirkii Violaceae S2 Northern woodland violet Viola septentrionalis Violaceae S2 Smooth cliffbrake Woodsia glabella Dryopteridaceae S2 Bering chickweed Cerastium beeringianum subsp. beeringianum Caryophyllaceae S2S3 Bulblet bladder fern Cystopteris bulbifera Dryopteridaceae S2S3 White addersmouth Malaxis monophylla var. brachypoda Orchidaceae S2S3 Northern green orchid Platanthera aquilonis Orchidaceae S2S3 Forest bluegrass Poa saltuensis Poaceae S2S3 Beachgrass Ammophila breviligulata Poaceae S3 Alpine pussytoes Antennaria alpina subsp. canescens Asteraceae S3 Howell's pussytoes Antennaria howellii subsp. gaspensis Asteraceae S3 Bristleleaf sedge Carex eburnea Cyperaceae S3 Glacier sedge Carex glacialis Cyperaceae S3

Environmental Assessment Page 103 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.14 Continued.

Common Name Scientific Name Family S-Rank Mackenzie's sedge Carex mackenziei Cyperaceae S3 Longstalked sedge Carex pedunculata Cyperaceae S3 Rock sedge Carex rupestris Cyperaceae S3 Sterile sedge Carex sterilis Cyperaceae S3 Fewflowered spikerush Eleocharis quinqueflora Cyperaceae S3 Bog willowherb Epilobium leptophyllum Onagraceae S3 Limestone oak fern Gymnocarpium robertianum Dryopteridaceae S3 Arctic bladderpod Lesquerella arctica Brassicaceae S3 Green addersmouth Malaxis unifolia Orchidaceae S3 Whitegrain mountainrice Oryzopsis asperifolia Poaceae S3 Newfoundland oxytrope Oxytropis campestris var. minor Fabaceae S3 Northern hollyfern Polystichum lonchitis Dryopteridaceae S3 Snowy cinquefoil Potentilla nivea Rosaceae S3 Plumboy Rubus arcticus subsp. acaulis Rosaceae S3 Limestone willow Salix calcicola var. calcicola Salicaceae S3 Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus Cyperaceae S3 Freshwater cordgrass Spartina pectinata Poaceae S3 Common moonwort Botrychium lunaria Ophioglossaceae S3S4 Source: ACCDC (2007).

5.1.2.2. Fish and Fish Habitat

Examination of topographic maps indicates the occurrence of more than sixty watersheds in the Project Area and more than eighty watersheds in the Study Area (NRCan 2000). Many of these watersheds are first order streams without tributaries and likely do not have much quality fish habitat due to slope and intermittent flow. Second and third order streams also occur in the Study Area. There appears to be a small watershed in the immediate vicinity of K-39 well on Shoal Point which includes some pond habitat. Other small watersheds also occur on Shoal Point.

There is little available habitat and biological information on the freshwater systems that occur on the Port au Port Peninsula (B. Watkins, DFO, pers. comm.). Freshwater, anadromous and catromous fish species that occur in the Study Area include Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Porter et al. 1974; JW 2006). No banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanous) (a listed species) have been reported on the Port au Port Peninsula.

Only one scheduled Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) river, Fox Island River (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2), occurs in the Project Area. The mouth of Fox Island River is located on the eastern side of Port au Port Bay, approximately 13 km northeast of the tip of Shoal Point. One other scheduled salmon river, Serpentine River (Figure 5.2, Section 5.1.1.2), occurs in the Study Area. Its mouth is located approximately 40 km northeast of the tip of Shoal Point, outside of Port au Port Bay (NRCan).

Environmental Assessment Page 104 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

5.1.2.3. Terrestrial Wildlife

This section provides background information on the land birds and terrestrial mammals present in the Study Area and Project Area. Those that are common to the region are listed, with land birds divided into those commonly found in forested habitats and those found in wetland or more open habitats. Bird and mammal species of interest or of concern are discussed in more detail.

Systematic surveys of terrestrial wildlife have been minimal in the Project Area (S. Pardy, pers. comm.), and much of the existing data rely on anecdotal evidence and inferences based on known populations near the Project Area and knowledge of animal biology and habitat requirements. A number of experts were contacted to contribute their knowledge of bird and mammal populations in the Project Area.

Birds

Because of geography and predominance of the surrounding marine system, the Port au Port Peninsula and, in particular, Shoal Point and Long Point are potentially important stop-over points for land and shore birds during migration (P. Thomas, pers. comm.).

Minimal systematic surveys have been conducted for land birds on the Port au Port Peninsula. The following species, typical of boreal forests, boreal wetlands and open areas, have been recorded (PAA 2000; B. Winsor, local naturalist??, pers comm.).

Forest Birds Recorded in the Study Area

• Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) • Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) • Northern Shrike (Lanius excubitor) • Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) • Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) • Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) • Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) • Black and White Warbler (Mniotilta varia) • Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrina) • Yellow Warbler (Dendroica aestiva) • Bay-breasted Warbler(Dendroica castanea) • Northern Parula (Parula americana) • Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) • Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) • Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) • Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) • Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) • Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) • Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) • Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana)

Environmental Assessment Page 105 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Wetland and Open Area Birds Recorded in the Study Area

• Savannah Sparrow(Passerculus sandwichensis) • Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) • Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) • Snow Bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) • Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) • Mourning Warbler (Oporornis philadelphia) • Merlin (Falco columbarius) • American Kestrel (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) • Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) • Mallard (Abas okatyrhynchos) • Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope) • Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) • Snow Goose (Anser caerulescens) • Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) • Black Duck (Anas rubripes) • Green-winged Teal (Anas carolinensis) • Great Blue Heron (Ardrea herodias) • Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) • American Pipit (Anthus rubescens) • Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) • Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) • Gadwall (Anas strepera)

Trout River Bird Species

The closest Breeding Bird Survey location is at Trout River, approximately 75 km north of the Study Area at the southern border of Gros Morne National Park. While differing in habitat due in part to its serpentine substrate, it is situated on the west coast of same ecoregion, the Western Newfoundland Forest. Species recorded at Trout River between 1966 and 2004 (Sauer et al. 2005) include the following:

• Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) • Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago delicata) • Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) • Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus) • Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) • Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) • Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) • Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) • Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia) • American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) • Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) • Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis)

Environmental Assessment Page 106 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• Mourning Warbler (Oporornis philadelphia) • Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) • Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius) • American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) • Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) • Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) • Common Raven (Corvus corax) • Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) • Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) • Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) • Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica) • Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) • Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) • Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) • Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) • White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) • Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) • Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) • American Robin (Turdus migratorius) • Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) • Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) • Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) • Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) • Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) • Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) • Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens)

Terrestrial Bird Species of Concern in the Study Area

Short-eared Owl

The Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus flammeus) is listed as a species of special concern in Canada under COSEWIC (Schmelzer 2005) and as vulnerable by the Newfoundland and Labrador ESA. This species is found across the country, but has been suffering a long term population decline due to loss of habitat. This owl is a ground nester and its preferred habitat is open fields, tundra, bog, sand dune and coastal barrens (Schmelzer 2005). Although known to breed in June in the Canadian Arctic, its breeding time in Newfoundland is unknown. Incubation lasts three to four weeks and the young fledge two to three weeks after hatching. Rare observations have been made of the Short-eared Owl on Long Point during its breeding period (B. Mactavish, LGL, pers. comm., B. Winsor, local naturalist??, pers. comm.).

Gray-cheeked Thrush

The Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus) was recently listed as vulnerable under the ESA. Breeding by this thrush has been recorded on the Port au Port Peninsula near Mainland, outside of the

Environmental Assessment Page 107 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Project Area but within the Study Area. The Gray-cheeked Thrush likely breeds on other parts of the Port au Port Peninsula as well (P. Thomas, CWS, pers. comm.). The provincial population size is not known, though trends in Canadian populations and regional anecdotal evidence suggest a strong downward trend (NLDOEC 2006). It nests on the ground or in low shrubs of its preferred low, dense, coniferous forest habitat, and is present in this province from May to August (Dalley et al. 2005). The few records of breeding by this bird have been in June and July. There is insufficient information to either assess any demographic parameters or identify the most important factors threatening the species.

Peregrine Falcon

See Section 5.1.3 (Species at Risk) for short profile of the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum).

Rusty Blackbird

The Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) is listed as a species of special concern by COSEWIC due to the severe decline this population has experienced throughout the country (COSEWIC 2006). It has not been documented in the Study Area though it has been recorded elsewhere in western Newfoundland, including along the approaches to the Long Range Mountains (B. Winsor, local naturalist??, pers. comm.). Suitable boreal forest wetland habitat is found on the Port au Port Peninsula (B. Mactavish, LGL, pers. comm.). It is not listed by the Newfoundland and Labrador ESA.

Olive-sided Flycatcher

The Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) is on the candidate list for COSEWIC. It has a large range throughout North America but populations have been declining throughout most of its range in the past decades (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). Preferred habitat of this bird is coniferous forest, often associated with openings and along the edges of water bodies where standing dead trees are present. Olive-sided Flycatchers have been observed migrating along the Port au Port Peninsula (P. Thomas, CWS, pers. comm.). It is not listed by the Newfoundland and Labrador ESA.

Mammals

Mammals typical of boreal habitats are found in the Study Area, including masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), beaver (Castor canadensis), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), ermine (Mustela erminea), mink (Mustela vison), river otter (Lontra canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), lynx (Lynx lynx), and moose (Alces alces) (Meades 1990).

Environmental Assessment Page 108 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Terrestrial Mammal Species of Interest in the Study Area

Moose, woodland caribou and Newfoundland marten are the mammal species of most interest in the Study Area. A short profile of the moose is presented here and profiles of the other two mammal species are included in Section 5.1.3 on Species at Risk.

Moose

Moose are abundant throughout the peninsula in their favoured balsam fir forest habitat (B. Winsor, Naturalist, pers comm.) and its population has been increasing in recent years in western Newfoundland (W. Barney, NLDEC, pers. comm.). The Port au Port Peninsula makes up Moose Management Area 43 which will distribute 450 hunting licenses for the 2007/2008 season (NLDEC 2007). This equals the number of licenses distributed in 2006/2007 and is an increase from the 400 distributed in 2005/2006 (JW 2006). The moose breeding period takes place in September/October in Newfoundland, with young being born in the spring and staying with their mothers until the following spring. There have also been reported sightings of an albino moose on the Port au Port Peninsula (Denise Cole, NL Wildlife Division, pers. comm.).

5.1.3. Species at Risk

A number of plant and animal species considered as “species at risk” potentially occur within the Study Area of the Project (Table 5.15). Some of these species are known to occur in the Study Area while others have some chance of occurrence based on existing habitat and historical records. All of the following species designations associated with SARA, COSEWIC), and ESA are current as of 1 May 2007. Emphasis is given to those species listed as endangered, threatened or special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA. Only species listed on Schedule 1 have special legal protection under SARA in terms of recovery strategies, penalties to be incurred for harming or killing individuals of the species, or destroying critical habitat.

5.1.3.1. SARA

Only species listed on Schedule 1 have special legal protection under SARA in terms of recovery strategies, penalties to be incurred for harming or killing individuals of the species, or destroying critical habitat. Once a species is listed, measures to protect it and help its recovery are implemented. Marine- associated and terrestrial species that are legally protected under SARA (i.e., Schedule 1 threatened or endangered) as well as those listed as special concern on Schedule 1, Schedule 2 and Schedule 3, and that potentially occur in the Study Area are indicated in Table 5.15.

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 Schedule 1, a ‘recovery strategy’ and corresponding ‘action plan’ must be prepared for endangered, threatened and extirpated species, and a management plan must be prepared for species

Environmental Assessment Page 109 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

listed as special concern. Currently, there are no recovery strategies, action plans, or management plans in place for species listed under Schedule 1 and known to occur in the Study Area.

5.1.3.2. COSEWIC

COSEWIC have also designated some species as either endangered or threatened that do not occur on the SARA listing as either endangered or threatened. These COSEWIC-listed species that may occur in the Study Area are indicated in Table 5.15.

5.1.3.3. ESA (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)

Species that are listed as wildlife at risk by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and that may occur in the Study Area are indicated in Table 5.15. Eight of the ESA species listed as either endangered or threatened are also listed as either endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA.

Species listed under the ESA that also have special concern status under the SARA include banded killifish, Harlequin Duck, Barrow’s Goldeneye, Fernald’s milk-vetch and the boreal felt lichen.

5.1.3.4. Profiles of Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA

Profiles of marine and terrestrial species listed as either endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA are provided in this section.

Blue Whale

The Atlantic blue whale population is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC. A Recovery Strategy for this population of the blue whale is not yet available. It is widely distributed throughout the world, but its numbers were severely depleted by past hunting. The size of the western North Atlantic population is probably a few hundred individuals (Sears and Calambokidis 2002).

The blue whale’s main prey species are euphausiids and during times of the year when it is feeding, its distribution closely follows that of its prey (Yochem and Leatherwood 1985). The blue whale migrates seasonally between high and low latitudes. It is found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence from January to November but is most common from August to October (Sears et al. 1990). Most are found along the Québec north shore of the Gulf between Saguenay River and the Strait of Belle Isle (Sears et al. 1990). Movement between the Gulf of St. Lawrence and western Greenland has been demonstrated (summarized by Waring et al. 2002). Accurate estimates of the number of blue whales using the Gulf are not available (Kingsley and Reeves 1998; COSEWIC 2002). Sightings of this species anywhere within its range, including the western Newfoundland offshore region, are uncommon. Strandings and entrapments due to ice have been reported on the southwest coast of Newfoundland in winter and early spring (COSEWIC 2002). Blue whales usually occur alone or in small groups (Leatherwood and Reeves 1983).

Environmental Assessment Page 110 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.15. SARA-, COSEWIC- and ESA-listed Species with Reasonable Likelihood of Occurrence in the Study Area.

SARAa COSEWICb ESAc Species Special Special Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Vulnerable Concern Concern Marine-associated Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Schedule 1 X (Atlantic population) North Atlantic right whale Schedule 1 X (Eubalaena glacialis) Leatherback sea turtle Schedule 1 X (Dermochelys coriacea) Piping Plover (melodus subspecies) Schedule 1 X X (Charadrius melodus melodus) Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Schedule 1 X (St. Lawrence Estuary population) Northern wolfish Schedule 1 X (Anarhichas denticulatus) Spotted wolfish Schedule 1 X (Anarhichas minor) Atlantic wolfish Schedule 1 X (Anarhichas lupus) Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Schedule 1 X (Atlantic population) Harlequin Duck Schedule 1 X X (Histrionicus histrionicus) Sowerby’s beaked whale Schedule 3 X (Mesoplodon bidens) Atlantic cod Schedule 3

(Gadus morhua) Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) X (Laurentian North population) Ivory Gull X X (Pagophila eburnean)

Environmental Assessment Page 111 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.15 Continued.

Species SARAa COSEWICb ESAc Special Special Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Vulnerable Concern Concern Porbeagle shark X (Lamna nasus) White shark X (Carcharodon carcharias) Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) X (Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population) Cusk X (Brosme brosme) Shortfin mak X (Isurus oxyrinchus) Striped bass (Marone saxatilis) X (Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population) Blue shark X (Prionace glauca) Harbour porpoise X (Phocoena phocoena) American eel X (Anguilla rostrata) Terrestrial American marten (Martes americana atrata) Schedule 1 X X (Newfoundland population) Red Crossbill (percna subspecies) Schedule 1 X X (Loxia curvirostra percna) Long’s braya Schedule 1 X X (Braya longii) Barrens willow Schedule 1 X X (Salix jejuna)

Environmental Assessment Page 112 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 5.15 Continued.

Species SARAa COSEWICb ESAc Special Special Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Vulnerable Concern Concern Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus Schedule 1 X X caribou) (Boreal population) Peregrine Falcon (anatum subspecies) Schedule 1 X X (Falco peregrinus anatum) Fernald’s braya Schedule 1 X X (Braya fernaldii) Banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus) Schedule 1 X X (Newfoundland population) Fernald’s milk-vetch (Astragalus robbinsii var. Schedule 1 X X fernaldii) Short-eared Owl Schedule 3 X X (Asio flammeus) Rusty Blackbird X (Euphagus carolinus) Low northern rockcress X (Neotorulia humilis) Gray-cheeked Thrush X (Catharus minimus) Sources: a SARA website (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm) (May 2007) b COSEWIC website (http://www.cosepac.gc.ca/index.htm) (May 2007) c ESA (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador) website (http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/wildlife_at_risk.htm) (May 2007)

Environmental Assessment Page 113 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

North Atlantic Right Whale

The North Atlantic right whale is the most endangered large whale in the world. It is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC. However, a Recovery Strategy for this cetacean is not yet available. Although it has been protected for more than 60 years, the North Atlantic population is estimated to be only 300 individuals (IWC 2001a; Kraus et al. 2001) and declining (Caswell et al. 1999).

Right whales are usually found in water with surface temperatures of 8 to 15°C and 100 to 200 m in depth (Winn et al. 1986). In the lower Bay of Fundy, they are generally distributed in areas where the bottom topography is relatively flat and the water column is stratified (Woodley and Gaskin 1996). They usually make shallow dives, averaging 7.3 m in depth and with few deeper than 30 m (Winn et al. 1994). The primary prey item of the right whale is the copepod Calanus finmarchicus, the distribution of which is closely followed by the right whale (Kenney 2001).

Right whales are only occasionally sighted in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Lien et al. 1989), and sightings are likely to be rare in the western Newfoundland offshore region. In Canada, they can be found in the Bay of Fundy from June-November, with a peak of abundance in August to early October, and in the Roseway basin, south of Nova Scotia, from July-November, with a peak in abundance in August- September, although their use of this area seems to be declining in recent years (IWC 2001b). On average, only about 25% of the known right whale population can be accounted for in any month except August (IWC 2001b). However, recent sightings off southern Greenland suggest some animals summer in that area.

Leatherback Sea Turtle

The leatherback sea turtle is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC. A Recovery Strategy for this marine reptile was released in June 2006 (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006). It is the largest living turtle, attaining up to 219 cm in length and over 900 kg. It also may be the most widely distributed reptile, ranging throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans and into the Mediterranean Sea (Ernst et al. 1994). 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).

The leatherback is predominantly pelagic and feed primarily on invertebrates. Its preferred prey is jellyfish, but it occasionally ingests algae or vertebrates.

Data from the U.S. Pelagic longline fishery observer program show that nearly half of 593 leatherbacks caught incidentally by this fishery between 1992 and 1995 from the Caribbean to Labrador were captured in waters off the Grand Banks (Witzell 1999). This fishery concentrates its effort on and east of the 200-m isobath where the swordfish and tuna that are the targets of the fishery are found. During a shipboard survey east of the Scotian Shelf out to the Laurentian Channel two leatherback turtles were sighted in 2002 (Clapham and Wenzel 2002). Breeze et al. (2002) state that adult leatherback turtles are

Environmental Assessment Page 114 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

regularly observed on the Scotian Shelf from June to October. This species is occasionally sighted off Quebec in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (James 2001). Goff and Lien (1988) report three captures of leatherback turtles off west and southwest Newfoundland from 1976-1985. Although there are no data for the leatherback turtle in the western Newfoundland offshore region, the species is likely a regular part of the marine fauna in the area.

Piping Plover

This subspecies of the Piping Plover is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of the SARA, by COSEWIC, and by ESA. A Proposed Recovery Strategy for this shorebird is outlined in Goossen (2002 in C-NLOPB 2005, Section 3.5.5). In Newfoundland, this small, thrush-sized shorebird is only found on beaches of the southwest coast, typically off the Port au Port peninsula. There are fewer than 50 adult Piping Plovers nesting in Newfoundland. Recent sightings in the West Bay/Piccadilly Bay area have been reported but there still is not any confirmed breeding (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 3.5.5; P. Thomas, CWS, pers. comm.).

Beluga Whale (St. Lawrence Estuary Population)

The St. Lawrenc population of beluga whale is considered threatened by both SARA and COSEWIC. No Recovery Strategy for this population of beluga whale is yet available. The beluga whale, or white whale, is generally limited to seasonally ice-covered Arctic and sub-Arctic waters (Lesage and Kingsley 1998). The St. Lawrence population of beluga whales is at the southern limit of distribution of this species worldwide and seems to be isolated from its more northern conspecifics (Lesage and Kingsley 1998). This population has been estimated at 900-1,000 individuals.

The beluga whale could potentially occur in the western Newfoundland offshore region, but is likely to be rare. It is thought to be confined, for the most part, to the St. Lawrence Estuary and Saguenay Fjord within the St. Lawrence region (Environment Canada n.d.); however, it occasionally ranges much further (e.g., Brown Gladden et al. 1999). Curren and Lien (1998) report only three sightings of live beluga whales off western Newfoundland from 1979-1992, including one mother and calf pair, and two beluga whale strandings.

Fin Whale

The fin whale is listed as a species of special concern on Schedule 1 of the SARA and by COSEWIC. It is most common in temperate and polar seas. It is probably a seasonal migrant (Gambell 1985), mating and calving in temperate waters during the winter, but migrating to northern latitudes during the summer to feed (Mackintosh 1965).

The fin whale occurs in coastal and shelf waters, as well as in oceanic waters. In the Bay of Fundy, fin whales are distributed in shallow areas with high topographic variation (Woodley and Gaskin 1996). On the feeding grounds they are seen more commonly in groups of up to 20 than as singles or pairs (Gambell 1985).

Environmental Assessment Page 115 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Aerial surveys of the Gulf of St. Lawrence from late August to early September of 1995 and from late July to early August of 1996 found fin whales located predominantly along the margins of the Laurentian channel (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). Although there were too few sightings to provide a reliable estimate, sightings data from those surveys suggest that there were a few hundred fin whales in the Gulf during those times (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). Fin whales from the Gulf of St. Lawrence migrate to the Laurentian Channel and probably to northern Nova Scotia in the winter (Sergeant 1977).

Fin whales are less common off the west and southwest coasts of Newfoundland than elsewhere off Newfoundland. Lynch (1987) provided summer (June-September) sighting frequencies that ranged from zero to 0.18 fin whale sightings per week of land-based observations in survey blocks encompassing the western Newfoundland offshore region in 1979-1982. All sightings occurred in the northern portion of this region. She also reported no sightings of fin whales during 865 nautical miles of shipboard survey effort in the western Newfoundland offshore region between 48°N and 50°N in 1976-1983. Fin sightings in the shipboard portion of her survey occurred off the northwest coast of Newfoundland in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Wolffishes

Two species of wolffish, spotted (Anarhichas minor) and northern (Anarhichas denticulatus) are presently listed as threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA. A Recovery Strategy for both species was recently released in June 2007 (Kulka et al. 2007). The Atlantic or striped wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) is listed as a species of special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA. A Management Plan for this species was recently released in June 2007 (Kulka et al. 2007).

Of the three wolffish species, northern wolffish is the deepest residing species and Atlantic wolffish is the shallowest residing species. Based on DFO trawl surveys in Newfoundland and Labrador waters between 1971 and 2003 (Kulka et al. 2004), northern wolffish were most concentrated during December to May in areas where depths ranged from 500 to 1,000 m, shifting to slightly shallower areas from June to November. Spotted wolffish concentrations were highest in areas with water depths ranging from 200 to 750 m at all times of the year, peaking in 300 m areas from June to November. Atlantic wolffish were most concentrated in areas with depths approximating 250 m at all times of the year.

Tagging studies have shown that northern wolffish do not migrate long distances, and do not form large schools. The northern wolffish is a benthic and bathypelagic predator, preying upon jellyfish, comb jellies, crabs, brittle stars, seastars, and sea urchins. Predators of the northern wolffish include redfish and Atlantic cod (Scott and Scott 1988).

Tagging studies have shown that spotted wolffish also only migrate locally, and do not form schools. Spatial analysis of DFO research vessel catch data from the Grand Banks indicated that spotted wolffish abundance declined from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, with an increase in abundance during both survey seasons since the mid-1990s (Kulka et al. 2003). Its prey includes hard-shelled invertebrates such as crustaceans, molluscs, and echinoderms, and fish, primarily those discarded by trawlers. The species has few predators, although remains have been found in the stomachs of Atlantic cod, pollock and Greenland sharks (Scott and Scott 1988). Environmental Assessment Page 116 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Atlantic or striped wolffish is typically found further south than either northern or spotted wolffish. There is no evidence that the Atlantic wolffish migrates long distances, or form schools in Newfoundland waters (DFO 2004d). In the Northwest Atlantic, the Atlantic wolffish feeds primarily on benthic invertebrates such as echinoderms, molluscs and crustaceans, as well as small amounts of fish. No predators of adult Atlantic wolffish have been identified, but juveniles have been found in the stomachs of Atlantic cod (Scott and Scott 1988).

It is not known with certainty if any of these three wolffish species spawn in the Study Area, although it is probable given the limited migration of the species. If spawning does occur in the Study Area, it would most likely take place along the slope region. During the late fall fertilized eggs are deposited on either a hard bottom or underwater ledge (Scott and Scott 1988), producing larvae which are large (2-cm long upon hatching) and semipelagic (DFO 2004d). The spotted wolffish and striped wolffish are regarded as commercial species in Newfoundland waters while the northern wolffish is not (Simpson and Kulka 2002, 2003). While the decline in abundance and biomass estimates of all three species has occurred throughout much of Newfoundland’s waters, it seems that the decline has been greater in the more northern areas (Divisions 2J, 3K and northern 3L) than in the southern areas (southern 3L, 3N, 3O) for all three species (Simpson and Kulka 2002, 2003).

Fishers consulted in July 2005 reported that bycatch for all three wolffish species remains high at certain locations within the Study Area (C-NLOPB 2005, Appendix 1). According to DFO Newfoundland- landed commercial catch statistics, 1,462 wolffish (species breakdown unknown) were caught in NAFO Division 4R between 1999 and 2004, mostly in 4Rb and in the Study Area in 4Rd. Little scientific information is available for the wolffish populations inhabiting the waters off western Newfoundland.

Long’s Braya

Long’s braya is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of the SARA, by COSEWIC, and by ESA. A Recovery Strategy for this rare plant is not yet available. It is a small perennial flower endemic to the limestone barrens habitat of Newfoundland. This plant has a highly restricted population and is susceptible to habitat loss and degradation due to human disturbance. It is self-pollinating with wind dispersed seeds. Since seeds are carried only short distances, new populations cannot establish in an area once the original population is destroyed. Despite the presence of suitable habitat for this species on the Port au Port Peninsula, no occurrences have yet been documented.

Barrens Willow

Barren’s willow is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of the SARA, by COSEWIC, and by ESA. A Recovery Strategy for this rare plant was released in October 2003 (Djan-Chékar et al. 2003). Although this dwarf prostrate shrub has never been documented within the Study Area, being a restricted endemic of limestone barrens habitat implies a chance of its occurrence within the Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 117 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Fernald’s Braya

Fernald’s braya is listed as threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA, by COSEWIC, and by ESA. However, a Recovery Strategy for this rare plant is not yet available. It is a small perennial flower endemic to the limestone barrens habitat of Newfoundland. It has a highly restricted population and is susceptible to habitat loss and degradation due to human disturbance. Fernald’s braya is self-pollinating with wind dispersed seeds. Since seeds are carried only short distances, new populations cannot establish in an area once the original population is destroyed. Despite the presence of suitable habitat for this species on the Port au Port Peninsula, no occurrences have yet been documented.

Fernald’s Milk-vetch

Fernald’s milk-vetch is listed as a species of special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC, and as vulnerable by ESA. Although this perennial herbaceous plant has never been documented within the Study Area, its specificity for limestone barrens habitat implies a chance of its occurrence in this type of habitat within the Study Area.

Banded Killifish

The banded killifish is listed as a species of special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC, and as vulnerable by ESA. It is primarily regarded as a freshwater species although it has been recorded in estuarine habitat. The banded killifish has not been documented in the Study Area but there are records of it nearby in the vicinity of Stephenville Crossing.

Harlequin Duck

The Harlequin Duck is listed as a species of special concern on both Schedule 1 of SARA and COSEWIC, and as vulnerable by ESA. The population size of this sea duck is relatively small and its tendency to congregate in large groups makes them susceptible to such events as oil spills. There have been at least three sightings of Harlequin Duck at Cape St. George. The most recent sighting in 2003 was during overwintering (P. Thomas, CWS, pers. comm).

Red Crossbill

The Red Crossbill is listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of the SARA, by COSEWIC, and by ESA. A Recovery Strategy for this bird species was released in October 2006 (EC 2006). It is found in conifer forests of central and western Newfoundland and its distribution and breeding period depend on regional productivity of cone crops (EC 2006). The Study Area offers potential habitat for this species (P. Thomas, CWS, pers. comm., B. Mactavish, LGL, pers. comm.), although the Red Crossbill’s affinity for pine cones makes it unlikely that this habitat would be very significant to them (B. Winsor, local naturalist, pers. comm.). This species has not been documented on the Port au Port Peninsula. Dramatic declines have been observed through breeding bird counts over the past 50 years, possibly due to factors such as habitat degradation and loss, and competition for food from the introduced red squirrel (EC 2006).

Environmental Assessment Page 118 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Peregrine Falcon

This subspecies of the peregrine falcon is listed as threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA, by COSEWIC, and by ESA due to its relative rarity and uncertainty about its population stability. No Recovery Strategy for this subspecies of Peregrine Falcon is yet available. This subspecies of Peregrine Falcon breeds in Labrador and has been observed migrating through the Study Area in the 1990s (B. Winsor, local naturalist, pers. comm.), though there have been no recorded sightings of it in recent years.

Newfoundland Marten

The Newfoundland marten is listed as endangered on both Schedule 1 of SARA and by ESA, and as threatened by COSEWIC. A Recovery Strategy for this population of the American marten is not yet available. It has never been recorded on the Port au Port Peninsula. The limited habitat found there coupled with the long history of occupation would make it unlikely that a resident population of the Newfoundland marten occurs on the Port au Port Peninsula (J. Gosse, Parks Canada, pers. comm.). This mammal’s core population is located slightly east of the Port au Port Peninsula so it is possible that some Newfoundland martens do disperse to the Study Area.

Woodland Caribou

Woodland caribou herds from the Island of Newfoundland are not listed by either COSEWIC or by ESA (Thomas and Gray 2002). However, recent evidence of herd decline on the Island of Newfoundland has recently initiated a two-year study to examine the south coast and northern peninsula herds (NLDOEC 2006). The study will investigate current population status, spatial distribution of herds, calf mortality, and current range distribution patterns to protect critical range components. Caribou were introduced to the Port au Port Peninsula in the 1960s but the population never experienced a great increase from the original twenty animals in the Study Area (W. Barney, pers. comm.). A flight survey counted a total of 37 individuals in 1976 (Menchenton 1977) and sporadic observations of caribou on the peninsula suggest that there could still be a small population within the Study Area. Calving in the Study Area would occur in May. There is no hunting of caribou on the Port au Port Peninsula (NLDOEC 2007).

5.2. Notable Areas

Several areas in and proximate to the Study Area are deemed notable due to a variety of reasons (e.g., spawning/breeding areas, locations of rare plants) (Figure 5.24). The following sections describe these notable areas

5.2.1. Marine Invertebrates/Fish and Associated Habitat

5.2.1.1. Lobster Spawning/Nursery Areas

Although lobsters spawn along the entire west coast of Newfoundland, one particular area within the Study Area has been identified by local fishers as a special spawning location. The area between outer

Environmental Assessment Page 119 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 5.24. Notable Biological Areas within and Adjacent to the Study Area.

Environmental Assessment Page 120 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Port au Port Bay and Shag Island was identified during consultations in July 2005 as a location with large female lobsters carrying sizeable egg clutches (Figure 5.24) (C-NLOPB 2005). Areas identified during consultations as lobster nursery areas are located outside of the Study Area at North Head and Trout River, north of Bay of Islands.

5.2.1.2. Cod Spawning Area off West Coast of Port au Port Peninsula

The region defined by the following corner coordinates is closed to groundfish fishing between 1 April and 23 June because of the occurrence of spawning by 4RS/3Pn cod (Figure 5.24). The area was established in 2002 and has been resized since that time. Corner coordinates (UTM Zone 21, NAD83) of the Cape St. George Spawning Area are as follow:

326792E, 5346719N 329911E, 5448605N 281320E, 5450317N 277308E, 5348439N

Depths within the area range from just under 100 m to more than 300 m. The Cape St. George Spawning Area was identified in the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005).

5.2.2. Marine-associated Birds

5.2.2.1. Black-legged Kittiwake Nesting Area at Cape St. George

Two Black-legged Kittiwake colonies were identified in the vicinity of Cape St. George in June 2002 (Figure 5.24) (C-NLOPB 2005; P. Thomas, CWS, pers. comm.). One of the colonies is described as large (i.e., 501-1,000 birds) and the other as very large (>1,000 birds). The location coordinates (UTM Zone 21, NAD83) of the two colonies are as follow:

• 332280E, 5370657N (large colony) • 334145E, 5373717N (very large colony)

5.2.2.2. Tern Colonies

Three tern colonies were identified at various locations in East Bay (Port au Port Bay) in June 2002 (Figure 5.24) (P. Thomas, CWS, pers. comm.). Location coordinates (UTM Zone 21, NAD83) of these colonies are as follow:

• 372596E, 5379762N • 376833E, 5389546N • 376538E, 5395113N

Environmental Assessment Page 121 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

5.2.2.3. Important Shorebird Concentrations

Important shorebird concentrations in the Project Area occur at the following general locations in Port au Port Bay (Figure 5.24) (C-NLOPB 2005):

• Point au Mal, • Piccadilly Lagoon, • West Bay, and • Black Duck Brook

5.2.3. Marine Mammals

The northern tip of the peninsula (“The Bar”) (Figure 5.24) is a regularly used haul-out site for harbour seals. Forty to 60 individuals often use this area in August and September (J. Lawson, DFO, pers. comm. in JW 2006). Grey seals have also been known to haul out in this area during the same time period (J. Lawson, DFO, pers. comm. in JW 2006).

5.2.4. Terrestrial

Rare plant areas on the western side of Port au Port Bay were indicated in the TekOil and Gas Corporation Port au Port Seismic Program Screening and Registration document (JW 2006) (Figure 5.3). Important areas characterized by the four types of terrestrial habitat described in Section 5.1.2 on vegetation are also indicated on Figure 5.24.

Environmental Assessment Page 122 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

6.0 Effects Assessment Methodology

Two general types of effects are considered in this document:

1. Effects of the environment on the Project; and 2. Effects of the Project on the environment, particularly the biological environment.

Methods of effects assessment used here are comparable to those used in most environmental assessments of oil and gas projects in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore (e.g., the Hibernia and Terra Nova EISs, White Rose Oilfield Development EA and Comprehensive Study, Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin Seismic and Drilling EAs, Husky Lewis Hill Drilling EA, Husky New Drill Centre EA, Chevron Orphan Basin Seismic and Drilling EA, and other east coast seismic and drilling EAs). These documents conform to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and its associated Responsible Authority’s Guide and the CEA Agency Operational Policy Statement (OPS-EPO/5-2000) (CEA Agency 2000). Cumulative effects are incorporated within the procedures in accordance with CEAA (CEA Agency 1994) as adapted from Barnes and Davey (1999) and used in the White Rose EA.

6.1. Scoping

Scoping of an assessment mainly includes determining the spatial and temporal extent of the assessment, selecting which components (i.e., sensitive and/or representative species or species-groups and associated habitats) of the ecosystem to assess, and which project activities to analyze. Scoping was conducted according to the following steps, not necessarily in chronological order.

• Review of all relevant information on Project activities and literature on the effects of oil and gas activities (with emphasis on the Western Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment SEA and previous EAs of proposed drilling programs)

• Key group consultations at various stages of the assessment, and

• Scoping document prepared by the C-NLOPB with input from the CEA Agency, relevant federal authorities under CEAA (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFO], Environment Canada [EC], Natural Resources Canada [NRCan] and other federal government departments), and relevant Government of Newfoundland and Labrador departments (e.g., Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC], Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture [DFA], and Department of Natural Resources [DNR]), and the interested public.

6.2. Consultations and Issue Identification

In May 2007, in preparation for the proposed drilling program, PDIP (on behalf of the Proponent Partners) in association with Canning and Pitt Associates, Inc. undertook consultations with relevant government agencies, representatives of the fishing industry and other interest groups, local area

Environmental Assessment Page 123 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

residents and local businesses. These sessions allowed the Proponent, which was represented by PDIP, to present information about the Project, and to identify issues and concerns of the participants relevant to this EA. Furthermore, these sessions provided the Proponent an occasion to gather additional information required for project planning. The consultations took place in Piccadilly on the Port au Port Peninsula, Stephenville, and St. John's.

Consultations and/or information sessions were undertaken with the following agencies and interest groups:

• Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), • Environment Canada (EC), • Natural History Society (NHS), • One Ocean • Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW), • Long Range Regional Economic Development Board and other business firms and economic development agencies, • Town Council of Cape St. George, • Ktaqamkuk Heritage Foundation, and • Approximately 90 business and community representatives and residents from Project Area communities (Open House).

6.2.1. Issues and Concerns

During the consultation meetings, none of the agencies, groups or fisheries industry officials raised any major concerns or issues about the proposed drilling program. However agency managers, business representatives and individual residents noted a number of questions and comments about various aspects of the planned exploration activities. Comments and questions raised during these meetings are further discussed below for each of the agencies, or groups, attending the consultations.

6.2.1.1. Fisheries and Oceans

On behalf of the Proponent, PDIP and its consultants met with DFO managers in St. John’s to review the proposed Project activities and to respond to any concerns and issues from the department. There was a brief discussion of the plans to conduct vertical seismic profile (VSP) surveying associated with the proposed exploration drilling program, and whether this issue would be dealt with in the EA. PDIP explained that VSP activities would be discussed within the EA. DFO noted that VSP surveying in the fall of 2007 should not pose any problems for local fisheries activities in the vicinity of the well site on Shoal Point.

6.2.1.2. Environment Canada

EC managers asked about plans to construct a containment berm around the drilling rig area. PDIP representatives responded that the company is working with regulators to determine the requirements for berming at the site and would ensure that appropriate secondary containment would be available.

Environmental Assessment Page 124 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

EC also asked about any need to construct a road to the site, considering the presence of wetland in the area. PDIP explained that there is an existing road which requires only some minor upgrading (filling and grading).

EC managers also asked if the Operator intended to recycle/clean and dispose of the drilling mud/cuttings. PDIP representatives stated that processing drilling mud/cuttings would not be undertaken at site but rather an appropriate waste management firm would be contracted to remove the cuttings and dispose of them appropriately.

EC managers also asked if the Operator intended to undertake VSP activities. PDIP representatives stated that if VSP operations were deemed necessary, then VSP would be considered as an activity in the EA.

6.2.1.3. Natural History Society

Relevant project information was sent to the NHS for its review and comment. Society representatives subsequently noted that they no have particular comments or concerns.

6.2.1.4. One Ocean

Representatives of One Ocean were contacted but declined a meeting as they felt they had no comment on the proposed activities.

6.2.1.5. Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union

The FFAW’s Fisheries Liaison Co-ordinator met with PDIP and its consultants, on behalf of the Proponent, in St. John’s to review and comment on the proposed drilling program. He asked about the depth of the well and asked for an explanation of onshore to offshore drilling. In addition, he asked about the potential for oil spills, what type of oil spill prevention equipment would be on site and also what type of drilling fluids the drilling operator planned to use.

PDIP representatives gave the FFAW Liaison Co-ordinator an estimate of the well depth (over 1.5 km) and explained that in onshore to offshore drilling, all activity takes place onshore, and that the main interaction with the marine environment would be from potential accidental events such as spills. PDIP also explained that there are a minimum of two barriers in place at the well at all times during drilling to prevent loss of well control and noted that the Operator would have an emergency oil spill prevention plan in place for operations. PDIP also explained that in the unlikely case of a spill, the “worst-case” credible spill scenario would involve 100 to 200 barrels of oil and that spill modeling would be considered as part of the EA. It was noted that a water-based drilling fluid would most likely be used, however a final decision on this matter has not yet been made and therefore, the EA would be scoped for synthetic based drill muds as well.

Environmental Assessment Page 125 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

6.2.1.6. Long Range Regional Economic Development Board and Local Business Groups (Stephenville)

Almost 30 people, representing a wide variety of area interest groups and agencies, attended the 15 May morning consultation meeting in Stephenville organized and sponsored by the REDB. PDIP and CIVC attended this meeting on behalf of the Proponent where PDIP gave a presentation outlining the proposed project. Following the presentation, participants asked a number of questions and commented on the proposed exploration drilling activities. Most of this discussion focused on the economic and employment aspects of the proposed 2007 operations. These topics included the number of people expected to be employed in drilling operations, when tenders for local goods and services would be issued, the expected level of investment in the drilling program, the length of time it would take to drill the Shoal Point well and what future plans the were being considered for the Port au Port area. There were also a number of specific questions about the drilling operations and the company that the Operator intends to contract to undertake these activities. The Proponent representatives noted that the drilling rig contract has not yet been finalized but the company expects that the drilling contractor would be bringing most of his crew with him. It was also explained that there would be a number of supporting workers required for site preparation and drilling activities and that, wherever possible, the intention is to utilize local service contractors for this work. It was explained that the bulk of work associated with the Project during this phase would be through subcontracted companies as opposed to direct employment as exploration activities are generally short term. However, it was also noted that the company would encourage the drilling contractor to hire any required additional qualified workers from the Port au Port area. PDIP also encouraged local companies and individuals to provide details of their experience so that they may be considered during the tendering process for this work, and future work in the Port au Port area.

With respect to maximizing local economic benefits, it was suggested by members in attendance that the company should consider establishing a “central contact” point where potential supply firms, local contractors and individual workers might be able to obtain information about upcoming project activities (e.g., tender calls and employment opportunities). Proponent representatives stated that it may be possible to post this kind of information on a web site and that they would investigate and consider this option. In addition, it was noted that information could also be obtained from the PDIP's Garden Hill Site Superintendent (Travis Young) who is based in the area.

6.2.1.7. Town Council of Cape St. George

At the Town Council of Cape St. George meeting, council representatives noted a number of concerns and had several questions about the proposed exploration activities. Some of the points raised concerned outstanding issues between the town and previous exploration activities in the area. These issues included municipal taxation issues and the council’s desire to obtain increased economic spin-off benefits from the future exploration operations. As such, these issues are not relevant to this assessment of proposed exploration drilling activities. However, the Proponent's representatives offered several suggestions for dealing with these outstanding matters.

Environmental Assessment Page 126 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

6.2.1.8. Ktaqamkuk Heritage Foundation

A Foundation representative attended the afternoon Open House session and participated in the public discussion. Subsequently, the Foundation’s research consultant submitted a written response to PDIP. To summarize, the Foundation representative requested that the Operator respect the Mi'kmaw heritage and culture in undertaking activities and respect “Mother Earth".

6.2.1.9. Open House

Most of the questions and comments raised at the Open House presentations and information sessions dealt with potential employment opportunities and economic spin-off benefits. As such, these included relevant questions about job qualifications, training and skills’ requirements, the Operator’s policy on hiring local workers, and when potential contractors and individuals might expect to obtain more definite information about available contracting and job opportunities. PDIP explained that it was intended, wherever possible, to utilize local service contractors for this work and encouraged local companies and individuals to provide details of their experience in order to be considered during the tendering process. Several fishers from the Port au Port Bay area attended the public information sessions at Piccadilly but they did not raise any special fisheries-related concerns or issues about the proposed drilling program.

6.3. Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs)

As is common practice in Canadian EA, Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) were selected and used to focus the assessment on those biological resources of most potential concern and value to society. In general, two approaches in the utilization of VECs have evolved: (1) species-specific, or (2) broad groupings. The present EA uses the broad-based approach but with indicator or surrogate species or groups to provide focus and bases upon which to allow science-based predictions where possible.

The VECs were selected based upon expressed public comments related to social, cultural, economic, or aesthetic values and scientific community concerns. VECs typically include the following groups:

• Species or habitats that are ecologically unique to an area, or are valued for their aesthetic properties; • Species that are harvested by people (e.g., commercial fish species, target species in recreational hunt); • Species that have at least some potential to be affected by the Project.; and • Species at Risk (as defined by SARA, COSEWIC and ESA).

Marine VECs selected for this environmental assessment are similar to those used during past environmental assessments of oil and gas activities on the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore.

Environmental Assessment Page 127 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The eight VECs selected for this environmental assessment include the following:

• Marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat • Marine macroinvertebrates/fish • Marine commercial fishery and aquaculture • Marine-associated birds • Marine mammals and sea turtles • Rare terrestrial vegetation • Freshwater fish and fish habitat • Species at risk

Although the eight VECs listed above represent very broad groups of organisms, consideration was given to individual species and life stages when data were sufficient and where warranted. In many cases, during effects analysis, species with similar life histories and sensitivities were grouped together.

6.3.1. Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat

‘Marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat’ is a wide-ranging concept that includes both physical and biological components. It includes coverage of macroinvertebrate and fish habitat components including water quality, plankton and benthos. Both plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) and benthos (epifauna and infauna) are integral components of invertebrate and fish habitat, and, hence, of the marine ecosystem. Phytoplankton is mostly responsible for the primary production in the Northwest Atlantic marine ecosystem and essentially all plankton species serve as food sources for a vast array of marine biota. Benthos, which includes macroalgae, also accounts for some primary production and plays a very important role in the cycling of organic material through the marine ecosystem. Benthos also serves as food sources for many marine biota. Plankton and benthos can be considered the basis of the marine ecosystem food web. The invertebrate/fish habitat VEC as it relates to key species is of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

6.3.2. Marine Macroinvertebrates/Fish

The key commercial and the “species at risk” previously profiled in this EA (i.e., lobster, snow crab, Atlantic cod, and wolffishes) are suitable examples to use in the effects assessment. Atlantic cod is an important commercial and cultural species for which most data exist with respect to behaviour, life history, reproduction, etc., and therefore, is a good representative species for the invertebrate/fish VEC. This VEC is of prime concern from a public, cultural, and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

6.3.3. Marine Commercial Fisheries

The commercial fishery is a universally acknowledged important element in society, culture, economic and aesthetic environment of Newfoundland and Labrador. This VEC is of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

Environmental Assessment Page 128 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

6.3.4. Marine-associated Birds

Newfoundland and Labrador supports some of the largest marine-associated bird colonies in the world and the Grand Banks area hosts very large populations during all seasons. They are important socially, culturally, economically, aesthetically, ecologically and scientifically. Marine-associated birds are a key component near the top of the food chain and are an important resource for bird watching (one of the fastest growing outdoor activities in North America), the tourist industry, local hunting, and scientific study. In addition, it is accepted that this VEC is more sensitive to oil on water than other VECs. This VEC is of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

6.3.5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Whales and seals are key elements in the social and biological environments of Newfoundland and Labrador. The economic and aesthetic importance of whales is evidenced by the large number of tour boats that feature whale watching as part of a growing tourist industry. Public concern about whales is evident in the media on an almost daily basis. Historically, seals have played an important economic and cultural role due to the large annual seal hunt. Newfoundland and Labrador is an internationally recognized location for marine mammal scientific research. This VEC is also of prime concern from both a public and scientific perspective, at local, national and international scales.

While sea turtles are typically scarce in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, they attain status of a VEC because of their endangered and threatened status in Canada, the United States and elsewhere. Of the three species known to occur in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, two are considered ‘endangered’ and the other ‘threatened’. While they are of little or no economic, social or cultural importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, their status ensures local, national, and international scientific attention beyond their likely ecological importance to the Gulf ecosystem.

6.3.6. Rare Terrestrial Vegetation

A large number of plant species that occur in the area being assessed are considered extremely rare, rare or uncommon by the ACCDC (2007). Many of these are associated with unique habitats (e.g., limestone barrens, saltmarshes) that are quite susceptible to disturbance.

6.3.7. Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat

Numerous freshwater watersheds occur in the area being assessed in this EA, some providing habitat for Atlantic salmon. All of the freshwater systems have ecological importance and are potential pathways for movement of contaminants from the terrestrial environment to the marine environment. It is likely that some of these systems are used locally for recreational fisheries and other uses.

Environmental Assessment Page 129 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

6.3.8. Species at Risk

“Species at Risk” are those listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule I of SARA. Despite the fact that many of the SAR species in the area being assessed are captured in the VECs listed above, species at risk are considered separately because of their special status.

6.4. Other Issues

Air quality also has been given consideration in this EA because it may affect water quality and animal and human health, albeit in very minor ways given the small scale of the Project.

6.5. Boundaries

Boundaries have been defined using CEA Agency (2003) as guidance.

6.5.1. Temporal

Effects of the activities associated with the proposed drilling have been assessed ‘year-round’ for the period 2007-2012.

6.5.2. Spatial

The following spatial boundaries were used.

6.5.2.1. Project Area

The Project Area is defined as the area where project-related activities may occur during the 2007-2012 period (Figure 1.1).

6.5.2.2. Study Area

The Study Area boundary is partly based on the oil spill trajectory modeling conducted for the Project. If not for the consideration of accidental events, the Study Area would be much reduced in size based on routine activities alone.

6.5.2.3. Potential Affected Area (s)

The Potential Affected Area (sometimes called PEA) is the geographic extent of a specific potential effect on a species or species group. It varies according to the timing and type of Project activity in question and the sensitivities of the species. Thus, there are potentially many affected areas (i.e., geographic extents) defined in this environmental assessment.

Environmental Assessment Page 130 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

6.5.2.4. Regional Area

The Regional Area is defined as the Study Area and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

6.6. Effects Assessment Procedures

This section describes the typical effects assessment procedures that have been used during preparation of recent environmental assessments of oil and gas activities on the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore. Since impacts of the routine activities associated with the proposed exploratory drilling on both the marine (see C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.2.4.3) and terrestrial VECs are unlikely, assessment procedures related to them were streamlined (with explanations where appropriate). The more serious effects from unlikely accidental events were assessed in a more detailed manner (i.e., consistent with other recent drilling environmental assessments for the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore).

The systematic assessment of the potential effects of the Project phase involved three major steps:

1. preparation of interaction (between Project activities and the environment) matrices; 2. identification and evaluation of potential effects including description of mitigation measures and residual effects; and 3. preparation of residual effects summary tables, including evaluation of cumulative effects.

6.6.1. Identification and Evaluation of Effects

Interaction matrices identify all possible Project activities that could interact with any of the VECs. The matrices include times and places where interactions could occur. The interaction matrices are used only to identify potential interactions; they make no assumptions about the potential effects of the interactions.

Interactions were then evaluated for their potential to cause effects. In instances where the potential for an effect of an interaction was deemed impossible or extremely remote, these interactions were not considered further. In this way, the assessment could focus on key issues and the more substantive environmental effects.

An interaction was considered to be a potential effect if it could change the abundance or distribution of VECs, or change the prey species or habitats used by VECs. The potential for effect was assessed by considering the following:

• location and timing of the interaction; • modeling exercises; • literature on similar interactions and associated effects (including the previous oil and gas EAs for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland); • consultation with other experts (when necessary); and • results of similar effects assessments, especially monitoring studies done in other areas.

Environmental Assessment Page 131 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

When data were insufficient to allow certain or precise effects evaluations, predictions were made based on professional judgement. In such cases, the uncertainty is documented in the EA. For the most part, the potential effects of oil and gas activities are reasonably well known.

Effects were evaluated for the proposed land-based drilling program which includes many mitigation measures that are mandatory or have become standard operating procedure in the industry.

6.6.2. Classifying Anticipated Environmental Effects

The concept of classifying environmental effects simply means determining whether they are negative or positive. The following includes some of the key factors that are considered for determining negative environmental effects, as per the CEA Agency guidelines (CEA Agency 1994):

• negative effects on the health of biota; • loss of species at risk; • reductions in biological diversity; • loss or avoidance of critical/productive habitat; • fragmentation of habitat or interruption of movement corridors and migration routes (It can be argued that while this is relevant for some terrestrial EAs, it is not relevant to the offshore where there are no confined corridors or routes.); • transformation of natural landscapes; • discharge of persistent and/or toxic chemicals; • toxicity effects on human health; • loss of, or detrimental change in, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes; • foreclosure of future resource use or production; and • negative effects on human health or well-being.

6.6.3. Mitigation

Most effects, including any significant ones, can be mitigated by additions to or changes in equipment, operational procedures, timing of activities, or other measures. Mitigation measures appropriate for each effect predicted in the matrix were identified and the effects of various Project activities were then evaluated assuming that appropriate mitigation measures are applied. Effects predictions were made taking into consideration both standard and project-specific mitigations and can thus be considered “residual effects.”

6.6.4. Application of Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects

Several criteria were taken into account when evaluating the nature and extent of environmental effects. These criteria include (CEA Agency 1994):

Environmental Assessment Page 132 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• magnitude; • geographic extent; • duration and frequency; • reversibility; and • ecological, socio-cultural and economic context.

Magnitude describes the nature and extent of the environmental effect for each activity. Geographic extent refers to the specific area (km2) potentially affected by the Project activity, which may vary depending on the activity and the relevant VEC. Duration and frequency describe how long and how often a project activity and/or environmental effect will occur. Reversibility refers to the ability of a VEC to return to an equal or improved condition, at the end of the Project. [It should be noted that effects on an individual animal or plant might be irreversible but reversible at the population level.] The ecological, socio-cultural and economic context describes the current status of the area affected by the Project in terms of existing environmental effects. A table is provided for each VEC, indicating the results of the effects analysis. Effects predictions for accidental events are also provided in Section 8.0 for all VECs.

Magnitude was defined as:

Negligible An interaction that may create a measureable effect on individuals but would never approach the 10% value of the ‘low’ rating. Rating = 0.

Low Affects >0 to 10 percent of individuals in the affected area (i.e., geographic extent). Effects can be outright mortality, sublethal or exclusion due to disturbance. Rating = 1.

Medium Affects >10 to 25 percent of individuals in the affected area (i.e., geographic extent). Effects can be outright mortality, sublethal or exclusion due to disturbance. Rating = 2.

High Affects more than 25 percent of individuals in the affected area (i.e., geographic extent). Effects can be outright mortality, sublethal or exclusion due to disturbance. Rating = 3.

Definitions of magnitude used in this EA have been used previously in numerous oil and gas related environmental assessments under the CEA Act during the last 15 years. These include assessments of exploratory drilling (Thomson et al. 2000; LGL 2002, 2003, 2005a,b, 2006a,b), development drilling (Petro-Canada 1996a,b; Husky 2000, 2001), drill centre development (LGL 2006b, 2007), and seismic surveying (LGL 2005c, Moulton et al. 2006a; Buchanan et al. 2004a; Moulton et al. 2005b; Buchanan et al. 2004b; Christian et al. 2005).

Environmental Assessment Page 133 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Durations are defined as:

1 = < 1 month 2 = 1 – 12 month 3 = 13 – 36 month 4 = 37 – 72 month 5 = > 72 month

Short duration can be considered 12 months or less and medium duration can be defined as 13 to 36 months.

6.6.5. Cumulative Effects

Projects and activities considered in the cumulative effects assessment included:

• Within-project cumulative impacts. For the most part, and unless otherwise indicated, within-project cumulative effects are fully integrated within this assessment; • Other present or future oil exploration activity under applications or approvals for the area; • Commercial fisheries and aquaculture; • Marine transportation (tankers, cargo ships, supply vessels, naval vessels, fishing vessel transits, etc.); • Hunting activities (marine birds and seals, terrestrial birds and mammals); • Recreational fishing activities (freshwater/estuarine); and • Other land uses (e.g., wood harvesting).

6.6.6. Integrated Residual Environmental Effects

Upon completion of the evaluation of environmental effects, the residual environmental effects (effects after project-specific mitigation measures are imposed) were assigned a rating of significance for the following:

• each project activity or accident scenario; • cumulative effects of project activities within the Project; and • cumulative effects of combined projects/activities in the area.

These ratings are presented in summary tables of residual environmental effects. The last of these points considers all residual environmental effects, including project and other-project cumulative environmental effects. As such, this represents an integrated residual environmental effects evaluation.

The analysis and prediction of the significance of environmental effects, including cumulative environmental effects, encompasses the following:

Environmental Assessment Page 134 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• determination of the significance of residual environmental effects; • establishment of the level of confidence for prediction; and • evaluation of the scientific certainty and probability of occurrence of the residual impact prediction.

Ratings for level of confidence, probability of occurrence, and determination of scientific certainty associated with each prediction are presented in the tables of residual environmental effects. The guidelines used to assess these ratings are discussed in detail in the sections below.

6.6.7. Significance Rating

Significant environmental effects are those that are considered to be of sufficient magnitude, duration, frequency, geographic extent, and/or reversibility to cause a change in the VEC that will alter its status or integrity beyond an acceptable level. Establishment of the criteria is based on professional judgement, but is transparent and repeatable. In this EA, a significant effect is defined as:

Having a high or medium magnitude for a duration greater than one year over a geographic extent greater than 100 km2

An effect can be considered significant, not significant, or positive.

6.6.7.1. Level of Confidence

The significance of the residual environmental effects is based on a review of relevant literature, consultation with experts, and professional judgement. In some instances, making predictions of potential residual environmental effects is difficult due to the limitations of available data (for example, technical boundaries). Ratings are therefore provided to indicate, qualitatively, the level of confidence for each prediction.

6.6.7.2. Determination of Whether Predicted Environmental Effects are Likely to Occur

As per recent environmental assessments (Husky 2000, 2001; LGL 2002, 2003, 2005a,b, 2006a,b,c, 2007), the following criteria for the evaluation of the likelihood of predicted significant effects are used.

• probability of occurrence; and • scientific certainty.

6.7. Monitoring/Follow-Up

Barring accidental events, no other follow-up monitoring is planned.

Environmental Assessment Page 135 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

6.8. Effects of the Environment on the Project

Effects of the physical environment on the Project include those caused by wind and ice, particularly extreme events. These are described in both Section 4.0 of this EA and the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005; Section 2.0).

Effects of the environment will be mitigated by timing, selection of suitable rigs, equipment and personnel, and by adherence to the Operator’s HS&E Policy. Specifically, some mitigation measures include the following:

• Given the high winds anticipated at Shoal Point, the rig’s derrick will be stabilized using high strength guy wires that will be secured to anchors that are drilled and grouted into bedrock;

• For any winter operations, high winds and blizzards are expected, and it is therefore anticipated that the MDU selected will require crew and equipment weatherproofing. The MDU will be weatherproofed, with a triple derrick and complete with heated BOP and heated crew facilities;

• Safe operations are the number one priority for the Operator. The Operator will therefore ensure that the drilling rig is fit for purpose and that appropriate drilling standards are adhered to during the drilling operations; and

• As there is not yet an established land based drilling industry in Newfoundland, a drilling unit must be mobilized from another area within the country (e.g. Alberta). It is therefore anticipated that the drilling contractor will provide the resources that are required to undertake drilling during cold Canadian winter conditions.

Considering these measures, effects of the environment on the Project are expected to be not significant.

Environmental Assessment Page 136 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

7.0 Routine Project Activities

Routine project activities previously introduced in the Project Description in Section 3.0 are summarized in Table7.1 in terms of frequency and duration. The potential zones of influence associated with the routine project activities are discussed in this section prior to the assessment of the potential effects of the routine project activities on each VEC. Routine activities associated with the onshore to offshore exploration drilling are likely to have only minimal interaction with the environment, particularly the marine environment.

Table 7.1. Estimates of Various Project Activity Frequencies and Durations.

Duration Maximum Number Maximum Total Activity Base Case Wells Duration (months) (days) Presence of structures 120 5 20 Activity zonea Continuous Lights 120 nights (dark period) 5 10 Flaring 10 nights (dark period) 5 1 Mud operations 90 5 15 Other Waste Discharges Drill water 20 5 3-4 Cement 12 5 2 Cooling water (rig 120 5 20 equipment) Machinery space discharges 120 5 20 Sanitary or domestic waste water (i.e., grey 120 5 20 and black water) Solid wastes 120 5 20 Routine atmospheric 5 120 20 emissions Well Testing 10 5 1-2 Noise Drilling 120 5 20 Incident VSP <1 5 <1 Vehicular traffic 225b 5 7.5 Well suspension 2 5 <1 Well abandonment 4 5 <1 a Area for which proponent has ‘licence to occupy’ b Includes mobilization and demobilization time

7.1. Potential Zones of Influence

The potential zone of influence varies between routine activities associated with this drilling program. Environmental concerns associated with the various routine activities are discussed in the following sections.

Environmental Assessment Page 137 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

7.1.1. Presence of Structures/Activity Zone

Approximately 1 hectare (10,000 m2) of land at the northern tip of Shoal Point will be used for on-site activities associated with the exploratory drilling (Figure 7.1). This area is referred to as the “activity zone” in this EA. The Proponent has a “Licence to Occupy” for this Crown Lands area indicated in Figure 7.1. Structures present within the activity zone may include a drilling rig and ancillary equipment, temporary storage tanks, site trailers, and light towers.

Figure 7.1. Approximate Activity Zone at Tip of Shoal Point.

7.1.2. Lights and Flaring

Lights are used on the MDU and around the site area for work area illumination. Light and heat could also be emitted for short periods by flaring during well testing. Lights have the potential to affect some bird species by attracting them to the rig. The potential effects of lights and flaring are discussed in the assessment sections on the various VECs.

7.1.3. Drill Fluids (Muds) and Cuttings

The specific drilling fluid programs have not yet been selected. However, it is anticipated that both water-based and synthetic-based drilling muds will likely be used during the Project. Weighted drilling fluids, such as potassium chloride, may also be used if under-balanced drilling is used to pierce the production matrix. There will not be any discharges of drilling fluids and cuttings to the environment. All drilling waste will be stored and trucked from site using a qualified waste management contractor.

Environmental Assessment Page 138 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

7.1.4. Other Waste Discharges/Emissions

Other fluid and solid waste discharges associated with drilling activities include drill water, cement, cooling water, sanitary/domestic waste water (i.e., grey and black water), and routine air emissions.

7.1.4.1. Drill Fluids

Since water-based mud generally has less effect on the environment in the event of a spill than synthetic-based mud, it will be used wherever possible. Drill water will be used at the initial stage of the well to lubricate the bit and help to remove cuttings. Consisting primarily of brine (i.e., calcium carbonate or sodium chlorate), drill water consists of natural constituents. The top hole section of the well will likely be drilled using drill water.

When drilling with drill water, drill cuttings are transported out of the well by a combination of drill water velocity and density. Depending upon the rock lithology being drilled, increasing the drill water velocity enables its concentration to be kept low. However, as the well deepens (i.e., a longer column of cuttings held in suspension), or the lithology becomes susceptible to hydraulic erosion (i.e., glory holes), the concentration (density) is increased. Once a density of roughly 1300kg/m3 has been reached, this usually represents the limit its concentration and triggers the change to the drilling mud system. Regardless of which event occurs first, (i.e., the need to 'weight-up' the mud or commence directional drilling using a steerable bit) drilling mud will be substituted for drill water.

7.1.4.2. Cement

Cement is used under three drilling scenarios: (1) side tracking an existing well, (2) drilling a new well, and (3) well abandonment. All cement would remain within the activity zone.

7.1.4.3. Cooling Water

The drives and brakes on the rigs will be water cooled. The cooling water system will be a closed system and the water will be treated with chlorine as a biocide. Disposal of treated cooling water will be conducted by a qualified waste management contractor.

7.1.4.4. Machinery Space Discharges

Machinery space discharges will be contained within their enclosed modules. Any spills will be treated with either oil absorbent particulate or oil absorbent pads and subsequently disposed of in a leak-proof container by a qualified waste management contractor.

There is also potential for ground spills through leaky lubricants and diesel spills during refuelling. Spill pans will be used during refuelling to mitigate such spills. Any engine oil discharges that reach the soil will be removed along with the contaminated soil and disposed of by a qualified waste management contractor.

Environmental Assessment Page 139 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

7.1.4.5. Sanitary/Domestic Waste Water (Grey/Black Water)

Grey and black water include non-industrial waste water and sewage associated with operations at site. This waste will be stored in appropriate storage tanks and removed from site by a qualified waste management contractor.

7.1.4.6. Solid Waste

The Operator intends to implement a waste recycling program during operations. All trash and garbage that cannot be recycled will be stored in appropriate containers and disposed of at a landfill site. Combustible waste, including oily rags, paint cans, etc., will be stored and subsequently disposed of by a qualified waste management contractor. Hazardous waste will be stored in an appropriate fashion prior to disposal by a qualified waste management contractor.

7.1.4.7. Routine Atmospheric Emissions

Combustion gases are expected from diesel combustion systems (e.g. engines and generators used during operations). Such combustion exhaust gases will typically contain oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons and some particulate matter. The exact amount of atmospheric emissions is presently unknown because the specific equipment to be utilized has not yet been determined. However, atmospheric emissions during drilling operations for the Project are not anticipated to be of sufficient quantity to cause significant effects on biota or human health. The amount of diesel fuel used by a typical sized drill rig for these types of operations is estimated to average between 4,000 to 4,500 litres per day. This will not generate noxious or large scale air emissions at the site. This rate of fuel consumption is well below NLDOEC’s Type I emission source threshold of 15,000,000 litres/year. Above this level, industry is required to undertake air dispersion modelling, stack testing, and ambient air monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the province’s Air Pollution Control Regulations, 2004.

A certain amount of fugitive emissions is expected (i.e., air emissions other than those released from vents or stacks such as those from equipment leaks or fuel storage tanks). A small amount of emissions will also be produced by vehicles moving to and from the activity zone.

7.1.5. Well Testing

If drill stem testing (DST) is deemed necessary, it is expected that the drilling fluids used during drilling operations will first flow to the surface (approximately 23 m3 or 145 bbl). These fluids will be stored on site and removed by a qualified waste removal contractor. As the well will be live, produced fluids will then flow to the surface and will be separated through a test separator on site. Then produced fluids may contain hydrocarbons, produced water or both.

Depending on the results of the DST, two options may be employed for the produced fluids. The preferred option is to flare the produced gas and to store the produced liquids on site. Depending on the

Environmental Assessment Page 140 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

quantities produced, the Operator may need to burn both the produced gas and oil through a burner located on site. As required, appropriate approvals will be sought to allow flaring/burning and installation and use of storage facilities at site. In addition, in all cases of flaring/burning, the most efficient combustion flare types will be used to minimize atmospheric emissions.

7.1.6. Noise

Various noise sources will be present during the exploration drilling program. These include the drilling rig (MDU), incident VSP surveying, and vehicular traffic to and from the activity zone.

Underwater acoustics and in-air sound are discussed in the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005) in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, respectively.

7.1.6.1. Drilling

Noise will be emitted from the machinery involved in drilling the well. The noise levels associated with a typical MDU 4 range from about 70 dBA in the dog house area to about 110 dBA in the generator, motor house, and vacuum pump areas. Considering that noise levels diminish with distance, it is anticipated that the site noise will not reach annoyance or disturbance levels outside of the activity zone. It is likely that drilling noise propagating from air and land to the marine environment will rapidly attenuate.

7.1.6.2. Vehicular Traffic

Vehicular traffic moving to and from the activity zone via an existing access road will also produce minimal levels of noise.

7.1.6.3. Incident Vertical Seismic Profiling (Vibroseis)

The proposed VSP program will be an “Incident VSP” program. The vibroseis technique is a land-based seismic exploration technique that uses truck-mounted vibrating pads; there are no airguns or explosives used with this technique. No equipment associated with this application of vibroseis will come into contact with the marine environment. The energy source will include two Litton 318 truck-mounted vibroseis units, positioned on land approximately 50 to 60 m from the rig location. The geophone will be lowered into the borehole to the TD (total depth), the sound source activated at surface to propagate a sound wave down into the earth, and the subsequent sound wave is recorded with the geophone. The geophone is then raised up to the next level and the process repeated. There will be seven sweeps (i.e., truck pad vibrates over a frequency range of 10 to 100 Hz) at each geophone level, each one lasting approximately 12 seconds. This procedure is repeated at approximately 100 levels within the bore hole. The land around the drilling rig will be energized by vibration for approximately two to three hours during a single incident VSP survey. Richardson et al. (1995) state that in cases where vibroseis is used as a method of seismic profiling on shore-fast ice, usually over shallow water, the underwater area esonified is typically smaller than for an array of airguns operating in open water.

Environmental Assessment Page 141 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

This is the same type of VSP program that was carried out in 1999 by Pan Canadian on the original K-39 well.

7.1.7. Well Suspension

After initial well testing and evaluation, should it be determined that the well is capable of commercial production, it will be temporarily suspended while production planning and engineering activities are undertaken. Well suspension procedures will follow industry standard and practices and be in accordance with the Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Drilling Regulations and the Provincial Petroleum Drilling Regulations under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

The suspended well will first be circulated with clean water-based completion fluid (e.g., KCl brine) to prevent any damage to the reservoir rock while in the suspended mode. A retrievable bridge plug will then be installed. The well will then be circulated above this plug with the KCl completion fluid of higher density to over-balance the formation pressures found in the well. At approximately 100 m MD, a second retrievable bridge plug will be installed and tested to provide two mechanical and one liquid barrier against the tendency for the well to release hydrocarbons to the surface. In addition, a high pressure wellhead cap, complete with pressure indicator and pressure bleed valves will be fitted on the wellhead to protect the mechanical and pressure retaining interfaces against mechanical damage and corrosion.

7.1.8. Well Abandonment

As required under the Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Drilling Regulations and the Provincial Petroleum Drilling Regulations under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Operator will ensure that any well (or a portion of a well) that is not suspended or completed is abandoned to prevent hydrocarbons from flowing out of the well. The well abandonment procedures will follow industry standard practices and be in accordance with the above regulations.

The Operator will ensure that the abandoned well first be filled with fluid of sufficient density to over- balance the formation pressures found in the well. The well will then be permanently plugged. Well log data will be analyzed to determine how the well should be plugged to ensure that any formations that may contain hydrocarbons are isolated. Typically, the well(s) will be plugged using cement and bridge plugs in accordance with the existing regulations, and will be appropriately tested as required. Following this, the Operator will ensure that the wellhead and associated equipment is removed and that all exposed casing will be cut off below the ground level to an appropriate depth.

Environmental Assessment Page 142 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

7.2. Potential Effects of Routine Activities

The following sections assess the potential effects of the described routine activities on the selected VECs. The only assessment tables presented are the interactions tables. Given the limited interaction of routine activities and VECs, the evaluation and significance tables typically used in larger scope EAs are not included. However, evaluation and significance statements are provided.

No interactions of mud operations and other waste discharges (except routine atmospheric emissions) with VECs are anticipated given the proposed mitigative measures (see Section 8.0 for accidental event mitigative measures). Any interaction between well suspension/abandonment activities and VECs are captured in the assessment of interaction between activity zone and the VECs.

7.2.1. Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat

Table 7.2 indicates the potential interactions of Project routine activities and marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat. It is obvious that there is limited potential interaction between routine activities and habitat. The only identified interactions of the habitat with routine activities pertain to lights, flaring and noise, and these interactions are expected to be minimal.

Table 7.2. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat VEC.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat Habitat Components Project Activity Water Sediment Plankton Benthos Presence of structures Activity zone Lights x Flaring x Mud operations Other waste discharges Drill water Cement Cooling water (rig equipment) Machinery space discharges Sanitary/domestic waste Water (grey/black water) Solid wastes Routine atmospheric emissions Well testing Noise Drilling x x Incident VSP x x Vehicular traffic Well suspension Well abandonment

Environmental Assessment Page 143 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 7.2 Continued.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat Habitat Components Project Activity Water Sediment Plankton Benthos Other Projects/Activities Marine exploration x x x x Commercial fisheries x x x x Marine transportation x x x Terrestrial exploration Recreational fisheries Hunting Wood cutting

7.2.1.1. Lights and Flaring

Considering the proximity of the activities to the marine system at Shoal Point, lights and flaring at the activity zone could potentially attract marine plankton to the nearshore region. Nevertheless, this attraction is not necessarily a negative effect and would be extremely localized.

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential impacts of lights on the marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat VEC are negligible, 1-10 km2, and 1-12 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of lights on this VEC are not significant. Considering that the maximum total duration of flaring is <1 month and the magnitude and geographic extent of potential impacts of flaring are the same as for lights, the potential residual effects of flaring on the marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat VEC are not significant.

7.2.1.2. Noise

Noise from activities in the activity zone (e.g., drilling, incident VSP) on land is not likely to have much effect on plankton and benthos in the marine environment. No major sound sources will be placed in the marine environment. There is likely to be some transference of sound from both air and land to the marine environment but the sound pressure levels associated with these transferred sounds would probably be within the range of ambient sound in the surrounding marine area due to attentuation.

The effects of sound on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic infauna have not been studied. Section 7.2.2.2 provides a summary of what is known of the effects of exposure to seismic sound on invertebrates and fish. A more comprehensive discussion of the effects of exposure to sound on marine invertebrates and fish is provided in the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.1.5.1).

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential impacts of activity zone-associated noise on the marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat VEC are low, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of activity zone-associated noise on the marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat VEC are not significant.

Environmental Assessment Page 144 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

7.2.1.3. Cumulative Effects

Marine exploration, commercial fishery activity and marine transportation all have the potential to interact with marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat to a greater degree than the routine activities associated with the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling Project. Various aspects of marine exploration (e.g., drilling disruption of bottom substrate, drill cuttings, seismic and other activity related noise), commercial fisheries (disruption of bottom substrate, noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), and marine transportation (noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons) are the likely primary causes of the existing cumulative effects on this VEC. As the proposed Project’s routine activities will have no to negligible effects on this VEC, there will be no cumulative effect caused by the Project.

7.2.2. Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish

Table 7.3 indicates the potential interactions of Project routine activities and marine macroinvertebrates and fish. There is limited potential interaction between routine activities and habitat. The only identified interactions of the habitat with routine activities pertain to lights, flaring and noise, and these interactions would be minimal.

Table 7.3. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish VEC.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish Life Stage Project Activity Adult Adult Eggsa/Larvae Juvenilesb Pelagic Benthic/Demersal Presence of Structures Activity zone Lights x x x Flaring x x x Mud operations Other waste discharges Drill water Cement Cooling water (rig equipment) Machinery space discharges Sanitary/domestic waste Water (grey/black water) Solid wastes Routine atmospheric emissions Well testing Noise Drilling x x x Incident VSP x x x Vehicular traffic Well suspension Well abandonment

Environmental Assessment Page 145 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 7.3 Continued.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish Life Stage Project Activity Adult Adult Eggsa/Larvae Juvenilesb Pelagic Benthic/Demersal Other Projects/Activities Marine exploration x x x x Commercial fisheries x x x Marine transportation x x x Terrestrial exploration Recreational fisheries x x x Hunting Wood cutting a Eggs of some species closely associated with substrate b Often closely associated with substrate

7.2.2.1. Lights and Flaring

Considering the proximity of the activities to the marine system at Shoal Point, lights and flaring at the activity zone could potentially attract marine macroinvertebrates and fish to the nearshore region. Nevertheless, this highly localized attraction would not necessarily be a negative effect. The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential effects of lights on the marine macroinvertebrates and fish VEC are negligible, 1-10 km2, and 1-12 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of lights on this VEC are not significant. Considering that the maximum total duration of flaring is <1 month and the magnitude and geographic extent of potential impacts of flaring are the same as for lights, the potential residual effects of flaring on the marine macroinvertebrates and fish VEC are not significant.

7.2.2.2. Noise

Noise from activities in the land-based activity zone (e.g., drilling, incident VSP) is not likely to have much effect on marine macroinvertebrates and fish.

The various types of potential effects of exposure to sound on fish and invertebrates can be considered in three categories: (1) pathological, (2) physiological, and (3) behavioural. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-lethal damage to the animals, physiological effects include temporary primary and secondary stress responses, and behavioural effects refer to changes in exhibited behaviours of the fish and invertebrate animals. The three categories should not be considered as independent of each other since they are certainly interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain physiological and behavioural changes could potentially lead to the ultimate pathological effect on individual animals (i.e., mortality).

To date, there have not been any well-documented cases of acute post-larval fish or invertebrate mortality as a result of exposure to sound. Sub-lethal injury or damage has been observed but generally as a result of exposure to very high received levels of sound (e.g., seismic), much higher than would be expected in this Project. Acute mortality of eggs and larvae have been demonstrated in experimental

Environmental Assessment Page 146 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

exposures but only when the eggs and larvae were exposed very close to seismic sources and the received pressure levels were presumably very high. Limited information has not indicated any chronic mortality as a direct result of exposure to seismic.

Primary and secondary stress responses of fish after exposure to sound all appear to be temporary in any studies done to date. The times necessary for these biochemical changes to return to normal are variable depending on numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus.

The full determination of behavioural effects of exposure to sound is difficult. There have been well- documented observations of fish and invertebrates exhibiting behaviours that appeared to be in response to exposure to seismic sound (i.e., startle response, change in swimming direction and speed, change in vertical distribution), but the ultimate importance of these behaviours is unclear. Some studies indicate that such behavioural changes are very temporary while others imply that marine animals might not resume pre-seismic behaviours/distributions for a number of days. As is the case with pathological and physiological effects of exposure to sound on fish and invertebrates, available information is relatively scant and often contradictory.

A more comprehensive discussion of the effects of exposure to sound on marine invertebrates and fish is provided in the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.1.5.1).

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of activity zone- associated noise on the marine macroinvertebrate and fish VEC are low, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of activity zone-associated noise on the marine macroinvertebrate and fish VEC are not significant.

7.2.2.3. Cumulative Effects

Marine exploration, commercial fishery activity, marine transportation and recreational fisheries all have the potential to interact with marine macroinvertebrates and fish to a greater degree than the routine activities associated with the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling Project. Various aspects of marine exploration (e.g., drilling disruption of bottom substrate, drill cuttings, seismic and other activity-related noise), commercial fisheries (harvesting of animals, disruption of bottom substrate, noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), marine transportation (noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), and recreational fisheries (harvesting of animals, noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons) are the likely primary causes of the cumulative effects on this VEC. The routine activities of the Project will create no cumulative effect on this VEC because of the extremely localized nature of the effect, even if it occurs.

7.2.3. Marine Commercial Fisheries

The potential interactions between routine Project activities and the commercial fisheries VEC (including bait fisheries), the potential effects of the activities on the fisheries, and the residual effects are considered in this section.

Environmental Assessment Page 147 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

As indicated in the following Table 7.4, considering the lack of marine activities planned for this Project, the only potential interaction with the commercial fisheries would be as a result of sound originating from the land-based, subterranean drilling and VSP activities, transferring through the ground to the water and the fishing environment.

As described in Section 2.2, the biophysical effects on fish species (finfish and invertebrates) from routine Project activities are expected to be not significant. There are no activities planned that would interfere with fishing gear, and nothing to prevent access to fishing grounds. However, loud sounds could result in fish scaring, and could reduce fish catchability.

Since the level of sound transferred from either of these activities is expected to be very low, it would not be expected to be sufficient to scare fish, especially since it would likely be masked fully by naturally occurring noise (wind and sea state) and/or by other anthropogenic noise (particularly fishing boat motors).

As a consequence, the magnitude would be negligible; with a total of five terrestrial exploration wells anticipated, the duration would be about 20 months in total. Effects overall on the commercial will thus be not significant.

Such effects in combination with other activities (mostly fishing) are also not expected to result in significant cumulative effect on fishing gear, fishing grounds available or overall catchability of commercial and bait species.

Table 7.4. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine Commercial Fisheries VEC.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine Commercial Fisherya

Project Activity Fishing Access to Catchability Gear/Vessels Grounds Presence of structures Activity zone Lights Flaring Mud operations Other waste discharges Drill water Cement Cooling water (rig equipment) Machinery space discharges Sanitary/domestic waste water (grey/black water) Solid wastes Routine atmospheric emissions Well testing Noise Drilling x Incident VSP x Vehicular traffic

Environmental Assessment Page 148 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 7.4 Continued.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine Commercial Fisherya

Project Activity Fishing Access to Catchability Gear/Vessels Grounds

Other Projects/Activities Marine exploration x x x Commercial fisheries - - - Marine transportation x x x Terrestrial exploration x Recreational fisheries x x x Hunting x x x a Includes research surveys

7.2.4. Marine-associated Birds

Table 7.5 provides the potential interactions of Project routine activities and marine-associated birds. Because the routine activities will occur on land, there is limited potential interaction between these activities and marine-associated birds. The specific interactions identified are the presence of structures/activity zone, lights, flaring, routine atmospheric emissions, noise, well suspension and well abandonment.

Table 7.5. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine-associated Birds.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine-associated Birds Project Activity Birds Presence of Structures x Activity zone x Lights x Flaring x Mud operations Other waste discharges Drill water Cement Cooling water (rig equipment) Machinery space discharges Sanitary/domestic waste Water (grey/black water) Solid wastes Routine atmospheric emissions x Well testing x Noise x Drilling x Incident VSP x Vehicular traffic x Well suspension x Well abandonment x

Environmental Assessment Page 149 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 7.5 Continued.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine-associated Birds Project Activity Birds Other Projects/Activities Marine exploration x Commercial fisheries x Marine transportation x Terrestrial exploration x Recreational fisheries x Hunting x

7.2.4.1. Presence of Structures/Activity Zone

The presence of structures and the activity zone may affect marine-associated birds through visual stimuli of movement of people and equipment, associated noise, lights and flaring. Presence of structures could potentially affect marine-associated and night-active birds by attracting them. This is discussed further in Section 7.2.4.2 on ‘Lights and Flaring’. The potential effects of activity noise are discussed below in Section 7.2.4.5 on ‘Noise’. Disturbance effects via visual stimuli vary by site, bird species and individual bird. In addition, some individuals may habituate to such activities with the result that the effect is temporary. If there is a disturbance effect of the Project structures and activity zone, this would be limited to waterbirds and shorebirds within a radius of a few hundred metres around the activity zone. Densities of waterbirds in Port au Port Bay are expected to be low. Structures will be lit at night, which may attract night-active birds. This is discussed below in Section 7.2.4.2. Because of the small affected area and the low densities of birds, the potential effects of the presence of structures are expected to be low in magnitude, 1-10 km2 in geographic extent and 13-36 months in duration. The potential residual effects of structures and the activity zone on this VEC are not significant.

7.2.4.2. Lights and Flaring

Because the Project activities will be very close to the marine system, lights and flaring at the activity zone could attract night-migrating and other nocturnally active marine-associated bird species. Seabirds, especially storm-petrels, and migrating songbirds are be attracted to offshore rigs, vessels and lighthouses on the East Coast, apparently due to attraction to light sources (see the detailed review in LGL 2006b, Sections 7.6.4.3 and 7.6.4.4). Weather conditions associated with the greatest risk are fog or low cloud ceiling. The time of year with the greatest risk is September, when birds, whose numbers are swelled with inexperienced young-of-the-year, are dispersing or migrating from nesting areas to wintering grounds. Migrating landbirds tend to be funnelled into higher concentrations by peninsulas, which would increase the risk of landbirds being attracted to lights and flaring in the activity zone. This may lead to mortalities if birds fly into the flare, fly around the flare until exhausted, or collide with the rig (LGL 2006b, Sections 7.6.4.3 and 7.6.4.4). The potential impacts of lights and flaring on seabirds and migrating songbirds is expected to be low in magnitude, 1-10 km2 in geographic extent and 1-12 months in duration. The potential residual effects of lights on this VEC are not significant. Because the

Environmental Assessment Page 150 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

maximum total duration of flaring is <1 month and the magnitude and geographic extent of potential impacts of flaring are the same as for lights, the potential residual effects of flaring on marine-associated and migratory songbirds VEC are not significant.

7.2.4.3. Routine Atmospheric Emissions

Although atmospheric emissions could, in theory, affect the health of some marine-associated birds, the effects would likely be minimal because emissions of potentially harmful materials will be small and rapidly disperse to undetectable levels. Based on the worst-case scenario of the atmospheric emissions during the Project, effects of these emissions on the marine-associated bird VEC are expected to be negligible in magnitude, 1-10 km2 in geographic extent, and 13-36 months in duration, resulting in a rating of the residual effects of emissions on marine birds of not significant.

7.2.4.4. Well Testing

Atmospheric emissions would also likely occur during well testing. However, the amount of emissions would be less than those already assessed in the preceding Section 7.2.4.3. Therefore, the residual effects of well testing-related emissions on marine-associated birds would be not significant.

7.2.4.5. Noise

Noise from activities in the activity zone (e.g., drilling) and equipment involved in incident VSP is not likely to have much impact on marine-associated birds that dive or plunge-dive when foraging. The effects of underwater industrial noise on birds are virtually unstudied (see the review in C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.1.5.3). Most species of marine-associated birds spend only a few seconds under water and usually dive no greater than 1 m in depth while capturing prey (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.1.5.3). As a result, the probability of exposure to underwater noises such as seismic sounds is very small. The exceptions are the Alcidae (Dovekie, Common Murre, Thick-billed Murre, Razorbill, Black Guillemot and Atlantic Puffin), which dive for longer time periods and reach greater depths (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.1.5.3). Noise from drilling or other above-ground activities in the activity zone may affect migrant shorebirds or terns and gulls loafing on the shoreline through disturbance, thus causing them to disperse from the area within a radius of a few hundred metres around the activity zone. If Piping Plovers are sighted on shorelines within a few hundred metres of the activity zone, disturbance by noise can be mitigated through scheduling. Piping Plovers nests should not be disturbed from 1 May through to 15 August. Any other shorebird species not dispersed from the vicinity of the activity zone by anthropogenic activities may feel slight tremors or hear low amplitude noise from incident VSP. The vibrations and noise propagating from the surface of activity zone through the ground and into the water are likely to be minimal.

As discussed above in Section 7.2.1.2, no major sound sources will originate in the marine environment and the sound pressure generated by incident VSP on the surface of the activity zone will be greatly attenuated to below ambient levels when it is transferred the water.

Environmental Assessment Page 151 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Consequently, the magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of activities in the activity zone incident VSP-associated noise on marine-associated birds are negligible, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of incident VSP-associated noise on the marine-associated birds VEC are not significant.

7.2.4.6. Well Suspension/Abandonment

As already indicated, any interaction between well suspension/abandonment activities and marine- associated birds are captured in the assessment of their interaction with the activity zone (Section 7.2.4.1).

7.2.4.7. Cumulative Effects

Marine and terrestrial exploration, commercial fishery activity, marine transportation, recreational fisheries and hunting all have the potential to interact with marine-associated birds to a greater degree than the routine activities associated with the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling Project. Various aspects of marine and terrestrial exploration (e.g., seismic and other activity-related noise, physical disturbance to shorebirds, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), commercial fisheries (noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), marine transportation (noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), and recreational fisheries (noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons, physical disturbance of shorebirds) and hunting (harvesting of animals, noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons) are the likely primary causes of the cumulative effects on this VEC. The Project will create essentially no cumulative effects on the marine environment because of the extremely low magnitude and geographic extent of any potential effects from routine activities on land.

7.2.5. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

The potential interactions of Project routine activities on marine mammals and sea turtles are provided in Table 7.6. Because the routine activities will occur on land there is limited potential interaction of these activities with marine mammals. Specific interactions identified here are routine atmospheric emissions and noise.

Table 7.6. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Marine-associated Bird, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle VECs.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Biota Group Project Activity Whales Seals Sea Turtles Presence of Structures Activity zone Lights Flaring Mud operations

Environmental Assessment Page 152 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 7.6 Continued.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Biota Group Project Activity Whales Seals Sea Turtles Other waste discharges Drill water Cement Cooling water (rig equipment) Machinery space discharges Sanitary/domestic waste Water (grey/black water) Solid wastes Routine atmospheric emissions x x x Well testing x x x Noise Drilling x x x Incident VSP x x x Vehicular traffic Well suspension Well abandonment Other Projects/Activities Marine exploration x x x Commercial fisheries x x x Marine transportation x x x Terrestrial exploration Recreational fisheries x x x Hunting x x x

7.2.5.1. Routine Atmospheric Emissions

Atmospheric emissions could, in theory, affect the health of some resident marine mammals and sea turtles. However, the effects would likely be minimal because emissions of potentially harmful materials will be small and rapidly disperse to undetectable levels. Based on the worst-case scenario of the atmospheric emissions during the Project, effects of these emissions on the marine mammal/sea turtle VEC are expected to be negligible in magnitude, 1-10 km2 in geographic extent, and 13-36 months in duration, resulting in a rating of the residual effects of emissions on marine mammals and sea turtles of not significant.

7.2.5.2. Well Testing

Atmospheric emissions would also likely occur during well testing. However, the amount of emissions would be less than those already assessed in the preceding Section 7.2.5.1. Therefore, the residual effects of well testing-related emissions on marine mammals and sea turtles would be not significant.

7.2.5.3. Noise

There is likely to be some transference of sound originating from activities in the activity zone (e.g., drilling, incident VSP) from both air and land to the marine environment. However, as discussed above

Environmental Assessment Page 153 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

in Section 7.2.1.2, the sound pressure levels associated with these transferred sounds would probably be similar to those of ambient sounds in the ocean.

Marine mammals rely heavily on the use of underwater sounds to communicate and gain information about their environment, including detecting prey and predators. The reactions of marine mammals to sound can be variable and depend on the species involved and the activity of the animal at the time of exposure to sound. However, marine mammals usually do not respond overtly to audible, but weak, man-made sounds. Potential effects of sound on marine mammals include masking, disturbance (behavioural), hearing impairment (temporary threshold shift [TTS] and permanent threshold shift [PTS]) and non-auditory physiological effects. Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other sounds, often at similar frequencies. Anthropogenic sounds can add to the existing masking effect of natural ambient sound, which includes contributions from wind, waves, precipitation and other animals. Disturbance is one of the main concerns of the potential impacts of man-made sound on marine mammals but for many species and situations, there is no detailed information about reactions to sound. Regarding the sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTSs, only a few data have been obtained for marine mammals. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS level, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends in terrestrial mammals, and presumably in marine mammals. However, there are no data on sound levels that might induce permanent hearing impairment (PTS) in marine mammals. Non-auditory physiological effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that, in theory, might occur, include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. A more comprehensive discussion of the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals is provided in the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.1.5.4).

There have been few studies of the effects of sound on sea turtles. Comparisons of results among studies are difficult, because experimental designs and reporting procedures have varied greatly, and only one of the studies provided specific information about the levels of the airgun pulses received by the turtles. In addition, these studies measured only short-term behavioural responses of sea turtles in enclosures to single airguns. It is likely, however, that high sound levels would induce hearing impairment as it does in other vertebrates with auditory structures. The SEA provides a more detailed summary of the effects of sound exposure on sea turtles (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.1.5.5).

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of activity zone- associated noise on the marine mammal/sea turtle VEC are low, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of activity zone-associated noise on the marine mammal/sea turtle VEC are not significant.

7.2.5.4. Cumulative Effects

Seismic and other activity-related noise from marine exploration, commercial fishery activity, marine transportation and recreational fisheries all have the potential to interact with marine mammals and sea turtles to a greater extent than the routine activities associated with the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling. Various aspects of marine exploration (e.g., seismic and other activity-related

Environmental Assessment Page 154 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), commercial fisheries (noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), marine transportation (noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons), and recreational fisheries and hunting (noise, releases of waste materials and hydrocarbons) are the likely primary causes of the cumulative effects on this VEC. This land-based Project will create essentially no cumulative effects on marine mammals and sea turtles.

7.2.6. Rare Terrestrial Vegetation

Table 7.7 indicates the potential interactions of Project routine activities and rare terrestrial vegetation. There is limited potential interaction between routine activities and rare terrestrial vegetation. The only identified interactions pertain to presence of structures, activity zone, routine atmospheric emissions, and well testing. Well testing is included because of atmospheric emissions associated with it.

Table 7.7. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Rare Terrestrial VegetationVEC.

Project Activity Valued Ecosystem Component: Rare Terrestrial Vegetation Presence of structures x Activity zone x Lights Flaring Mud operations Other waste discharges Drill water Cement Cooling water (rig equipment) Machinery space discharges Sanitary/domestic waste Water (grey/black water) Solid wastes Routine atmospheric emissions x Well testing x Noise Drilling Incident VSP Vehicular traffic Well suspension Well abandonment Other Projects/Activities Marine exploration Commercial fisheries Marine transportation Terrestrial exploration x Recreational fisheries x Hunting x Wood cutting x

Environmental Assessment Page 155 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

7.2.6.1. Presence of Structures/Activity Zone

There is potential for physical contact with rare terrestrial vegetation due to presence of structures and activities within the activity zone.

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on rare terrestrial vegetation include the following:

• Plant surveys of any area with potential to become an activity zone • Avoidance of any rare plants

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of presence of structures/activity zone on the rare terrestrial vegetation VEC are low, <1 km2, and 37-72 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of presence of structures/activity zone on the rare terrestrial vegetation VEC are not significant.

7.2.6.2. Routine Atmospheric Emissions

There is potential for routine atmospheric emissions to come into contact with rare terrestrial vegetation during the proposed drilling activities.

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on rare terrestrial vegetation include the following:

• Minimize the amount of routine atmospheric emissions through proper maintenance of equipment causing the emissions, thereby maximizing the functional efficiency of the equipment.

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of routine atmospheric emissions on the rare terrestrial vegetation VEC are low, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of routine atmospheric emissions on the rare terrestrial vegetation VEC are not significant.

7.2.6.3. Well Testing

If well testing occurs, the Operator may need to burn both the produced gas and oil through a burner located on site. Therefore, there is potential for well testing atmospheric emissions to come into contact with rare terrestrial vegetation during the proposed drilling activities which could occur at any time of the year.

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on rare terrestrial vegetation include the following:

• The most efficient combustion flare types will be used to minimize atmospheric emissions.

Environmental Assessment Page 156 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of atmospheric emissions associated with well testing on the rare terrestrial vegetation VEC are negligible, 1-10 km2, and 1-12 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of these particular atmospheric emissions on the rare terrestrial vegetation VEC are not significant.

7.2.6.4. Cumulative Effects

Terrestrial exploration, recreational fisheries, hunting and wood cutting all have the potential to interact with rare terrestrial vegetation to a greater degree than the routine activities associated with the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling Project. Various aspects of terrestrial exploration (e.g., seismic and other activity-related noise, line cutting, atmospheric emissions), recreational fisheries and hunting (physical presence and atmospheric emissions of ATVs and other vehicles), and wood cutting (physical presence and atmospheric emissions of ATVs, other vehicles and associated equipment) are the likely primary causes of the cumulative effects on this VEC. The Project will cause little or no cumulative effect on rare vegetation due to spatial and temporal avoidance of sensitive areas.

7.2.7. Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat

Table 7.8 indicates the potential interactions of Project routine activities and freshwater fish and fish habitat. There is limited potential interaction between routine activities and this particular VEC. The only identified interactions pertain to routine atmospheric emissions, well testing, and noise due to activities within the activity zone (e.g., drilling, incident VSP). Well testing is included because of atmospheric emissions associated with it.

Table 7.8. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat VEC.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Freshwater Fish and Fish Project Activity Habitat Presence of structures Activity zone Lights Flaring Mud operations Other waste discharges Drill water Cement Cooling water (rig equipment) Machinery space discharges Sanitary/domestic waste Water (grey/black water) Solid wastes Routine atmospheric emissions x Well testing x Noise Drilling x Incident VSP x Vehicular traffic

Environmental Assessment Page 157 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 7.8 Continued.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Freshwater Fish and Fish Project Activity Habitat Well suspension Well abandonment Other Projects/Activities Marine exploration Commercial fisheries Marine transportation Terrestrial exploration x Recreational fisheries x Hunting x Wood cutting x

7.2.7.1. Routine Atmospheric Emissions

There is potential for routine atmospheric emissions to come into contact with freshwater fish and fish habitat during the proposed drilling activities.

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on this VEC include the following:

• Minimize the amount of routine atmospheric emissions through proper maintenance of equipment causing the emissions, thereby maximizing the functional efficiency of the equipment.

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of routine atmospheric emissions on the freshwater fish and fish habitat VEC are low, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of routine atmospheric emissions on the rare terrestrial vegetation VEC are not significant.

7.2.7.2. Well Testing

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on freshwater fish and fish habitat include the following:

• The most efficient combustion flare types will be used to minimize atmospheric emissions.

Environmental Assessment Page 158 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of atmospheric emissions associated with well testing on the freshwater fish and fish habitat VEC are negligible, 1-10 km2, and 1- 12 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of these particular atmospheric emissions on the freshwater fish and fish habitat VEC are not significant.

7.2.7.3. Noise

The most likely primary noise sources associated with the proposed drilling program that would potentially have some impact on freshwater fish and fish habitat are the drilling rig and the sound source associated with the incident VSP survey. While the noise would not be generated in the water, some transference of noise to the freshwater system would likely occur. Section 7.2.2.2 provides a summary of what is known of the effects of exposure to seismic sound on invertebrates and fish. A more comprehensive discussion of the effects of exposure to sound on marine invertebrates and fish is provided in the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005, Section 4.1.5.1).

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on freshwater fish and fish habitat include the following:

• Maximize distance between activity zone and freshwater system.

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of activity zone- associated noise on the freshwater fish and fish habitat VEC are low, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of this noise on the freshwater fish and fish habitat VEC are not significant.

7.2.7.4. Cumulative Effects

Terrestrial exploration, recreational fisheries, hunting and wood cutting all have the potential to interact with freshwater fish and fish habitat to a greater degree than the routine activities associated with the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling Project. Various aspects of terrestrial exploration (e.g., seismic and other activity-related noise, line cutting), recreational fisheries (physical presence and atmospheric emissions of ATVs and other vehicles, harvesting of animals, release of waste materials and hydrocarbons, noise), hunting (physical presence and atmospheric emissions of ATVs and other vehicles, noise), and wood cutting (physical presence and atmospheric emissions of ATVs, other vehicles and associated equipment, noise, waste wood products entering freshwater systems) are the likely primary causes of the cumulative effects on this VEC. The potential for cumulative effects from the Project is very limited due to the limited magnitude and geographic scale of any potential effects.

7.2.8. Species at Risk

Table 7.9 indicates the potential interactions of Project routine activities and species at risk. Potential interactions with the routine activities vary between the different biota groups. All routine activities, except for mud operations, most of the waste discharges, well suspension and well abandonment have potential to interact with at least some of the species at risk biota groups. Mud operations and all waste

Environmental Assessment Page 159 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

discharges except for atmospheric emissions are excluded because mitigative measures will make potential of interaction negligible. Well suspension and well abandonment would not have unique interactions with any of the biota groups.

Table 7.9. Potential Interactions of Routine Activities and Species at Risk.

Valued Ecosystem Component: Species at Risk Biota Group Marine- Project Activity Marine Marine Sea Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial associated Fish Mammals Turtles Vegetation Birds Mammals Birds Presence of structures x x x x Activity zone x x x x Lights x x x Flaring x x x Mud operations Other waste discharges Drill water Cement Cooling water (rig equipment) Machinery space discharges Sanitary/domestic waste water (grey/black water) Solid wastes Routine atmospheric x x x x emissions Well testing x x x x Noise Drilling x x x x x x Incident VSP x x x x x x Vehicular traffic x x x x Well suspension Well abandonment Other Projects/Activities Marine exploration x x x x Commercial fisheries x x x Marine transportation x x x x Terrestrial exploration x x x x Recreational fisheries x x x x x x x Hunting x x x x x x x Wood cutting x x x x

Environmental Assessment Page 160 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

7.2.8.1. Presence of Structures/Activity Zone

There is limited potential of interaction of presence of structures/activity zone and marine-associated bird (Piping Plover), terrestrial vegetation (Long’s braya, barrens willow and Fernald’s braya), terrestrial bird (Red Crossbill, Peregrine Falcon), and terrestrial mammal (American marten, woodland caribou) species listed as either endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA.

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on the terrestrial species at risk include the following:

• Surveys of any area with potential to become an activity zone • Avoidance of identified critical habitat for the terrestrial species at risk

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential effects of presence of structures/activity zone on the species at risk VEC are low, <1 km2, and 37-72 months, respectively. Based on these criteria ratings and given the rarity of occurrence of the terrestrial species at risk in the Project Area, the potential effects of presence of structures/activity zone on the species at risk VEC are not significant.

7.2.8.2. Lights and Flaring

There is limited potential of interaction of lights/flaring and marine fish (three species of wolffish), marine-associated bird, and terrestrial bird species listed as either endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA. It is unlikely that any life stage of wolfish would be attracted to the lights/flaring, especially in water so shallow. While it is documented that some birds are attracted to lights during the night time, it is unlikely that the three species indicated above would be attracted to the lights/flaring in the activity zone.

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential impacts of lights on the species at risk VEC are negligible, 1-10 km2, and 1-12 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of lights on this VEC are not significant. Considering that the maximum total duration of flaring is <1 month and the magnitude and geographic extent of potential impacts of flaring are the same as for lights, the potential residual effects of flaring on the species at risk VEC are not significant.

7.2.8.3. Routine Atmospheric Emissions

There is potential for routine atmospheric emissions to come into contact with marine-associated bird, rare terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial bird and terrestrial mammal species listed as either endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA. However, emissions from the activity zone will be minimal, especially when compared to emissions from other non-Project activities in the Project Area.

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on this VEC include the following:

• Minimize the amount of routine atmospheric emissions through proper maintenance of equipment causing the emissions, thereby maximizing the functional efficiency of the equipment. Environmental Assessment Page 161 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of routine atmospheric emissions on the species at risk VEC are low, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of routine atmospheric emissions on species at risk are not significant.

7.2.8.4. Well Testing

If well testing occurs, the Operator may need to burn both the produced gas and oil through a burner located on site. Therefore, there is potential for well testing atmospheric emissions to come into contact with marine-associated bird, rare terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial bird and terrestrial mammal species listed as either endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA. Considering the short duration of any required well testing, impacts of exposure to these emissions on the species at risk are unlikely.

Possible mitigations to minimize impact on species at risk include the following:

• The most efficient combustion flare types will be used to minimize atmospheric emissions.

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of atmospheric emissions associated with well testing on the species at risk VEC are negligible, 1-10 km2, and 1-12 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of these particular atmospheric emissions on species at risk are not significant.

7.2.8.5. Noise

There is potential for noise created by the Project to impact all identified species at risk except for those that are rare terrestrial vegetation. Noise generated by drilling and incident VSP activities will likely have the most potential to affect all species at risk except for rare terrestrial vegetation.

Possible mitigations to minimize impact of drilling and VSP noise on species at risk include the following:

• Avoidance of locations and times of critical life history events

The magnitude, geographic extent and duration of the potential residual effects of noise related to land- based activities (e.g., drilling, incident VSP) on identified species at risk are negligible, 1-10 km2, and 13-36 months, respectively. The potential residual effects of this noise on species at risk are not significant.

7.2.8.6. Cumulative Effects

All other projects/activities listed in Table 7.9 have the potential to interact with at least some of the indicated species at risk to a greater degree than the routine activities associated with the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling Project. Various aspects of terrestrial exploration (e.g., seismic and other activity-related noise, line cutting), recreational fisheries (atmospheric emissions of ATVs,

Environmental Assessment Page 162 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

outboard motors and other vehicles, harvesting of animals, release of waste materials and hydrocarbons, noise), hunting (harvesting of animals, physical presence and atmospheric emissions of ATVs, outboard motors, and other vehicles, noise), and wood cutting (physical presence and atmospheric emissions of ATVs, other vehicles and associated equipment, noise) are the likely primary causes of the cumulative effects on the species at risk VEC. Because of the no to negligible effect to low magnitude and limited geographic extent of any potential effects, there will be essentially no cumulative effects on the species at risk VEC due to the Project.

Environmental Assessment Page 163 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

8.0 Accidental Events

Accidental spills of crude or fuel oil have the most potential to create adverse effects from the Project. As such, the Proponent will pay particular attention to prevention of all spills, however small.

This section assesses the effects of accidental spill events in the Project Area. It provides a general discussion of the types and frequencies of accidental spill events associated with oil and gas exploration activities throughout the world and in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area. This section also reports the results of a hazard identification exercise undertaken for the Project (RMRI, 2007), as well as describing the potential fate, behaviour and trajectories of oil released to the marine environment, and effects predictions for the eight VECs based on identified credible spill events.

8.1. Spill Events Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration Activities

An in-depth study by the US National Academy of Sciences (NRC 2003) indicates that, on average, the worldwide oil extraction industry contributes less than 3% of the total annual petroleum input to the environment.

Historical data indicate that the majority of spills are ‘small’ spills. For example, Table 8.1 indicates that during the period 1970 to 1995, 95.5% of recorded spills greater than 1 barrel (of all pollutants) on US Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases consisted of less than 50 barrels (MMS 1997).

Data published by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) on 2005 oil and gas exploration and production operations worldwide (OGP 2006) indicate the following:

• 40% of onshore spills for which data on volume was available were of less than 1 bbl, • 86% of onshore spills for which data on volume was available were of less than 10 bbl, and • The average volume of an onshore oil spill in North America was 1 tonne (approximately 7 bbl).

OGP (2006) defines spills as ‘any loss of containment that reaches the environment irrespective of the quantity recovered’ and indicates that, worldwide, the reported spillage rate onshore is 13 times the offshore average. However, the data also indicate that onshore oil spills in Africa are, on average, larger than the overall reported average mainly due to ‘wilful damage of facilities (e.g., sabotage) or mishaps during the theft of crude from oil facilities, wells, flowlines or pipelines’. Whereas the onshore spill rate in Africa for 2005 is nearly twice the worldwide average, the rate in North America was less than 30% of the worldwide average.

During onshore drilling operations, spills may for the following reasons:

• Loss of well control. • Accidental releases from surface equipment, including process equipment, storage tanks etc. • Vehicle incidents resulting in a release of crude oil and/or well products.

Environmental Assessment Page 164 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 8.1. Number and Volume of Spills of More than One barrel of all Pollutants from Facilities and Operations on US Federal OCS Leases, 1970-1995.

Gulf of Mexico OCS Pacific OCS Total OCS Year No. of Spills Total No. of Spills Total >1 and ≤50 Spillage >1 and ≤50 Spillage Spillage (bbl) > 50 bbl > 50 bbl bbl (bbl) bbl (bbl) 1970 8 5 83,894 0 0 0 83,894 1971 267 7 2,441 0 0 0 2,441 1982 204 1 999 0 0 0 999 1973 178 5 23,125 0 0 0 23,125 1974 80 7 24,453 0 0 0 24,453 1975 109 2 761 0 0 0 761 1976 66 3 5,021 1 0 2 5,023 1977 70 3 1,080 1 0 4 1,084 1978 77 3 1,525 0 0 0 1,525 1979 106 4 2,627 1 0 2 2,629 1980 49 8 2,826 2 0 7 2,833 1981 51 5 5,794 10 0 75 5,869 1982 71 3 1,137 1 0 3 1,140a 1983 92 9 2,554 3 0 5 2,583b 1984 58 1 378 3 0 36 416c 1985 72 6 1,716 3 0 9 1,727d 1986 45 3 572 3 0 12 584 1987 35 1 231 2 0 11 242 1988 30 3 15,971 1 0 2 15,978e 1989 24 1 476 3 0 8 484 1990 35 3 19,308 0 1 100 19,408 1991 33 1 646 3 0 61 707 1992 29 2 2,336 0 0 0 2,336 1993 24 0 147 0 0 0 147 1994 20 4 4,725 3 0 83 4,808 1995 31 3 773 1 0 1 774 Total 1,856 88 121,622 41 1 421 122,076 a Includes 1 spill of 9 bbl on Alaska OCS b Includes 2 spills totaling 24 bbl on Atlantic OCS c Includes 1 spill of 2 bbl on Alaska OCS d Includes 1 spill of 2 bbl on Alaska OCS c Includes 1 spill of 19 bbl on Alaska OCS

Loss of well control includes both blowouts (uncontrolled releases of fluid from a well) and less severe well control incidents (events that have the potential to result in blowouts but a release either does not occur or is quickly prevented). Although blowouts are widely perceived to be one of the major accidental events associated with oil and gas operations, their extreme rarity makes them relatively minor contributors to risk. A number of protective barriers are also routinely employed to mitigate the risks associated with loss of well control. A blowout is most likely to occur during the earliest stages of drilling, at which point the fluid released is likely to be primarily drilling fluid and/or gas. Well control incidents are far more common than blowouts and usually have relatively minor consequences.

The US Minerals Management Service (MMS) issue data on spills, including blowouts, from installations in US Federal Waters. Data for the 34-year period between 1972 and 2005 (MMS website www.mms.gov/stats/index.htm.) are presented in Table 8.2. Environmental Assessment Page 165 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 8.2. Blowouts and Spillage from US Federal Offshore Wells, 1972-2005.

Well Year Drilling Blowouts Non-drilling Blowouts Starts Exploration Development Production Workover Completion Total Blowouts OCS Production No. bbl No. bbl No. bbl No. bbl No. bbl No. bbl MMbbl 1972 845 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 396.0 1973 820 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 384.8 1974 816 1 0 1 0 4 275 0 0 0 0 6 275 354.9 1975 372 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 325.3 1976 1,038 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 314.5 1977 1,064 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 9 0 296.0 1978 980 3 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 11 0 288.0 1979 1,149 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 274.2 1980 1,307 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 8 1 274.7 1981 1,284 1 0 2 0 1 0 3 64 3 0 10 64 282.9 1982 1,035 1 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 314.5 1983 1,151 5 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 350.8 1984 1,386 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 385.1 1985 1,000 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 6 40 380.0 1986 1,538 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 384.3 1987 772 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 60 8 60 358.8 1988 1,007 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 332.7 1989 911 2 0 15 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 313.7 1990 987 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 9 1 0 6 9 304.5 1991 667 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 326.4 1992 943 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 337.9 1993 7173 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 352.7 1994 7173 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 370.4 1995 7173 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 429.2 1996 921 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 433.1 1997 1,333 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 466.0 1998 1,325 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 7 2 490.5 1999 364 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 534.6 2000 1,061 5 200 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 200 551.6 2001 1,007 1 0 4 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 10 1 591.5 2002 828 1 0 2 0 2 350 1 1 0 0 6 351 602.1 2003 835 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 10 0 0 5 11 594.7 2004 861 2 16 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 17 567.0 2005 8594 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 557.34 Total 32,617 67 316 91 1 24 627 38 125 14 60 205 1,131 13520.7

1 Two of the drilling blowouts occurred during drilling for sulphur. 2 Two of the drilling blowouts occurred during drilling for sulphur. 3 Estimated: cumulative total correct. 4 Forecast.

Environmental Assessment Page 166 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

This data show that, for 32,617 wells spudded on the OCS, there were a total of 67 blowouts during exploration drilling. This equates to a blowout frequency of 2.05 x 10-3 per well drilled. Of the 67 blowouts, a maximum of 10 resulted in any release of crude oil or condensate and the maximum total released in any one year was 200 barrels (in 2000, when 5 blowouts during exploration drilling were reported). This equates to a frequency of blowouts resulting in crude and/or condensate release of 3.07 x 10-4 per well drilled.

Based on Table 8.2, it can be seen that the average volume of a release due to a blowout during exploration drilling on the US OCS between 1972 and 2005 was less than 5 bbls. The maximum average volume of a release for blowouts in which crude and/or condensate was released (based on an assumption that one blowout in each of 1992, 2000 and 2004 resulted in such a release) was 105 bbls.

8.1.1 Spills in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area (NLOA)

Table 8.3 provides summary statistics that reflect all hydrocarbon spills greater than 1 litre in volume in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area since 1997. The average volume of crude oil released per spill on the NLOA since 1997, with and without inclusion of the 2004 Petro-Canada spill of approximately 165,000 L (<1,000 bbl) from the production FPSO, is 4,025 L (25 bbl) and 98 L (<1 bbl), respectively. Excluding the 2004 Terra Nova spill of >1,000 bbl of crude, crude accounted for 1.5% of the total volume spilled and diesel accounted for 1.8% of the total volume spilled.

No large spills have occurred as a result of exploration/delineation drilling. Since 1997, thirty-four exploration/delineation wells have been drilled in the NLOA. Forty hydrocarbon spills of volumes ranging from 1 to 1,000 bbl occurred during the drilling of those wells (Table 8.4), twenty-four of those occurring in 1999. The total volume of hydrocarbon spilled during exploration/delineation drilling since 1997 (considering only spills of at least 1 L) is 84,524 L (532 bbl) (average of 13 bbl). According to the C-NLOPB website, the primary sources of these spills include marine riser, slip joint, and flare. Crude accounted for 1.3% (1,119 L; 7 bbl) of the total volume spilled and diesel accounted for 5.0% (4,209 L; 26 bbl) of the total volume spilled. The remaining volume of hydrocarbons spilled was comprised of synthetic oils/fluids (93.4%), hydraulic and lubricating oils (<1%) and other oils (<1%).

In terms of small and medium crude oil and diesel spills in the NLOA, they have occurred only in 1998 and 1999 (Table 8.5). The maximum volume spilled was 13.1 bbl of diesel in 1998.

8.2. Potential Accidental Events for Port au Port Project

Based on a hazard identification exercise undertaken for the onshore to offshore drilling Project at Shoal Point (RMRI 2007), the following are potential sources of hydrocarbon release (or other hazardous material) into both the marine and terrestrial environments.

• Loss of well control, • Release of crude oil from surface equipment,

Environmental Assessment Page 167 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 8.3. Oil Spill (> 1 Litre) Data Pertaining to the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2007.

Number Of Spills By Oil Type Volume Of Spills By Oil Type (L) Year Synthetic Synthetic Crude Diesel Hydraulic Others1 TOTAL Crude Diesel Hydraulic Others1 TOTAL Based Mud Based Mud 2007 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 74,000 28 74,028 2006 3 0 4 4 0 11 605 0 18 3,630 0 4,253 2005 4 0 6 1 1 12 17 0 24 4,030 140 4,211 2004 8 1 9 5 3 26 165,813 3 68 108,103 12 273,999 2003 2 1 8 4 1 16 11 100 275 30,102 925 31,413 2002 2 1 0 2 2 7 5 10 0 12,250 11 12,276 2001 0 2 4 2 1 9 0 5 118 5,600 3 5,726 2000 2 0 0 5 1 8 220 0 0 4,700 2 4,922 1999 12 7 4 8 7 38 983 924 690 7,372 265 10,234 1998 7 8 0 2 8 25 375 3,312 0 2,008 95 5,790 1997 2 6 2 0 1 11 1,004 476 211 0 40 1,731 TOTAL 42 26 37 34 26 165 169,033 4,830 1,404 251,795 1,521 428,583 Source: (C-NLOPB website, June 2007) 1 Includes mixed oil, condensate, well bore fluids, unidentified oil, jet, lubricating oil

Environmental Assessment Page 168 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 8.4. Small and Medium Hydrocarbon Spills (1-1,000 bbl) During the Drilling of Exploration/Delineation Wells in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore Area, 1997-2007.

Number of Total Volume Average Spill Number of Small and Year Exploration/Delineation Wells Spilled (bbl) Volume (bbl) Medium Spills Drilled 2007 1 1a 465 465 2006 11 4 4 1 2005 4 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 2003 4 4 29 7 2002 3 1 <1 <1 2001 0 0 0 0 2000 4 1 1 <1 1999 6 24 12 <1 1998 1 4 20 5 1997 1 1 <1 <1 Total 34 40 532 13 Source: C-NLOPB website June 2007 a Spill of synthetic based mud in Orphan Basin

Table 8.5. Volume Statistics of Small and Medium Crude or Diesel Spills During Exploration/Delineation Drilling in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2007.

Total Volume Average Spill Size Minimum Spill Maximum Spill Year No. of Spills of Spills (bbl) (bbl) Size (bbl) Size (bbl) 2007 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 1999 2 4.7 2.4 1.6 3.1 1998 3 19.8 6.6 2.5 13.1 1997 0 0 0 0 0

Environmental Assessment Page 169 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• Release from the crude oil holding tank, • Release of diesel fuel, • Release of contaminated drilling fluids, and • Vehicle incidents resulting in a release of crude oil and/or well products.

The causes and potential consequences of each of these hazards are considered in the following subsections, as well as control measures for prevention and mitigation.

8.2.1. Loss of Well Control

Loss of well control may occur as a result of the following:

• Failure of barriers in place to provide protection against blowouts, • Lack of drill mud or fluid control, • Poor drilling techniques or lack of competent personnel, • Equipment failure, and • Gas blowout from unexpected shallow gas pocket.

Well control incidents are far more common than blowouts and usually have relatively minor consequences. A minimum of two protective barriers are also routinely employed to mitigate the risks associated with loss of well control. Blow out prevention equipment includes the following:

1) Well fluids (mud or heavy completion fluids), and 2) BOP stack, which includes the following: a) Pipe ram, b) Blind shear ram, and c) Annular preventer.

The first level of blowout prevention is the muds (or heavy completion fluids). The fluid will control the well without damaging the producing formation or completion components.

The second level of blowout prevention is the BOP stack. The BOP stack is used to ensure pressure control of a well and is capable of sealing the wellbore with or without drill-pipe (or tubing) in various sizes. The BOPs in the BOP stack can be closed if the drilling crew loses control of formation fluids. By closing them, the drilling crew can regain control of the reservoir until it is possible to open the BOPs and retain pressure control of the formation using the drilling mud.

Based on data published by OGP (2006) (as discussed in Section 8.1), it is assumed that the most likely consequence of loss of well control is the release of approximately seven barrels of crude oil. This represents the average volume of an onshore spill, which is greater than the average blowout spill of five barrels (bbl) calculated from the data in Table 8.2. As the location of the well is onshore and approximately 40 m from the marine environment at the nearest point, it must be noted that not all spilled oil will reach the marine environment. Based on professional judgement, it is conservatively

Environmental Assessment Page 170 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

assumed that at least 50% of the spilled crude will be absorbed by the land surface, resulting in approximately three bbl of crude with potential to be released to the marine environment for a well control incident.

8.2.1.1. Proposed Mitigations

• Provision of adequate barriers to protect against loss of well control, • Use of competent drilling contractors with adequate procedures, • Appropriate certification and inspection of equipment to reduce the probability of equipment failure, • Appropriate collection and analysis of geological data to significantly reduce the probability of hitting a shallow gas pocket, • Oil spill booms and skimming equipment are practical means of mitigating the consequences of well control incidents, should they occur.

8.2.2. Release of Crude Oil from Surface Equipment

Leaks from surface equipment (e.g., pipelines, chicksan swivel joints or other equipment containing produced hydrocarbons) may occur as a result of the following:

• Equipment failure, • Poor equipment assembly, • Damage by vehicles or other equipment, • Damage by extreme environmental conditions, and • Poor truck loading procedures.

It is likely that the volume of hydrocarbons released by this type of event would be minimal, probably in the order of three to five barrels of crude oil. It is likely that all of the spillage would be absorbed by the land surface in the immediate area of the release. However, it is possible that a small amount (~3 barrels) could enter the marine environment.

8.2.2.1. Possible Mitigations

• Use of competent personnel and appropriate procedures, • Certification and inspection of equipment, • Implementation of weather limitation procedures to ensure that drilling is not undertaken during extreme adverse weather conditions, • Installation and operation of all petroleum storage and handling facilities in compliance with the provincial government’s Storage and Handling of Gasoline and Associated Products Regulations, 2003, • Provision of a earth berms around areas where transfer and storage of petroleum and other chemicals takes place to prevent overland flow of liquids to the marine environment, and

Environmental Assessment Page 171 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• Spill kits and clean up equipment are practical means of mitigating the consequences of small spills such as are likely to occur as a result of surface equipment leaks.

8.2.3. Releases from the Crude Oil Holding Tank

Releases from crude oil holding tanks may occur as a result of the following:

• Tank failure, and • Gross damage to a tank.

8.2.3.1. Possible Mitigations

• Periodic inspections of the tanks to reduce the potential for failures, • Installation and operation of all petroleum storage and handling facilities in compliance with the provincial government’s Storage and Handling of Gasoline and Associated Products Regulations, 2003. This will entail using secondary containment for all storage tanks that contain petroleum hydrocarbons, and • Provision of earth berms around areas where transfer and storage of petroleum and other chemicals takes place to prevent overland flow of liquids to the marine environment.

8.2.4. Release of Diesel Fuel

Releases from equipment used for the storage or transfer of diesel may occur as a result of the following:

• Tank leakage, • Spillages during tanker unloading on site, and • Catastrophic failure of a tank or pipeline failure during diesel transfer.

Leaks from tanks and spillages during tanker unloading on site will normally be observed by personnel, thus minimal amounts of diesel will be released, which would be absorbed by the land surface. However, in the event of a diesel tank failure or a pipeline failure that goes unnoticed during diesel transfer, a volume equivalent to the full capacity of a tank may be lost. Based on an assumption that the largest diesel tank on site will have a capacity of approximately 70 barrels and that at least 50% of the spill is likely to be absorbed by the land surface before it reaches the marine environment, it is considered that approximately 35 barrels of diesel may be released to the marine environment in the event of a leak.

8.2.4.1. Possible Mitigations

• Routine tank inspection, • Use of competent personnel and appropriate procedures, • Spill kits and clean up equipment will be available to mitigate the effects of small spills on land,

Environmental Assessment Page 172 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• Installation and operation of all petroleum storage and handling facilities in compliance with the provincial government’s Storage and Handling of Gasoline and Associated Products Regulations, 2003. This will entail using secondary containment for all storage tanks that contain petroleum hydrocarbons, • Provision of a earth berms around areas where transfer and storage of petroleum and other chemicals takes place to prevent overland flow of liquids to the marine environment, and • Oil spill booms and skimming equipment are practical means of mitigating the consequences of a spill.

8.2.5. Release of Contaminated Drilling Fluids

Leaks from tanks and pipelines used to store and transfer contaminated drilling fluids may occur as a result of the following:

• Poor drilling techniques, • Lack of competent personnel, • Equipment failure, and • Inadequate equipment maintenance.

The largest tank on the drilling unit to be employed is expected to be No. 2 Settling Tank which holds approximately 206 bbl. Therefore, 206 bbl is considered the largest credible release of drilling fluids. In the event of catastrophic failure of the tank, it is likely that 50% of the spillage would be absorbed by the land surface. In addition, the hydrocarbon content of the drilling fluids will be less than 50% so the maximum credible volume of hydrocarbons released into the marine environment would be approximately 50 bbl.

8.2.5.1. Possible Mitigations

• Use of competent drilling contractors with adequate procedures, • Routine equipment maintenance and testing, and • Oil spill booms and skimming equipment are practical means of mitigating the consequences of a spill, and • provision of earth berms around areas where transfer and storage of petroleum and other chemicals takes place to prevent overland flow of liquids to the marine environment.

8.2.6. Vehicle Incidents

Potential causes of a vehicle incident that may result in a release of crude oil and/or well products include the following:

Environmental Assessment Page 173 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• Lack of appropriate vehicle controls and procedures resulting in vehicle impact with hydrocarbon-containing equipment, • Roll over or loss of vehicle control due to site conditions, and • Tanker and crude transfer pipework leaks.

Tankers used to remove crude oil and well products from site can carry up to 256 bbl of oil. In the event of spillage of the contents of a tanker full of crude oil, it is assumed that at least 25% of the volume of the release will be absorbed by the land surface in the area of the release. Therefore, the largest credible release to the marine environment would be approximately 192 bbl.

8.2.6.1. Possible Mitigations

• Use of competent onsite personnel • Implementation of appropriate vehicle control procedures on site, • Use of competent vehicle contractors with approved vehicle and loading procedures • Inspection and certification of tankers, • Adequate site maintenance, in particular maintenance of the loading areas. • Spill kits and clean up equipment will be available to mitigate the effects of small spills on land, and • Oil spill booms and skimming equipment are practical means of mitigating the consequences of a spill.

8.2.7. Determination of Release Size Scenarios

Based on the description of the various potential hydrocarbon release events, the following credible scenarios for releases into the marine environment are identified.

• Release of three barrels of crude oil. • Release of 35 barrels of diesel. • Release of 50 barrels of crude oil. • Release of 192 barrels of crude oil.

The size of a release and the wind strength and direction at the time of the spill will affect the environmental impact of hydrocarbon released into the marine environment. Therefore, oil spill trajectory modelling has been undertaken for these potential release scenarios in order to provide information on which to assess the potential impact on the environment. Section 8.3 discusses the trajectory modeling conducted using the above size scenarios.

8.3. Port au Port Oil Characterization

Tables 8.6 to 8.8 provide some of the characteristics of oil recovered on the Port au Port Peninsula at Garden Hill South. As this currently planned drilling is exploratory, there is no information available

Environmental Assessment Page 174 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

about oil characteristics and therefore it has been assumed, at this stage, that the characteristics of the oil at Garden Hill South are likely to be sufficiently representative of the properties of oil associated with this Project.

Table 8.6. Density, API and Wax Content of Port au Port Oil.

Properties of Hydrocarbon Sample Density 778.2 kg/m3 API 51° Wax Content 9.4 Wt. %

Table 8.7. Viscosity Characteristics of Port au Port Oil.

Oil Viscosity T (°C) Dynamic (Pa.s) Kinematic (mm2/s) 20 2.020 2.584 30 1.690 2.183 40 1.436 1.874

Table 8.8. Port au Port Oil Analysis.

Hydrocarbon Liquid Analysis Liquid-Volume Component Mole Fraction Mass Fraction Fraction

N2 Nitrogen 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001

CO2 Carbon Dioxide Trace Trace Trace

H2S Hydrogen Sulphide 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

C1 Methane 0.0085 0.0009 0.0035

C2 Ethane 0.0169 0.0032 0.007

C3 Propane 0.0291 0.0081 0.0124

iC4 Iso-Butane 0.0123 0.0045 0.0062

C4 Butane 0.0388 0.0143 0.019

iC5 Iso-Pentane 0.0290 0.0132 0.0165

C5 Pentane 0.0351 0.0160 0.0197

C6 + Hexane 0.8298 0.9397 0.9156 TOTAL 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

The Port au Port oil has lower density, higher specific gravity (i.e. higher API), lower wax content, and lower viscosity than crude oils discovered to date on the Grand Banks.

Environmental Assessment Page 175 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

8.4. Oil Spill Trajectory Modeling

8.4.1. Methods

The oil spill simulations prepared by OCEANS Ltd. (Oceans Ltd. 2007) assessed the probabilities of coastline contamination by oil under various scenarios differing by hydrocarbon release location (immediately west of K-39 well on Shoal Point, immediately east of K-39 well on Shoal Point, and immediately east of M-16 well on Long Point), season (spring, summer, fall and winter), wind speed and direction (north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, and northwest), and release size/hydrocarbon type (3 bbl crude oil, 50 bbl crude oil, 192 bbl crude oil, and 35 bbl diesel fuel). Two spill locations at Shoal Point were chosen to reflect the fact that a spill originating at or near the well site could enter the marine environment from either side of the Point. For Long Point, the well site is likely to be much closer to the east side of the Point, and it is therefore realistic to expect that a spill would enter the marine environment on this side of the Point. Spills have been modeled in all four seasons as, although initial drilling is planned for the fall of 2007, future exploration drilling could occur at any time in the year. The rationales for these sizes of releases to the marine environment were provided in Section 8.2.

The focus of this modeling is the probability of different coastal sectors being polluted by oil coming ashore and the amount of oil ashore at the end of the simulation period. This focus was chosen because the spill source in all cases is onshore and because the Port au Port Bay is almost fully bounded by shores of close proximity. The simulations were run to model oil movement over a period of 10 days. This period is several days longer than the time it would take the oil to reach the coastline for all cases except spills to either the east or west of Shoal Point in southerly wind conditions. The simulations were conservatively run for an ice-free sea surface.

The coastal sectors referred to in this section (Figure 8.1) are Shoal Point to South Head, South Head to Rocky Point, Rocky Point to Long Point, Shoal Point to Port Au Port, Port Au Port to Road Point, Road Point to Broad Cove Point, North of Broad Cove Point.

8.4.2. Results

Generally, for each hydrocarbon release location, the probability of oil reaching each coastal sector during the same climatic season and under the different scenarios (amount and type of oil released) is the same. This is due to the small dimensions of the Port Au Port Bay, which means that the oil is likely to reach the shore regardless of the type and quality of oil spilled.

8.4.2.1. Release on West Side of Shoal Point

According to the 10-day trajectory modeling, releases on the west side of Shoal Point have the potential to result in contamination of three of the seven coastline sectors: (1) Shoal Point to South Head (seasonal probabilities 69 to 89%), (2) Rocky Point to Long Point (seasonal probabilities 21 to 36%), and (3) South Head to Rocky Point (seasonal probabilities 7 to 12%). The probability of oil not reaching the shoreline is negligible.

Environmental Assessment Page 176 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Figure 8.1. Coastal Sectors Considered in the Study.

A release on the west side of Shoal Point during winter (Dec-Feb) is most likely to cause greatest accumulations of oil ashore with average ‘amount of oil ashore’ (AOA) values of 2.2 bbl, 22.7 bbl, 37.6 bbl and 148.9 bbl for spill sizes of 3 bbl (crude oil), 35 bbl (diesel), 50 bbl (crude oil) and 192 bbl (crude oil), respectively.

The greatest amount of oil reaching the shore occurs when wind directions are 270° (west) for releases of three bbl crude, and 35 bbl diesel, and 225° (southwest) for releases of 50 bbl crude and 192 bbl crude on the west side of the peninsula.

8.4.2.2. Release on East Side of Shoal Point

According to the 10-day trajectory modeling, releases on the east side of Shoal Point have the potential to result in contamination of four of the seven coastline sectors: (1) Shoal Point to Port au Port (seasonal probabilities 56 to 72%), (2) Port au Port to Road Point (seasonal probabilities 28 to 44%), (3) Rocky Point to Long Point (seasonal probabilities 15 to 31%), and (4) Road Point to Broad Cove Point (seasonal probabilities 13 to 29%). The probability of oil not reaching the shoreline is negligible.

For a release in this location, scenarios involving three bbl of crude, 50 bbl crude and 192 bbl crude would result in the greatest AOA during the winter (Dec-Feb) with AOA values of 2.0 bbl, 34.1 bbl and 134.7 bbl, respectively. The 35 bbl diesel release would result in the greatest AOA during the spring (Mar-May), with an estimated AOA value of 19.5 bbl.

Environmental Assessment Page 177 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The greatest amount of oil reaching the shore occurs when wind directions are 45° (northeast) for scenarios of three bbl crude, 35 bbl diesel, and 192 bbl crude, and 360° (north) for the 50 bbl of crude scenario.

8.4.2.3 Release on East Side of Long Point

According to the 10-day trajectory modeling, releases on the east side of Long Point have the potential to result in contamination of six of the seven coastline sectors: (1) Rocky Point to Long Point (seasonal probabilities 56 to 72%), (2) North of Broad Cove Point (seasonal probabilities 13 to 29%), (3) Road Point to Broad Cove Point (seasonal probabilities 14 to 23%), (4) Port au Port to Road Point (seasonal probabilities 8 to 22%), (5) Shoal Point to Rocky Point (combination of two coastal sectors) (seasonal probabilities 6 to 14%). The probability of oil not reaching the shoreline is negligible.

In the case of an accidental event in the vicinity of the M-16 well on the Long Point peninsula (the likely location of a well should drilling be undertaken at Long Point again), 3 bbl crude and 50 bbl crude scenarios will most likely result in coastal contamination in winter (Dec-Feb) (AOA values of 2.4 bbl and 39.9 bbl, respectively). Spring (Mar-May) represents the time of year of highest AOA for the 192 bbl crude release scenario. The average amount of oil ashore for this scenario during spring is 156.4 bbl.

In terms of wind direction, scenarios involving 3 bbl crude and 35 bbl diesel are most likely to result in greatest AOA with winds from the east, southeast and south. The modeling result AOA values for these two scenarios are 3bbl and 19.5 bbl, respectively.

8.4.2.3. General Model Results

In the case of sustained southerly winds (180°) for all the simulations run, part of the oil slick will move to the north-northeast, parallel to the west coast of Newfoundland. Due to the proximity to the shore of this predicted trajectory, sustained southerly winds during a spill at either side of Shoal Point may result in contamination of this section of the west coast of Newfoundland between Broad Cove Point and Bay of Islands (perhaps even to the north of the latter) even though the simulations show no oil ashore in this area. However, an analysis of the entire wind data series for occurrences of 'southerly' winds leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of hydrocarbons moving beyond the northern boundary of the Study Area is negligible, and this is therefore not considered to be a credible scenario.

Results of the analysis of winds within the 45° sector centered at 180° indicated that ‘sustained southerly wind’ occurrences longer than 52 hours are extremely rare. From a total of 5976 events of sustained southerly winds, 5913 (98.94%) lasted less than 52 hours or a little over two days. The average duration of sustained southerly wind events was 11.09 hours and the maximum duration ever observed at this node was 132 hours which was observed only once. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that events of sustained southerly winds lasting more than 240 hours (the maximum period over which the spill simulations were run) are extremely unlikely. In fact they have never been registered in the last 50 years.

Environmental Assessment Page 178 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Due to the particular configuration of the coastline in the Project Area, favourable wind conditions will result in much of the oil released to the marine environment in the event of a spill remaining within 1 km from the spill location. Regardless of the spill size, the probabilities of oil remaining within 1 km of the spill location range from 42% in spring to 58% in fall and winter for a spill source at Shoal Point West, from 17% in summer to 36% in spring for a source at Shoal Point East, and from 29% in winter to 44% in spring for a spill at the location east of Long Point. Based on these probability ranges, one can infer that a spill at the Shoal Point East location is most likely to cause the greatest amount of coastal contamination while a Shoal Point West spill is most likely to result in the least amount of coastal contamination.

8.5. Spill Response

While it is the intention of the Operator to take all reasonable measures to prevent spills from occurring, there exists the unlikely chance that an unforeseen event may occur, resulting in a spill. The Operator’s plans for spill response are discussed in detail in the company’s Spill Response Plan, which is to be finalized prior to drilling.

In the event that oil spill prevention fails, in general, the response strategy is as follows:

• Immediately take steps to control the spill at, or as close to, the source as possible, with safety of personnel being the number one priority, • Contain the spill on land and intercept/recover oil to prevent it from flowing unabated to the marine environment, • Recover as much oil as possible, and • Remediate contaminated areas.

In addition to the above, it must be ensured that for all spills, appropriate levels of reporting are initiated as required and as detailed in the Operator's spill response plan.

It is anticipated that once the plan has been finalized, the spill response equipment at site will be similar to that utilized during previous operations. This will likely include a combination of the following:

• Flotation containment booms, • Spill kits, and • Assistance from support services, if required.

8.6. Estimation of Potential Cleanup Effectiveness

For any major offshore oil spill there are environmental and technological constraints to response and cleanup. High sea states and visibility are examples of typical environmental constraints while examples of technological constraints include pumping capacity of oil recovery devices and effectiveness of chemical dispersants on viscous oils. These kinds of limitations apply even if the

Environmental Assessment Page 179 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

response organizations are perfectly prepared, trained and outfitted with the world's best available equipment.

8.6.1. Best-Practicable Containment/Recovery System

In the unlikely event of a blowout, the typical approach to contain/recover the oil involves the deployment of a collection boom at a point downstream of, but as close as safe and practicable to, the source. Typically the boom might be deployed in a V-configuration to provide a sweep width of one- third the total boom length. A suitable oil recovery skimming system would be positioned at the apex of the ‘V’ and would discharge recovered oil to a storage barge or the tanks of a suitable support vessel. The effectiveness of the operation is driven by the encounter rate which is affected by the slick width at the downstream oil collection location and the capability of the skimmer system or skimming rate.

For batch-type releases, often the containment and recovery system would sweep through the slick, with the encounter rate driven by the sweep speed (typically 1.852 km/hr), the sweep width (typically one- third of the total boom length depending on the equipment used), and the slick thickness. Obviously, the encounter rate and hence oil recovery efficiency will tend to decrease over the days following the spill as batch spills tend to break up into patches of oil that spread and drift apart creating an affected area greater than that affected by a coherent slick.

Clearly either of the scenarios will be strongly influenced by weather conditions at the time as well as safety and practical tactical decisions made by the response organization.

8.6.2. FTRP: Fraction of Time that Recovery is Possible

From the perspective of considering an ideal scenario for spill clean up operations containment and recovery operations are best conducted in daylight with visibility greater than 0.5 kilometres, and when waves are less than one metre high for all wave periods or alternatively when waves are between one and two metres high but have periods of six seconds or greater.

8.7. Alternatives to Containment and Recovery

Dispersants and in situ burning are possible alternative countermeasures that offer some advantages in certain spill situations. Dispersants are specially-formulated chemicals that, when applied to an oil slick, reduce the interfacial tension of the oil and enhance its dispersion into the water under the influence of wave action. Notwithstanding the fact that dispersants function by causing the oil to be dispersed from the sea surface into the water column for spills in an offshore environment, this can be a good trade-off in that the lower concentrations of subsurface oil are generally less harmful to the environment (particularly seabirds), and more readily degraded naturally, than the relatively high concentrations of oil in a surface slick. The potential for seabirds to encounter oil on the sea surface can be reduced. The main advantages of dispersant use over containment and recovery are that with appropriate equipment, slicks that cover large areas can be treated, the logistics involved in storing and disposing of recovered oil are avoided, and the rough sea conditions that prevail in the Newfoundland offshore complement and enhance the effectiveness of the dispersant. Environmental Assessment Page 180 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

To be most effective dispersants need to be used when the oil is relatively fresh and before it emulsifies. Laboratory testing with Grand Banks oils shows that fresh oil is highly dispersible in both summer and winter conditions and oil weathered to about 10% by volume is likely to be dispersible in both summer and winter conditions. However, in winter the oil would need to be treated as close to the spill site as possible before it weathers any further.

In general, this means that for situations where the oil has been subject to limited weathering, and where marine birds or waterfowl are threatened, dispersant use could be considered. In the unlikely event of a surface blowout where the oil is somewhat weathered by the time it lands on the water surface, dispersant use should be considered for summer conditions but less likely to be effective in winter conditions. In any situation where dispersant use might be indicated, a monitoring program to evaluate its effectiveness and the environmental effects should be implemented.

For in situ burning, the approach is to collect and thicken the oil slick with fire-resistant boom, ignite it, and burn the oil in place on the water surface. While its main advantage is that the logistics of storing and disposing of recovered oil are avoided, and that much higher treatment rates (i.e., versus skimming) are possible, it offers no advantage when it comes to encounter rates. The oil must still be collected with a containment boom the effectiveness of which is constrained by sea state conditions. Apart from the potential limited availability of fire resistant booms, more limiting is that burning is generally only effective on oils that are not emulsified or have suffered little emulsification.

8.8. Potential Effects of Accidental Events

In this section, effects are assessed for the accidental event scenarios described in the preceding sections. The potential effects on marine VECs are assessed using the marine release scenarios described in Section 8.2. The potential effects on terrestrial VECs are assessed using the terrestrial spill size scenarios described in Section 8.2, on which the marine release sizes are based. Summer and winter scenarios are assessed together as the rankings for assessment categories are generally consistent across seasons. However, the reader is referred to the text for discussion of some seasonal nuances that could occur.

Section 4.3.3 of the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005) discusses the potential effects of accidental events on various components of the marine ecosystem.

8.8.1. Proposed Mitigations for Port au Port Drilling Project

Some of the several mitigations that could be applied to either prevent an accidental event or minimize the effects of an accidental event are as follow (see Section 8.2):

• Use of competent drilling contractors/personnel trained in appropriate procedures, • Appropriate certification, inspection and testing of equipment to reduce the probability of equipment failure,

Environmental Assessment Page 181 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

• Appropriate collection and analysis of geological data significantly reduces the probability of hitting a shallow gas pocket, • Implementation of weather limitation procedures to ensure that drilling is not undertaken during extreme adverse weather conditions, • Provision of adequate barriers to protect against blowout, • Storage tanks in the activity zone will be registered in accordance with Newfoundland and Labrador’s Storage and Handling of Gasoline and Associated Products Regulations, 2003, which requires all tanks to have secondary containment, • Areas where petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemicals are used will be surrounded by earthern berms to intercept/prevent the overland flow of liquids from potential spill sites to the marine environment, • Mount onshore spill cleanups immediately through coordination with NLDOEC and/or the NL Department of Government Services, • Periodic inspections of the tanks to reduce the potential for failures, • Adequate site maintenance, in particular maintenance of the loading areas. • Inspection and certification of road tankers, • Use of competent vehicle contractors with approved vehicle and loading procedures, • Operator Spill Response Plan, • Spill kits and clean up equipment to mitigate the effects of small spills on land, and • Oil spill booms and skimming equipment as practical means of mitigating the consequences of well control incidents, should they occur.

8.8.2. Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat

There has been extensive study of the effects of oil spills on fish and fish habitat (Armstrong et al. 1995; Rice et al. 1996). Table 8.9 presents the potential interactions of accidental event scenarios and the marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat VEC. The four components of habitat considered in this assessment include water, sediment, plankton and benthos.

Table 8.9. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat.

Valued Environmental Component: Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat Marine Accidental Event Habitat Components Release-Size Scenario Water Sediment Plankton Benthos Crude Oil 3 bbl x x x x 50 bbl x x x x 192 bbl x x x x Diesel 35 bbl x x x x

Environmental Assessment Page 182 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

The highest polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentration found in water of Prince William Sound at one and five metre depths within the six-week period following the Exxon Valdez spill (a much worse case than an any plausible blowout scenario in the Port au Port Project) was 0.00159 ppm, well below levels considered acutely toxic to marine fauna (Short and Harris 1996). The Hibernia and Terra Nova EISs and the White Rose and Jeanne d’ Arc Basin EAs predicted that environmental (biophysical) effects on water quality and habitat would be not significant. Effects of spills on marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat during the proposed exploration drilling are also predicted to be not significant. As indicated in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, the probability of an accidental event at the Port au Port Peninsula drilling sites is extremely low.

8.8.2.1. Plankton

The marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat VEC includes plankton because it is a source of food for larvae and some adult fish, and therefore effects of an accidental event on plankton could affect fish. Dispersion and dissolution cause the soluble, lower molecular weight hydrocarbons to move from the slick into the water column. Effects of spills on pelagic organisms need to be assessed through examination of effects of water-soluble fractions of oil or light hydrocarbon products.

Effects of crude oil spills on plankton are short-lived, with zooplankton being more sensitive than phytoplankton. Zooplankon accumulate hydrocarbons in their bodies. The hydrocarbons may be metabolized and depurated (Trudel 1985). Hydrocarbons accumulated in zooplankton during a spill would be depurated within a few days after a return to clean water and thus, there is limited potential for transfer of hydrocarbons up the food chain (Trudel 1985). There is a potential for transfer of hydrocarbons up the food chain in an environment subject to chronic inputs of hydrocarbons, but there is no potential for biomagnification. Celewycz and Wertheimer (1996) concluded that the Exxon Valdez spill did not reduce the available prey resources, including zooplankton, of juvenile salmon in Prince William Sound.

Mortality of zooplankton can occur at diesel concentrations of 100 to 10,000 ppm (24 to 48 h LC50, where LC50 is the concentration of toxicant that kills 50 percent of the test animals (Trudel 1985). Diesel oil is much more toxic, but shorter-lived in the open ocean than crude oil. There is great variability among species and some species are relatively insensitive. For example, the 96-h LC50 of crude oil for Calanus hyperboreus, a common cold water copepod, was 73,000 ppm (Foy 1982). Complete narcotization of copepods can occur after a 15-min exposure to 1,800 ppm of aromatic heating oil and mortality can occur after a 6-h exposure (Berdugo et al. 1979). Exposure to concentrations of 1,000 ppm of aromatic heating oil for three days had no apparent effect on mobility, but exposure for as little as 10 minutes shortened life span and total egg production (Berdugo et al. 1979). No. 2 fuel oil at concentrations of 250 to 1,000 ppm completely inhibited or modified copepod feeding behaviour, while concentrations of 70 ppm or lower may not affect feeding behaviour (Berman and Heinle 1980). Exposure to naphthalene at concentrations of 10 to 50 ppm for 10 days did not affect feeding behaviour or reproductive potential of copepods although egg development was not examined (Berdugo et al. 1979).

Environmental Assessment Page 183 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

In summary, individual zooplankton could be affected by a blowout or spill through mortality, sublethal effects, or hydrocarbon accumulation if oil concentrations are high enough. However, the predicted maximum concentrations for spills and blowouts are well below those known to cause effects.

8.8.2.2. Benthos

Under some circumstances, oil spilled in nearshore waters can become incorporated into nearshore and intertidal sediments, where it can remain toxic and affect benthic animals for years after the spill (Sanders et al. 1990). In the unlikely event of an accidental release of hydrocarbons during the proposed 5-year, 5-well drilling Project, some shoreline within the Study Area could be impacted. Trajectory model-based probabilities of oil contacting various sections of coastline within the Study Area are discussed in Section 8.4. Vulnerabilities of the coastal sections vary depending primarily on release location and wind conditions. Notable marine areas (Figure 5.24, Section 5.2) that are vulnerable to accidental events in Port au Port Bay include saltmarshes (Tea Cove, Point au Mal), tern (spp.) breeding colonies on the Port au Port isthmus, Point au Mal and Fox Island River, and the estuarine areas of two scheduled Atlantic salmon rivers, Fox Island River and Serpentine River.

Rapid and efficient response to an accidental event combined with a small volume of released hydrocarbons would minimize impact on the shoreline marine environment, particularly on the subtidal and intertidal substrate. See Section 8.5 on Spill Response.

8.8.2.3 Assessment of Residual Effect on Marine Macroinvertebrate/Fish Habitat VEC

Given the low probability of occurrence of an accidental event during the Project, the low probability of accidentally-released hydrocarbons ever reaching the marine environment, and the high probability of hydrocarbon containment if hydrocarbons ever did reach the marine environment (see proposed mitigations in Section 8.8.1), the residual effects of an accidental event on marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat is predicted to have low magnitude, 101 to 1,000 km2 geographic extent depending on event scenario-habitat component interaction, and 1-12 month duration. In all scenario-habitat component interactions, the residual effects of accidental events on marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat are predicted to be not significant.

8.8.3. Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish

A scenario approach was used to evaluate interactions between accidental events and the marine macroinvertebrate and fish VEC. This VEC includes macroinvertebrate and fish eggs and larvae, juveniles, pelagic adults, and demersal adults. Table 8.10 shows the potential interactions of accidental event scenarios and this VEC.

Environmental Assessment Page 184 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 8.10. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish.

Valued Environmental Component: Marine Macroinvertebrates and Fish Life Stage Marine Accidental Event Adult Release-Size Scenario Eggsa/Larvae Juvenilesb Adult Pelagic Benthic/Demersal Crude Oil 3 bbl x x x x 50 bbl x x x x 192 bbl x x x x Diesel 35 bbl x x x x

8.8.3.1 Eggs and Larvae

Planktonic fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton) are less resistant to effects of contaminants than are adults because they are not physiologically equipped to either detoxify them or actively avoid them. In addition, many eggs and larvae develop at or near the surface where oil exposure may be the greatest (Rice 1985). It is estimated that sensitivities of fish larvae range from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm of soluble aromatic hydrocarbons, approximately 10 times the sensitivities of adults (Moore and Dwyer 1974). However, an organism’s sensitivity to oiling is not simply a function of age.

Generally, fish eggs appear to be highly sensitive at certain stages and then become less sensitive just prior to larval hatching (Kühnhold 1978; Rice 1985). Larval sensitivity varies with yolk sac stage and feeding conditions (Rice et al. 1986). Eggs and larvae exposed to high concentrations of oil generally exhibit morphological malformations, genetic damage, and reduced growth. Damage to embryos may not be apparent until the larvae hatch. For example, although Atlantic cod eggs were observed to survive oiling, the hatched larvae were deformed and unable to swim (Kühnhold 1974). Atlantic herring larvae exposed to oil have exhibited behavioural abnormalities such as initial increased swimming activity followed by low activity, narcosis, and death (Kühnhold 1972). Similarly, Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) eggs and larvae (possibly exposed as embryos) collected from beaches contaminated with Exxon Valdez oil in 1989 exhibited morphological and genetic damage (Hose et al. 1996; Norcross et al. 1996; Marty et al. 1997). Marty et al. (1997) indicated that herring larvae collected from oiled sites had ingested less food, displayed slower growth, and had a higher prevalence of cytogenetic damage than those sampled from ‘clean’ sites. However, these effects were not observed in eggs and larvae collected in later years (Hose et al. 1996; Norcross et al. 1996) and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that these oiled sites posed a long-term hazard to fish embryo or larval survival (Kocan et al. 1996).

The natural mortality rate in fish eggs and larvae is so high that large numbers could be destroyed by anthropogenic sources before effects would be detected in an adult population (Rice 1985). Oil-related mortalities would probably not affect year-class strength unless >50% of the larvae in a large proportion of the spawning area died (Rice 1985). Herring are one of the most sensitive fish species to oiling. Hose et al. (1996) claim that even though 58% fewer than normally expected herring larvae were

Environmental Assessment Page 185 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

produced at a site oiled during the Exxon Valdez spill, no effect would be detected at the population level.

Ten-day exposures of large numbers of pink salmon smolt (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) to the water- soluble fraction of crude oil (0.025 to 0.349 ppm) did not result in any detectable effects on their survival to maturity (Birtwell et al. 1999). However, it should be noted that pink salmon may be more resistant to environmental disturbance than other species because they spend so much time in the variable estuarine environment.

Ichthyoplankton occurrence, abundance and distribution are highly variable by season and dependent on a variety of biological (e.g., stock size, spawning success, etc.) and environmental (temperature, currents, etc.) factors. In the unlikely event of a blowout or spill during the Port au Port drilling Project, there is potential for individual ichthyoplankters in the upper water column to sustain lethal and sublethal effects following contact with high concentrations of oil. The LC50 value at 25°C used by Hurlbut et al. (1991) to predict effects on ichthyoplankton was 0.0143 ppm.

As in the case of fish larvae, the sensitivity of invertebrate larvae to petroleum hydrocarbons varies with species, life history stage, and type of oil. Generally, invertebrate larvae are more sensitive to effects of oil than are adult invertebrates. Sublethal and lethal effects on individual larvae are possible in the unlikely event that a spill or blowout occurs at the Port au Port Peninsula.

American lobster larvae (Stages 1 to 4) showed a 24-h LC50 of 0.1 ppm to Venezuelan crude oil (Wells 1972). Larvae exposed to 0.1 ppm of South Louisiana crude oil swam and fed actively while those exposed to 1 ppm were lethargic (Forns 1977). Stage 1 crab larvae (king crab, Paralithodes camtschatica and Tanner crab (Chionectes bairdi) succumbed to similar concentrations of crude oil (0.96 to 2 ppm; Brodersen et al. 1977) while larval shrimp generally had higher LC50 limits (0.95 to 7.9 ppm; Brodersen et al. 1977; Mecklenburg et al. 1977). Anderson et al. (1974) tested a variety of crude and refined oils and found that post-larval brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) were less sensitive than adult invertebrate species. Also, moulting larvae appear to be more sensitive to oil than intermoult larvae (Mecklenburg et al. 1977). Kerosene affected development of sea urchin embryos at concentrations of 15 ppb or greater, as did gasoline at concentrations of 28 ppb or greater (Falk-Petersen 1979).

Invertebrate larvae exposed to oil may exhibit reductions in food consumption and growth rate, and increases in oxygen consumption (Johns and Pechenik 1980). Despite these physiological changes, deleterious effects on invertebrate populations have not been detected, even after major oil spills (Armstrong et al. 1995). Larval distribution and settlement, fecundity, recruitment and growth of juveniles and subadult crab, pandalid shrimp, clams and scallops were not significantly affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Armstrong et al. 1995).

There are four relevant ichthyoplankton species/species groups to consider in the present EA: (1) lobster, (2) snow crab, (3) Atlantic cod, and (4) wolffishes. The above species are indicated based on the following criteria: (1) historical commercial importance within and near the Project Area, (2)

Environmental Assessment Page 186 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

planktonic eggs and/or larvae that occur in the surface planktonic community (i.e., upper 50 m), thus being at risk of exposure to spilled oil, and (3) listing under SARA.

The eggs and/or larvae of all four species potentially occur within or near the Project Area, most in the near-surface waters. These species’ eggs and larvae may account for the bulk of the ichthyoplankton in the area (see Section 5.1.1.2). Three wolffish species are presently listed on Schedule 1 of SARA, two as threatened and the third as a species of special concern. The Newfoundland and Labrador population of Atlantic cod is listed as a species of special concern on Schedule 3 of SARA. More detail on the life histories of the most important species that likely spawn within or near the Project Area that (i.e., lobster, snow crab, Atlantic cod, wolffishes) is available in Section 5.1.1.2.

The geographical and seasonal distribution of fish eggs and larvae in the Study Area is highly variable. See Section 5.1.1.2 for description of ichthyoplankton in the Study Area. In all four accidental event scenarios (Table 8.10), the effects of oil spill exposure on the eggs and larvae of the above fish and invertebrate species are predicted to be negative.

8.8.3.2 Juveniles and Adults

There is an extensive body of literature regarding the effects of exposure to oil on juvenile and adult fish. Although some of the literature describes field observations, most refers to laboratory studies. Reviews of the effects of oil on fish have been prepared by Armstrong et al. (1995), Rice et al. (1996), Payne et al. (2003) and numerous other authors. If exposed to oil in high enough concentrations, fish may suffer effects ranging from direct physical effects (e.g., coating of gills and suffocation) to more subtle physiological and behavioural effects. Actual effects depend on a variety of factors such as the amount and type of oil, environmental conditions, species and life stage, lifestyle, fish condition, degree of confinement of experimental subjects, and others. Based on laboratory toxicity studies, pelagic fish tend to be more sensitive (LC50s of 1 to 3 ppm) than either benthic (LC50s of 3 to 8 ppm) or intertidal fish species (LC50s of >8 ppm) (Rice et al. 1979). An LC50 is based upon controlled laboratory experiments using confined fish, usually in a container of standing water. The result is expressed as the concentration of a contaminant that achieves a mortality rate of 50%. There are recognized problems in applying LC50 data to the ”real world” but they are useful for “ball park” comparative information, especially in situations where it is very difficult to obtain good controlled field data.

Reported physiological effects on fish have included abnormal gill function (Sanders et al. 1981 and Englehardt et al. 1981 in Brzorad and Burger 1994), increased liver enzyme activity (Koning 1987; Payne et al. 1987), decreased growth (Swatrz 1985 in Brzorad and Burger 1994; Moles and Norcross 1998), organ damage (Rice 1985), and increased disease or parasites loads (Brown et al. 1973; Steedman 1991 in Brzorad and Burger 1994; Carls et al. (1998); Marty et al. 1999).

Reported behavioural effects include avoidance of contamination by migrating salmon (Weber et al. 1981), cod in laboratory studies using refined petroleum levels exceeding 100 µg/L (Bohle 1986 in Crucil 1989), and altered natural behaviours related to either predator avoidance (Gardner 1975; Pearson et al. 1984) or feeding (Christiansen and George 1995).

Environmental Assessment Page 187 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Juvenile (i.e., those past the egg and larval stages) and adult fish can and probably will avoid any crude oil by swimming from the blowout/spill region (Irwin 1997). Effects of oil spills on adult and juvenile fish are predicted to be negligible. This conclusion is consistent with the findings in the White Rose EA/Comprehensive Study, the Hibernia and Terra Nova EISs, the Lewis Hill EA, and the Jeanne d’Arc Basin EA. All of these concluded that surface spills did not pose significant risks to either pelagic or demersal fish stocks (Mobil 1985; Petro-Canada 1996a,b; Husky 2000; LGL 2002, 2003).

8.8.3.3 Assessment of Residual Effect on Marine Macroinvertebrate and Fish VEC

Given the low probability of occurrence of an accidental event during the Project, the low probability of accidentally-released hydrocarbons ever reaching the marine environment, and the high probability of hydrocarbon containment if hydrocarbons ever did reach the marine environment (see proposed mitigations in Section 8.8.1), the residual effects of an accidental event on marine macroinvertebrates and fish is predicted to have negligible to low magnitude, 101 to 1,000 km2 geographic extent depending on event scenario-life stage interaction, and 1-12 month duration. In all scenario-life stage interactions, the residual effects of accidental events on marine macroinvertebrates and fish are predicted to be not significant.

8.8.4 Marine Commercial Fisheries

Section 8.8.3 of this EA concludes that effects on fish populations due to a Project-related oil spill (from a terrestrial spill or a blowout) would be not significant in light of the preventative, mitigative and response measures that will be in place. Nevertheless, if such a spill did occur, economic impacts would likely result.

In addition to impacts on the commercial species and important habitat (such as the nearby lobster nursery area), a spill might prevent or impede a harvester’s ability to access fishing grounds because they would be temporarily excluded during the spill or spill clean-up. It might also cause damage to fishing gear (through oiling) or result in a negative effect on the marketability of fish products (because of market perception).

If a spill slick were to reach areas where fisheries are active, it is likely that fishing would be halted, owing to the possibility of fouling fixed-gear buoy lines, or the gear (e.g. lobster pots) if raised through the slick. If the spill affected bait harvesting, the fishery might have to buy bait elsewhere. If fishers were required to cease fishing, though - depending on the extent of the slick - alternative fishing grounds might be available nearby. If this were the case, there might be extra costs associated with having to relocate harvesting effort and having to travel farther to suitable grounds.

Effects due to market perceptions of poor product quality (loss of buyers or reduced prices) are more difficult to predict, since the actual (physical) impacts of the spill might have little to do with these perceptions. It would only be possible to quantify these effects by monitoring the situation if a spill were to occur and if it were to reach commercial harvesting areas.

Environmental Assessment Page 188 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Any such economic effects (caused by loss of access, gear damage or changes in market value) could be considered significant to commercial fisheries. However, the application of appropriate post-event mitigative measures (specifically, economic compensation) would reduce the potential impact to not significant.

In the past several years, the oil industry has expended a great deal of effort in the development of programs designed to compensate Atlantic Canada’s fisheries industry in situations where marine exploration and development activities might result in damage to fishing gear and vessels, or economic loss associated with interference to established fisheries harvesting activities. These compensation programs (e.g., for the Sable and Hibernia projects, and those established by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers), developed in consultation with the fishing industry, include measures and mechanisms to address both attributable and unattributable economic loss associated with offshore oil and gas activities (see C-NLOPB and C-NSOPB 2002). Their purpose is to provide fair and timely compensation to commercial fish harvesters and processors who sustain actual loss because of the accidental release of petroleum (spills).

Basic principles of these programs aim at compensating fisheries participants in a fair and timely manner for all actual loss with the intention of leaving them in no worse or better position than before the losses occurred. These programs have been adopted as an alternative to making a claim through the Courts, or to the regulatory boards pursuant to the Accord Implementation Acts and associated regulations. Although claims for loss can be made under the laws of Canada, these industry programs offer a simpler, less expensive process for obtaining appropriate compensation. Thus, their purpose is to provide a mechanism for a fair and swift resolution of all legitimate claims, and the opportunity for all parties to minimize costs.

These principles will be important components of the Operator’s response to spills and associated economic consequences that may affect fish harvesters. This will ensure that any actual loss to the fisheries industry resulting from any oil spill is fully and adequately addressed.

8.8.5 Marine-associated Birds

8.8.5.1 Effects of Exposure to Hydrocarbons

Exposure to oil causes thermal and buoyancy deficiencies in seabirds that typically lead to the deaths of affected seabirds. Although some may survive these immediate effects, long-term physiological changes may eventually result in death (Ainley et al. 1981; Williams 1985; Frink and White 1990; Fry 1990). Reported effects vary with bird species, type of oil (Gorsline et al. 1981), weather conditions, time of year, and duration of the spill or blowout. Truly aquatic and marine species of birds are most vulnerable and most often affected by exposure to marine oil spills. Diving species such as Black Guillemots, murres, Atlantic Puffins, Dovekies, eiders, Oldsquaws, scoters, Red-breasted Mergansers, and loons are the most susceptible species to the immediate effects of surface slicks (Leighton et al. 1985; Chardine 1995; Wiese and Ryan 1999, 2003). Alcids often have the highest oiling rate of seabirds recovered from

Environmental Assessment Page 189 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

beaches along the south and east coasts of the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland. Birds are particularly vulnerable to oil spills during nesting, moulting, and prior to young seabirds gaining the ability to fly. Although rehabilitation is a humane attempt to save animals impacted by oil, it cannot be considered as a form of mitigation for population recovery because of low success rates. Although oil spills at sea have the potential to kill tens of thousands of seabirds (Clark 1984; Piatt et al. 1990), recent studies suggest that even spills of great magnitude may not have significant long-term effects on seabird populations (Clark 1984; Wiens 1995). Outer beaches are vulnerable to oil contamination and this would implicate most of the critical habitats used by the endangered Piping Plover. The offshore islands that terns and eiders use as nesting habitat, such as Long Ledge and Shag Island are very vulnerable to oil contamination. Coastal and estuarine tern nesting sites such as Fox Island River delta are also vulnerable to contamination. In pelagic areas interactions of seabirds with spilled oil is a function of location and time of year. In the Study Area the abundance of pelagic seabirds is much lower than other coast areas of Newfoundland. For a more comprehensive discussion of the effects of oil on marine- associated birds, refer to the SEA (C-NLOPB 2005; Section 4.3.3.3).

8.8.5.2 Assessment of Residual Effect on Marine-associated Bird VEC

Table 8.11 indicates the potential interactions of accidental events and marine-associated birds. As discussed above in Section 8.2, the probability of oil from a spill reaching the marine environment is very low because of the design of the drilling activity zone. Depending on the time of year, location of marine-associated birds within the Study Area, and type of accidental event, the magnitude of residual effects on marine-associated birds would be negligible to high. Based on spill modeling, the geographic extent for all accidental event scenarios is predicted to be 101 to 1,000 km2 and the duration 1-12 months. Although the effects on individual birds are likely irreversible, the effects on marine-associated birds at the population level are deemed reversible in all scenarios. However, effects of exposure to hydrocarbons on marine-associated birds would be significant. Because the significant negative effect is reversible at the population level and the unlikelihood of an oil spill or blowout, the population of marine-associated birds, which is a renewable resource, will be able to meet future needs of resource users.

Table 8.11. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine-associated Birds.

Valued Environmental Component: Marine-associated Birds Marine Accidental Event Release-Size Scenario Marine-associated Birds Crude Oil 3 bbl x 50 bbl x 192 bbl x Diesel 35 bbl x

Environmental Assessment Page 190 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

8.8.6 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

8.8.6.1 Effects of Exposure to Hydrocarbons

Most marine mammals, with the exception of fur seals, polar bears, and sea otters, are not very susceptible to deleterious effects of oil. However, newborn hair seal pups, and weak or highly stressed individuals, may be vulnerable to oiling. Other marine mammals exposed to oil are generally not at risk because they rely on a layer of blubber for insulation and oiling of the external surface does not appear to have any adverse thermoregulatory effects (Kooyman et al. 1976; 1977; Geraci 1990; St. Aubin 1990). There is no clear evidence that implicates oil spills, including the much studied Santa Barbara and Exxon Valdez spills, with mortality of cetaceans (Geraci 1990). Wild bottlenose dolphins exposed to the Mega Borg oil spill in 1990 appeared to detect, but did not consistently avoid contact with, most oil types (Smultea and Würsig 1995). This is consistent with other cetaceans behaving normally in the presence of oil (Harvey and Dahlheim 1994; Matkin et al. 1994). It is possible that cetaceans swim through oil because of an overriding behavioural motivation (for example, feeding). Effects of oiling on cetacean skin appear to be minor and of little significance to the animal’s health (Geraci 1990). If ingested, oil is voided in vomit or feces but some is absorbed and could cause toxic effects (Geraci 1990). The effects of oiling of baleen on feeding efficiency appear to be only minor (Geraci 1990). Reports of the effects of oil spills and blowouts have shown that some mortality of hair seals may have occurred as a result of oil fouling; however, large-scale mortality has never been observed (St. Aubin 1990). There is conflicting evidence on whether seals detect and avoid spilled oil (Mansfield 1970 in St. Aubin 1990; St. Aubin 1990; Lowry et al. 1994). Seals exposed to an oil spill and especially a blowout are unlikely to ingest enough oil to cause serious internal damage (Geraci and St. Aubin 1980; 1982) and any effects are probably reversible (Spraker et al. 1994). There were no significant quantities of oil in the tissues (liver, blubber, kidney and skeletal muscles) of harbour seals exposed during the Exxon Valdez spill (Bence and Burns 1995). Population-level effects on marine mammal species are unlikely, as no significant long-term and lethal effects from external exposure, ingestion, or bioaccumulation of oil have been demonstrated. Gramentz (1988) reported that sea turtles do not avoid oil at sea, while sea turtles exposed to oil under experimental conditions have a limited ability to avoid oil (Vargo et al. 1986). Sea turtles experimentally exposed to oil have skin lesions, reduced lung diffusion capacity, decreased oxygen consumption, decreased digestion efficiency, and damaged nasal and eyelid tissue (Bossart et al. 1995; Lutz et al. 1989). Most effects are reversible (Bossart et al. 1995). There are few field observations of sea turtles exposed to oil. Refer to the SEA for a more comprehensive discussion of the effects of oil on marine mammals and sea turtles (C-NLOPB 2005; Sections 4.3.3.4 and 4.3.3.5). 8.8.6.2 Assessment of Residual Effect on Marine Mammal/Sea Turtle VEC

Table 8.12 indicates the potential interactions of accidental events and marine mammals and sea turtles. As discussed above in Section 8.2, the probability of oil from a spill reaching the marine environment is very low because of the design of the activity zone. Depending on the time of year, location of marine mammals and sea turtles within the affected area, and type of accidental event, the residual effects of an offshore oil release on the health of marine mammals and sea turtles are predicted to range from negligible to low magnitudes over varying geographic extents. Based on spill modeling, the predicted geographic extent for all accidental event scenarios is 101 to 1,000 km2 and the duration 1-12 months.

Environmental Assessment Page 191 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 8.12. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles.

Valued Environmental Component: Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Marine Accidental Event Marine Mammals Sea Turtles Release-Size Scenario Crude Oil 3 bbl x x 50 bbl x x 192 bbl x x Diesel 35 bbl x x

The residual effects on marine mammals and sea turtles, at both an individual and population level, would be reversible. It is predicted that there will be no significant negative residual effect on marine mammals and sea turtles from an accidental release of oil during the proposed exploration drilling Project.

8.8.7 Rare Terrestrial Vegetation

An oil blowout could cause considerable damage to local vegetation by smothering plants, thereby reducing gas exchange and potentially inhibiting re-colonization (IPIECA 1994). The degree of damage done by oil spills and blowouts varies depending on the plant species, the temperature and moisture conditions at the site, the season, the ground substrate, and the type and extent of oil cover. The many variables make it difficult to extrapolate the consequences of oil spills across locations, though some generalities exist. Standing water tends to protect plant roots from oil while drier areas are more prone to serious damage from oil penetration (Mosbech 2002), and perennial species have been shown to be less affected by oiling than annuals (IPIECA 1991; Mosbech 2002). Since few data have been collected on the consequences of oil blowouts on terrestrial vegetation in Newfoundland, the following sections are a basic overview based on international studies.

8.8.7.1 Freshwater Wetlands

Freshwater marshes and swamps have been classified as having an environmental sensitivity index of 10, or most sensitive, in a ranking (1-10) done by Zhu et al (2002) on the sensitivity of freshwater shorelines to oil and to clean up actions. Despite significant differences in habitat structure and ecology, however, many of the responses to oil spills or blowouts in freshwater systems are guided by existing knowledge of marine systems (Vendelmeulen and Ross 1995).

Impacts are generally less severe in running water systems than in standing water. Should oil penetrate the soil to access the root zone there is a greater chance that longer term impacts will occur than if oil stays at the surface, giving the plants more opportunity to re-sprout from protected parts (Mosbech 2002). The seed bank is another potential source of wetland vegetation recovery, but oil can affect seed germination capacity, with one study in New Jersey showing a 30% decline in the seed bank of a tidal freshwater marsh due to oil contamination (Vavreck and Campbell 2002).

Environmental Assessment Page 192 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

One experimental study of an oil-contaminated tundra wetland demonstrated a significant reduction of vascular plant diversity, sustained effects of contamination over time due to increased sensitivity of plants to climatic and environmental stress, and a relatively faster recovery of sedges than of mosses, with all plants in waterlogged soils faring better than those in drier sites (Mosbech 2002). Similar findings came out of a study of crude oil spills on plant communities in coastal Alaska (Walker et. al. 1978) with sedges and willows recovering within one year, but mosses, lichens, dicotyledons, and dry habitats in general showing little recovery.

8.8.7.2 Salt Marshes

Salt marshes are highly sensitive to oil spills and tend to trap oil due to their sheltered locations. Many salt marsh grasses, such as Spartina sp., have corrugated leaf surfaces which increase the plant’s holding capacity for oil (IPIECA 1994), and the low oxygen availability in these systems limits oil degradation (Zhu et al 2001). The environmental sensitivity index of marine shoreline habitats ranked salt marshes as at 10, or highest sensitivity to oil and clean up actions, compared to others such as rocky shores, beaches, or tidal flats (Zhu et al. 2002).

Damage caused by oil spills are quite variable for different salt marshes, with the type of oil, degree of weathering undergone, season, and species present being particularly important factors (IPIECA 1994). An oil spill in a brackish marsh in Louisiana resulted in a 64% reduction in live vegetation (Hester & Mendelssohn, 2000), while other studies have shown that oil addition affects not only living vegetation but capacity for plant re-growth. A marsh in Chile still had visible signs of an oil spill that had occurred 19 years previously (IPIECA 1991). When oiling is light and there is no sub-surface penetration there is a good possibility of plant recovery within one or two years from underground systems.

8.8.7.3 Terrestrial Habitat (Forest & Barrens)

Many variables affect the damage that oil blow-outs and spills can cause to terrestrial habitats, which, similarly to freshwater systems, have received relatively little study compared to marine zones. An experimental oil spill in interior Alaska showed severe effects on permafrost-underlain black spruce forest vegetation (Collins et al. 1994), including high mortality of most of the vegetation affected by surface oil. Little recovery was observed 15 years later, other than vigorous re-growth of cotton grass (Eriophorum vaginatum).

Wetter sites generally fare better than drier sites in terms of damage sustained and recovery time after oil contamination, and tussocks or other elevated habitat structures are favoured due to enhanced opportunity to avoid settled oil. When plants are covered in oil during their flowering phase a marked reduction in seed set and germination tends to occur, despite potentially normal vegetational growth (IPIECA 1991).

Environmental Assessment Page 193 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

8.8.7.4 Assessment of Residual Effect on Rare Terrestrial Vegetation VEC

Table 8.13 indicates the potential interactions of terrestrial spill scenarios and rare terrestrial vegetation. Considering the mitigations that will be applied during the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling Project, the only accidental event scenario inside the activity zone that would have any

Table 8.13. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Rare Terrestrial Vegetation.

Valued Environmental Component: Rare Terrestrial Vegetation Terrestrial Spill Size Scenario Rare Terrestrial Vegetation Crude 3-7 bbl x 206 bbl x 256 bbl x Diesel 70 bbl x reasonable potential to impact rare terrestrial vegetation is a blowout. A blowout could result in a quantity of hydrocarbons contacting the terrestrial environment outside of the activity zone. However, as already discussed in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, the probability of occurrence of a blowout is extremely small. A vehicle incident could result in a spill outside of the activity zone. Mitigations intended to minimize impact of such a spill on the environment are presented in Section 8.2.6.

Given the low probability of occurrence of an accidental event during the Project and the low probability of an accidental event resulting in hydrocarbons reaching the terrestrial environment outside of the activity zone (see proposed mitigations in Section 8.8.1), only a small amount of rare vegetation could be affected. Therefore, the residual effects of an accidental event on the rare terrestrial vegetation VEC is predicted to have negligible to low magnitude, 1-10 km2 geographic extent, and 1-12 month duration. The residual effects of accidental events on this VEC are predicted to be negative but not significant.

8.8.8 Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat

Table 8.14 indicates the potential interactions of terrestrial spill scenarios and freshwater fish and fish habitat. Considering the mitigations that will be applied during the proposed onshore to offshore exploration drilling Project (see Section 8.8.2), the only accidental event scenario inside the activity zone that would have any reasonable potential to impact freshwater fish and fish habitat is a blowout. A blowout could result in a quantity of hydrocarbons contacting the terrestrial environment outside of the activity zone. However, as already discussed in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, the probability of occurrence of a blowout is extremely small. A vehicle incident could result in a spill outside of the activity zone. Mitigations intended to minimize impact of such a spill on the environment are presented in Section 8.2.6.

Environmental Assessment Page 194 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 8.14. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat.

Valued Environmental Component: Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat Terrestrial Spill Size Scenario Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat Crude 3-7 bbl x 206 bbl x 256 bbl x Diesel 70 bbl x

The discussions of the effects of exposure to hydrocarbons on marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat (Section 8.8.2) and marine macroinvertebrates and fish (Section 8.8.3) are relevant to this VEC.

Given the low probability of occurrence of an accidental event during the Project and the low probability of an accidental event resulting in hydrocarbons reaching the terrestrial environment outside of the activity zone (see proposed mitigations in Section 8.8.1), there should not be any effect on freshwater fish and fish habitat. Therefore, the residual effects of an accidental event on the freshwater fish and fish habitat VEC is predicted to have negligible to low magnitude, 1-10 km2 geographic extent, and 1-12 month duration. The residual effects of accidental events on this VEC are predicted to be negative but not significant.

8.8.9 Species at Risk

Fourteen species at risk (i.e., species that are listed as either endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA) are either known to occur or have some reasonable likelihood of occurrence in the Study Area of the Port au Port Exploration Drilling Project. Seven of these are marine-associated (two fish, one bird, three mammals and one sea turtle) and the other seven are terrestrial (three plants, two birds and two mammals). Table 8.15 indicates the potential interactions of marine and terrestrial accidental event release-size scenarios and the different biota groups comprising the species at risk VEC.

Prevention of accidental events is the primary mitigation(see Section 8.8.1). However, in the case of an accidental event, appropriate response measures are required. See Section 8.5 for discussion of the Operator’s Spill Response Plan.

As already indicated in Sections 8.8.2 to 8.8.9, there is low probability of occurrence of an accidental event during the Project and low probability of an accidental event resulting in hydrocarbons reaching either the terrestrial environment outside of the activity zone or the marine environment.

Environmental Assessment Page 195 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Table 8.15. Potential Interactions of Accidental Events and Species at Risk.

Valued Environmental Component: Species at Risk Biota Group Accidental Marine- Event Marine Marine Sea Terrestrial Freshwater Terrestrial Terrestrial associated Scenario Fish Mammals Turtles Vegetation Fish Birds Mammals Birds Marine Crude Oil 3 bbl x x x x 50 bbl x x x x 192 bbl x x x x Diesel 35 bbl x x x x

Terrestrial Crude Oil 3-7 bbl x x x x 206 bbl x x x x 256 bbl x x x x Diesel 70 bbl x x x x

The residual environmental effects of each of the accidental event scenarios on species at risk of all biota groups (Table 8.15) except for marine-associated birds are predicted to be negative but not significant. The residual environmental effects of the accidental event scenarios on the marine- associated bird species at risk were predicted to be negative and significant (Section 8.8.5) The significant negative effects were deemed to be irreversible at the individual level but reversible at the population level.

Environmental Assessment Page 196 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

9.0 Summary and Conclusions

9.1 Residual Effects of the Project

The predicted residual environmental effects of the proposed 5-year onshore to offshore exploration drilling program including possible accidental events on marine macroinvertebrate/fish habitat, macroinvertebrates and fish, and the commercial fishery are assessed as negative, but not significant. Any potential significant effect on the fishery from a market perception perspective in the case of a spill can be mitigated by compensation to a level of non-significance.

The predicted residual environmental effects of the routine activities of the proposed 5-year onshore to offshore exploration drilling program on marine-associated birds are assessed to be negative, but not significant. The predicted residual environmental effect of an accidental event such as a major oil spill on marine-associated birds, although very unlikely, is assessed to be negative and potentially significant. However, this significant effect is predicted to be reversible at the population level. In addition, there are potential mitigations such as use of booms or dispersants to protect any bird concentrations. Individual cleaning of birds could also be conducted. The overall residual effect of the Project on marine-associated birds is assessed as not significant.

The predicted residual effects of the proposed 5-year onshore to offshore exploration drilling program including possible accidental events on marine mammals and sea turtles are assessed to be negative, but not significant.

The predicted residual effects of the proposed 5-year onshore to offshore exploration drilling program including possible accidental events on rare terrestrial vegetation are assessed to be negative, but not significant.

The predicted residual effects of the proposed 5-year onshore to offshore exploration drilling program including possible accidental events on freshwater fish and fish habitat are assessed to be negative, but not significant.

The predicted residual effects of the proposed 5-year onshore to offshore exploration drilling program on species at risk are assessed as negative but not significant.

In summary, after mitigation measures have been implemented, the overall predicted effects of the proposed 5-year onshore to offshore exploration drilling program on the biophysical environment and the fishery are assessed as not significant. The only possible exceptions are the potential effects of a large oil spill on marine birds and on the marketability of commercial fish. However, the likelihood of such an event is, as discussed previously, very low. In the event of an accidental blowout with release of oil, in calm conditions, some mitigation may be possible through oil spill response measures. Also, in the case of fishery losses directly attributable to the Project, actual loss would be mitigated through compensation. The capacity of renewable resources to meet present and future needs is not likely to be significantly affected by the proposed Project.

Environmental Assessment Page 197 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

9.2 Cumulative Effects of the Project

Projects and activities considered in the cumulative effects assessment included:

• Onshore to offshore exploration drilling within-project cumulative impacts. For the most part, and unless otherwise indicated, within-project cumulative effects are fully integrated within this assessment; • Other marine exploration activity (seismic surveys and exploratory drilling); • Commercial fisheries; • Marine transportation (tankers, cargo ships, supply vessels, naval vessels, fishing vessel transits, etc.); • Terrestrial exploration activities (seismic surveys, exploratory drilling); • Recreational fisheries (marine and freshwater species); and • Hunting activities (marine birds and seals, terrestrial birds and mammals).

Any cumulative effects on the Gulf of St. Lawrence ecosystem from drilling outside the proposed drilling area will probably not overlap in time and space and thus, will be additive but not multiplicative. This level of activity will not change the effects predictions when viewed on a cumulative basis unless significant oil spills or blowouts occur.

The predicted cumulative effects of the proposed 5-year onshore to offshore exploration drilling program on the VECs are predicted to be not significant.

9.3 Monitoring and Follow-up

Given that the likelihood of an oil well blowout or a significant oil spill occurring at the Project’s exploration drilling sites is extremely low (Section 8.0), it is highly unlikely that other accidental events would occur concurrently at any other location in the Gulf.

In the unlikely event of a spill, the Operator commits to remediation and a spill-specific environmental effects monitoring (EEM) program to test specific hypotheses that could be generated by this EA. This would be part of the Operator’s Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP).

Environmental Assessment Page 198 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

10.0 Literature Cited

ACCDC (Atlantic Canadian Conservation Data Centre). 2007. Data acquisition by LGL Limited. Ahrens, M.A. 1993. Atlantic herring. Underwater world. Dep. Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. 8 p. Aiken, D.E. and S.L. Waddy. 1980. Reproductive biology. In: The biology and management of lobsters, Volume 2. Edited by J.S. Cobb and B.F. Phillips. Academic Press, New York, NY. pp. 215-276. Ainley, D.G., C.R. Grau, T.E. Roudybush, S.H. Morrell and J.M. Utts. 1981. Petroleum ingestion reduces reproduction in Cassin’s Auklets. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 12: 314-317. Amirault, D.L. 2005. Species at Risk Act. Proposed Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover, melodus subspecies (Charadrius melodus melodus). Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, N.B. 36 p. 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. Arnbom, T. and H. Whitehead. 1989. Observations on the composition and behaviour of groups of female sperm whale near the Galápagos Islands. Can. J. Zool. 67:1-7. Asbirk, S.. 1979. The adaptive significance of the reproductive pattern in the Black Guillemot, Cepphus grylle.—Vidensk. Meddr Dan. Naturh. Foren. 141, 29–80. Baird, P. H. 1994. Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds. The Birds of North America, No. 92. The Birds of North America Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Can. Field-Naturalist 115(4):676- 701. Barnes, J.L. and L.H. Davey. 1999. A practical approach to integrated cumulative environmental effects assessment to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 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. Barrie, J.V., C.F.M. Lewit, G.B. Fader and L.H. King. 1984. Seabed processes on the northeastern Grand Banks of Newfoundland: modern reworking of relict sediment. Marine Geology 57: 209- 229. Batterson, M. and K. Sheppard. 2000. Deglaciation history of northern St. George’s Bay, western Newfoundland. Newfoundland Department of Mines and Energy, Geological Survey, Report 2000-1, pp. 33-47. Batterson, M.J. 2001. Landforms and surficial geology of the Stephenville map sheet (NTS 12B/10); Newfoundland Department of Mines and Energy, Geological Survey, Map 2001-16, Open File 012B/10/0439.

Environmental Assessment Page 199 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Batterson, M.J. 2001. Landforms and surficial geology of the Cape St George map sheet (NTS 12B/06); Newfoundland Department of Mines and Energy, Geological Survey, Map 2001-13, Open File 012B/06/0436. Batterson, M.J. 2001. Landforms and surficial geology of the Mainland map sheet (NTS 12B/11); Newfoundland Department of Mines and Energy, Geological Survey, Map 2001-17, Open File 012B/11/0440. Batterson, M., D. Liverman, and T. Bell. 2001. Quaternary Geology of Western Newfoundland, unpublished West Coast Field Trip B6 prepared for joint annual meeting of Geological Association of Canada and Minerological Association of Canada. Bence, A.E. and W.A. Burns. 1995. Fingerprinting Hydrocarbons in the Biological Resources of the Exxon Valdez spill area. pp. 84-140. 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. Berdugo, V., R.P. Harris and S.C. O'Hara. 1979. The Effect of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on Reproduction of an Estuarine Planktonic Copepod in Laboratory Cultures. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 8: 138- 143. Berman, M.S. and D.R. Heinle. 1980. Modification of the Feeding Behavior of Marine Copepods by Sub-lethal Concentrations of Water Accommodated Fuel Oil. Marine Biology, 56: 59-64. Best, P.B. 1979. Social organization in sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus. pp. 227-289. In: H.E. Winn and B.L. Olla (eds.), Behavior of Marine Animals. Volume 3. Plenum, New York, NY. Bigg, M. 1981. Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, 1758, and Phoca largha Pallas, 1811. pp. 1-27. In: S.H. Ridgway and R.J. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 2. Seals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Birtwell, I.K., R. Fink, D. Brand, R. Alexander and C.D. McAllister. 1999. Survival of Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Fry to Adulthood Following a 10-day Exposure to the Aromatic Hydrocarbon Water-soluble Fraction of Crude Oil and Release to the Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56: 2087-2098. Bjørge, A. and K.A. Tolley. 2002. Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena. pp. 549-551. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Bonner, W.N. 1981. Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Fabricius, 1791. pp. 111-144. In: S.H. Ridgway and R.J. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 2. Seals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Bossart, G.D., M. Lutcavage, B. Mealey and P. Lutz. 1995. The dermatopathologic effects of oil on loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). p.180-181. In: L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir and C. Smith (eds.), Wildlife and oil spills: response, research, and contingency plan. Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Delaware. 182 p. Bouchard, A. 1991. The rare vascular plants of the island of Newfoundland. Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, ON. 165 p. Bowen, W.D., S.L. Ellis, S.J. Iverson and D.J. Boness. 2001. Maternal effects on offspring growth rate and weaning mass in harbour seals. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79(6):1088-1101.

Environmental Assessment Page 200 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Brandt, C.A., J.M. Becker, and A. Porta. 2002. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils and terrestrial biota after a spill of crude oil in Trecate, Italy. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(8): 1638–1643. Breeze, H., D.G. Fenton, R.J. Rutherford and M.A. Silva. 2002. The Scotian Shelf: an ecological overview for ocean planning. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2393. Brodersen, C.C., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, T.A. Mecklenberg and J.F. Karinen. 1977. Sensitivity of Larval and Adult Alaskan Shrimp and Crabs to Acute Exposures of the Water-soluble Fraction of Cook Inlet Crude Oil. pp. 575-578. In: Proceedings of the 1977 Oil Spill Conference, 8-10 March 1977. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Brown, R.G.B., D.I. Gillespie, A.R. Lock, P.A. Pearce and G.H. Watson. 1973. Bird Mortality from Oil Slicks off Eastern Canada, February - April 1970. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 87: 225-234. Brown, R. G. B., D. N. Nettleship, P. Germain, C. E. Tull, and T. Davis. 1975. Atlas of eastern Canadian seabirds. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. 220 pp. Brown Gladden, J.G., P.F. Brodie and J.W. Clayton. 1999. Mitochondrial DNA used to identify and extralimital beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) from Nova Scotia as originating from the St. Lawrence population. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15(2):556-558. Bryant, R., I.L. Jones and J.M. Hipfner. 1999. Responses to changes in prey availability by Common Murres and Thick-billed Murres at the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Can. J. Zool. 77: 1278-1287. Brzorad, J.N. and J. Burger. 1994. Fish and Shrimp Populations in the Arthur Kill. pp. 178-200. In: J. Burger (ed.), Before and after an oil spill: the Arthur Kill. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey. 305 p. Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, V.D. Moulton and B. Mactavish. 2004a. Orphan 3-D seismic program, 2004-2006, environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA799. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, Newfoundland, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, Alberta and ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Houston, Texas. 209 p. + appendices. Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, V.D. Moulton, B. Mactavish and S. Dufault. 2004b. 2004 Laurentian 2-D seismic survey environmental assessment. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, Newfoundland for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 274 p. Burns, J.J. 2002. Harbor seal and spotted seal Phoca vitulina and P. largha. pp. 552-560. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Butler, R. G., and D. E. Buckley. 2002. Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle). In The Birds of North America, No. 675 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Butler, R. G., W. Trivelpiece. 1981. Nest spacing, reproductive success, and behavior of the Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus). Auk 98: 99–107. Cairns, D. K.. 1981. Breeding, feeding, and chick growth of the Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle) in southern Quebec. Can. Field-Nat. 95: 312–318. Campbell, J. and N. Sutterlin. 1981. Grand Banks bibliography. Unpubl. Report to Petro-Canada, St John’s, Newfoundland. 47 p. Carls, M.G., G.D. Marty, T.R. Meyers, R.E. Thomas and S.D. Rice. 1998. Expression of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus in Prespawning Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasi) Exposed to Weathered Crude Oil. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55: 2,300-2,309. Environmental Assessment Page 201 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Castonguay, M., C. Rollet, A. Fréchet, P. Gagnon, D. Gilbert, and J.-C. Brêthes. 1999. Distribution changes of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence in relation to an oceanic cooling. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56: 333-344. Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:3308-3313. Catto, N.R., R.G. Hooper, M.R. Anderson, D.A. Scruton, J.D. Meade, L.M.N. Ollerhead, and U.P. Williams. 1999. Biological and geomorphological classification of Placentia Bay: A preliminary assessment. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2289. C-CORE. 2005. Characterization of ice-free season for offshore Newfoundland. C-CORE Report Number R-04-093-341, Version 2, May. CEA Agency. 1994. A reference guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, addressing cumulative environmental effects. Prepared by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, November 1994. CEA Agency. 2000. Preparing project descriptions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Operational Policy Statement OPS –EPO/5-2000. 6 p. CEA Agency. 2003. The process for defining the spatial boundary of a study area during an environmental assessment of offshore exploratory drilling projects. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Operational Policy Statement. 3 p. www.acee- ceaa.gc.ca/013/0002/drilling_ops_e.htm [As viewed 4 March 2004.] Celewycz, A.G. and A.C. Wertheimer. 1996. Prey Availability to Juvenile Salmon after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. pp. 564-577. In: S.D. Rice, R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright (eds.), Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18. Chardine, J.W. 1995. The Distribution and Abundance of Aquatic Birds in Canada in Relation to the Threat of Oil Pollution. pp. 23-36. In: L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir and C. Smith (eds.), Wildlife and oil spills: response, research, and contingency plan. Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Deleware. 182 p. Charmantier, G., M. Charmantier-Daures, and D.E. Aiken. 1991. Metamorphosis in the lobster Homarus (Decapoda): A review. J. Crust. Biol. 11(4): 481-495. Christian, J., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Pitt, B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2005. Laurentian Sub-basin 3-D seismic program, environmental assessment update, 2005. LGL Rep. SA831. Rep. by LGL Limited and Canning and Pitt Associates Inc., St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 83 p. + appendix. Christiansen, J.S. and S.G. George. 1995. Contamination of Food by Crude Oil Affects Food Selection and Growth Performance, but Not Appetite, in an Arctic Fish, the Polar Cod (Boreogadus saida). Polar Biology, 15: 277-281. Clapham, P. and F. Wenzel. 2002. Cruise Report: R/V Delaware II Cruise No. DE 02-07. Large whale survey. NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. Available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/crureps.htm. Clark, R.B. 1984. Impact of Oil Pollution on Seabirds. Environmental Pollution, 33: 1-22. C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board). 2005. Western Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment. LGL Rep.

Environmental Assessment Page 202 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

SA8858. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John's, NL, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, for Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John’s, NL. 335 p. + appendices. C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board). 2007. PDI Production Inc. Port au Port Drilling Program Scoping Document. Developed by C-NLOPB in consultation with various federal government departments and other advisory agencies of the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. Coady, L.W. and J.M. Maidment. 1984. Publications of the Fisheries Research Branch, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, St John’s, Newfoundland, 1931 to 1984. Canadian Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1790: 159 p. Collins, C.M., C.H. Racine, and M.E. Walsh, 1994. The physical, chemical, and biological effects of crude oil spills after 15 years on a black spruce forest, Interior Alaska. Arctic 47(2): 164-175. Comeau, M., G.Y. Conan, F. Maynou, G. Robichaud, J.-C. Therriault, and M Starr. 1998. Growth, spatial distribution, and abundance of benthic stages of the snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) in Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55: 262-279. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2002. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus: Atlantic Population Pacific Population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. 32 pp. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2003. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae in Canada: North Pacific Population; Western North Atlantic Population. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. 25 pp. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 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, ON. 70 pp. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vi + 28 pp. Crucil, C. 1989. Fish Tainting and its Role in Environmental Impact Assessment. Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration Environmental Protection Branch. 52 p. Cullen, J. M.. 1956. A study of the behaviour of the Arctic Tern (Sterna macrura). D.Phil. thesis, Univ. Oxford, Oxford, UK. Curren, K. and J. Lien. 1998. Observations of white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 1979-1991. Can. Field-Naturalist 112(1):28-31. Dahlheim, M.E. and J.E. Heyning. 1999. Killer whale Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758). pp. 281-322. In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 6. The Second Book of Dolphins and the Porpoises. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Dalley, K., K. Powell, and D. Whitaker. 2005. The Status of Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus) in Newfoundland and Labrador. Prepared for The Species Status Advisory Committee. Damman, A. 1983. An ecological subdivision of the Island of Newfoundland. In: Biogeography and Ecology of the Island of Newfoundland. Editor R. South, p. 163-206. Environmental Assessment Page 203 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Dempsey, J., A. Simms, J. Harper, E. Lambert, and R. Hooper. 1995. West coast Newfoundland oil spill sensitivity atlas. ESRF Report No. 127. Dempson, J.B., M.F. O’Connell, D.G. Reddin, and N.M. Cochrane. 2006. Stock status summary for Atlantic salmon from Newfoundland and Labrador. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/028. Denbeste, J. and P.J. McCart. 1979. Studies of the plankton, benthic fauna, and macroalgae of Nachvak Fiord, Labrador. Report to ESSO Resources Canada Ltd., Aquitane Company of Canada Ltd., and Canada Cities Services Ltd., by Aquatic Environments Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Arctic Petroleum Operators Association Project No 146, 135 p. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 1990-2006. Newfoundland and Labrador Region catch and effort database (digital version). Georeferenced harvest data, to 2006. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2000. Northwest Atlantic harp seals. DFO Stock Status Report E1-01. 7 p. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2004a. Unit 1 redfish-2003 update. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Stock Status Rep. 2004/015. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2004b. American plaice in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Div. 4T). DFO Science Stock Status Report 2004/004. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2004c. White hake in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Div. 4T). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Stock Status Rep. 2004/007. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2004d. Allowable harm assessment for spotted and northern wolffish. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Stock Status Report 2004/031. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2005. Atlantic mackerel of the Northwest Atlantic in 2004. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/014. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2006a. An assessment of American lobster in Newfoundland. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/009. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2006b. Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/006. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2006c. Assessment of the Atlantic mackerel for the Northwest Atlantic (Subareas 3 and 4) in 2005. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/033. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2006d. Assessment of the west coast of Newfoundland (Division 4R) herring stocks in 2005. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/021. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2006e. Assessment of the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (Divisions 4RST) capelin stock in 2005. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/022. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2006f. Assessment of the Greenland halibut stock in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (4RST) in 2005. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/011. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2006g. Assessment of lumpfish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (3Pn, 4RST) in 2005. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/034. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2007a. Assessment of shrimp status in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence in 2006. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/006. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2007b. Assessment of cod stock in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (3Pn, 4RS) in 2006. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/003.

Environmental Assessment Page 204 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2007c. Stock assessment of Atlantic halibut of the Gulf of St. Lawrence (NAFO Divisions 4RST) in 2006. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/007. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2007d. Assessment of witch flounder in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (NAFO Div. 4RST). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/004. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2007e. Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/008. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2007f. Assessment of the Atlantic Mackerel stock for the Northwest Atlantic (Subareas 3 and 4) in 2006. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/012. Djan-Chékar, N.L., L. Hermanutz, D. Ballam, T. Bell, J. Brazil, H. Mann, J. Maunder, S.J. Meades, W. Nicholls, L. Soper, and G. Yetman. 2003. Recovery Strategy for the barrens willow (Salix jejuna Fernald). Inland Fish and Wildlife Division, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Corner Brook. v + 11 p. DOGADNR (Division of Oil and Gas, Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Holtina Basin Exploration Licence. Reasonably Foreseeable Effects of Proposed Licensing and Subsequent Activity. E&P Forum. 1996. Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Data Sheet Directory. The Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, 25-28 Old Burlington Street, London. EC (Environment Canada). 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Red Crossbill, percna subspecies (Loxia curvirostra percna), in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vii + 29 p. Edds, P.L. and J.A.F. Macfarlane. 1987. Occurrence and general behavior of balaenopterid cetaceans summering in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 65:1363-1376. El-Sabh, M.I. 1976. Surface circulation patterns in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 124-138. Ennis, G.P. 1995. Larval and postlarval ecology. pp. 23-46. In: Biology of the lobster Homarus americanus. Edited by J.R. Factor. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif. Ennis, G.P., R.G. Hooper, and D.M. Taylor. 1990. Changes in the composition of snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) participating in the annual breeding migration in Bonne Bay, Newfoundland. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 2242-2249. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response). 2004. Wildlife and Oil Spills. In: Understanding Oil Spills and Oil Spill Responses. p. 21-26. 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. Estes, J.A. and J.L. Bodkin. 2002. Otters. pp. 842-858. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Falk-Petersen, I.-B. 1979. Toxic Effects of Aqueous Extracts of Ekofisk Crude Oil, Crude Oil Fractions and Commercial Oil Products on the Development of Sea Urchin Eggs. Sarsia, 64: 161-169. Forns, J.M. 1977. The Effects of Crude Oil on Larvae of Lobster, Homarus americanus. pp. 569-573. In: Proceedings of the 1977 Oil Spill Conference, 8-10 March 1977. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Environmental Assessment Page 205 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Foy, M.G. 1982. Acute Lethal Toxicity of Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil and Corexit 9527 to Arctic Marine Fish and Invertebrates. Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service Report No. EPS 4-EC-82-3. 62 p. Frank, K.T. and W.C. Leggett. 1981. Wind regulation of emergence times and early larval survival in capelin (Mallotus villosus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 215-223. Fréchet, A., J. Gauthier, P. Schwab, H. Bourdages, D. Chabot, F. Collier, F. Grégoire, Y. Lambert, G. Moreault, L. Pageau, and J. Spingle. 2003. The status of cod in the Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (3Pn, 4RS) in 2002. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2003/065. Frink, L. and J. White. 1990. A Perspective on the Effects of Oil on Birds. In: The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. Presented by International Wildlife Research, Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Inc. and International Bird Rescue Research Center. Washington. Fry, D.M. 1990. Oil Exposure and Stress Effects on Avian Reproduction. In: The effects of oil on wildlife: research, rehabilitation and general concerns. Presented by International Wildlife Research, Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Inc. and International Bird Rescue Research Center. Washington. Gambell, R. 1985. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 1758). pp. 171-192. In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.). Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 3. The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, London, U.K. Gardner, G.R. 1975. Chemically Induced Lesions in Estuarine or Marine Teleosts. pp. 657-693. In: W.E. Ribelin and G. Migaki (eds.), The pathology of fishes. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Gascon, D. 2003. Redfish multidisciplinary research zonal program (1995-1998): Final report. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2462. Georgian (West coast Newfoundland newspaper). 12-18 July, 2005. Geraci, J.R. 1990. Cetaceans and oil: physiologic and toxic effects. p. 167-197. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.), Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego. 282 p. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: a review and research recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review 42:1-12. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1982. Study of the effects of oil on cetaceans. Final report. Rep. from University of Guelph for U.S. Bur. Land Manage., Washington, DC. NTIS PB83-152991. 274 p. Gilbert, R.A., A. Aitken and B. McLaughlin. 1982. A biophysical survey of coastal environments in the vicinity of Nain, Labrador. Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, 121 p. (Final report of research supported by Petro-Canada Exploration Inc.) Gilkinson, K. 1986. Review and assessment of the literature on marine benthic molluscs (Amphineura, Bivalvia, Gastropoda) in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. NAFO Science Council Studies, 10: 93-108. NLDOEC (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation, Wildlife Division). 2007. Hunting and Trapping Guide 2007-2008. Golder Associates. 2006. Hydrogeology of the St George’s Bay Area. Water Resources Report 2-8 (Groundwater Series) prepared by Golder Associates for Newfoundland Department of Environment. Environmental Assessment Page 206 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Goff, G.P. and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold water off Newfoundland and Labrador. Can. Field-Natur. 102(1): 1-5. Good, T. P. 1998. Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds. The Birds of North America, No. 330. The Birds of North America Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Goossen, J. P., D. L. Amirault, J. Arndt, R. Bjore, S. Boates, J. Brazil, S. Brechtel, R. Chaisson, G. N. Corbett, R. Curley, M. Elderkin, S. P. Fleming, W. Harris, L. Heyens, D. Hjertaas, M. Huot, B. Johnson, R. Jones, W. Koonz, P. Laporte, D. McAskill, R. I. G. Morrison, S. Richard, F. Shaffer, C. Stewart, L. Swanson and E. Wiltse. 2002. National Recovery Plan for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). National Recovery Plan No, 22. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife, Ottawa. Gorsline, J., W.N. Holmes, and J. Cronshaw. 1981. The Effects of Ingested Petroleum on the Naphthalene-metabolizing Properties of Liver Tissue in Seawater-adapted Mallard Ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). Environmental Research, 24: 377-390. Goudie, R.I., G.J. Robertson, and A. Reed. 2000. Common Eider (Somateria mollissima). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds. The Birds of North America, No. 546. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Gowans, S. 2002. Bottlenose whales Hyperoodon ampullatus and H. planifrons. pp. 128-129. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Gramentz, D. 1988. Involvement of loggerhead turtle with the plastic, metal and hydrocarbon pollution in the Central Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19:11-13. Greenlea, G.M, & P.K. Heringa. 1984. Soils of the Port au Port Peninsula. Newfoundland. Report No. 4 Newfoundland Soil Survey. Soil Study: Agriculture Canada, Land Resources Research Institute Publication 84-05 Grégoire, F. et C. Savenkoff. 2005. Pêche, biologie, régime alimentaire et predation du maquereau bleu (Scomer scombrus L.) dans les sous-région 3 et 4 de l’OPANO en 2004. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2005/056. Grégoire, F., W. Barry, J. Barry, L. Lefebvre, C. Lévesque, and J. Hudon. 2005. West coast of Newfoundland capelin (Mallotus villosus M.) and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus harengus L.) larval survey, part 1: Description of the data collected in partnership with the industry (Barry Group) in July 2004. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1168: vi + 32 p. Grégoire, F., W. Barry, J. Barry, L. Lefebvre, C. Lévesque, and J. Hudon. 2006a. West coast of Newfoundland capelin (Mallotus villosus M.) and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus harengus L.) larval survey, part 2: Abundance estimates and marine community analyses of the data collected in partnership with the industry (Barry Group) in July 2004. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2650: viii + 50 p. Grégoire, F., W. Barry, J. Barry, L. Lefebvre, C. Lévesque, and J. Hudon. 2006b. West coast of Newfoundland capelin (Mallotus villosus M.) and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus harengus L.) larval survey, part 3: Description of the data collected in partnership with the industry (Barry Group) in July 2005. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1168 (Part 3): vi + 32 p.

Environmental Assessment Page 207 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Hai, D.J., J. Lien, D. Nelson and K. Curren. 1996. A contribution to the biology of the white-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris, in waters off Newfoundland. Can. Field-Naturalist 110(2):278-287. Hall, A. 2002. Gray seal Halichoerus grypus. pp. 522-524. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Harding, G.C., J.D. Pringle, W.P. Vass, S. Pearre, and S. Smith. 1987. Vertical distribution and daily movements of larval Homarus americanus over Browns Bank, Nova Scotia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 41: 29-41. Hardy. 1984. Analysis of benthic samples form the Hibernia oil field. Report by Hardy Associates (1978) Ltd. to Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. St. John’s, Newfoundland. 16 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. Harvey, J.T. and M.E. Dahlheim. 1994. Cetaceans in oil. pp. 257-264. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p. Hatch, J. J. 2002. Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea). In The Birds of North America, No. 707 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Hawksley, O. 1950. A study of the behavior and ecology of the Arctic Tern, Sterna paradisaea Brunnich. Ph.D. diss., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. Haycock, K. 1973. Ecological studies on Gull Island, Witless Bay, with particular reference to avifauna. M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL. Healey, B.P. and G.B. Stenson. 2000. Estimating pup production and population size of the Northwest Atlantic harp seal (Phoca groenlandica). NAFO Sci. Res. Doc. 00/55. Hester, M.W. and I.A. Mendelssohn. 2000. Long term recovery of a Louisiana marsh plant community from oil-spill impact: vegetation response and mitigating effects of marsh surface elevation. Marine Environmental Research 49: 233-254. Hooker, S.K., H. Whitehead, and S. Gowans. 1999. Marine protected area design and the spatial and temporal distribution of cetaceans in a submarine canyon. Conserv. Biol. 13(3):592-602. Hooper, R.G. 1986. A spring breeding migration of the snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio (O. Fabr.), into shallow water in Newfoundland. Crustaceana 50(3): 257-264. Hose, J.E., M.D. McGurk, G.D. Marty, D.E. Hinton, E.D. Brown and T.T. Baker. 1996. Sublethal Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Herring Embryos and Larvae: Morphological, Cytogenetic, and Histopathological Assessments, 1989-1991. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53: 2,355-2,365. Hudon, C., P. Fradette, and P.Legendre. 1986. La réparition horizontale et verticale des larves de homard (Homarus americanus) autour des îles de la Madelaine, golfe du Saint-Laurent. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43: 2164-2176. Hughes, J.T. and G.C. Matthiessen. 1962. Observations on the biology of the American lobster, Homarus americanus. Limnol. Oceangr. 7: 1110-1111. Hurlbut, S.E., S.E. French and B.J. Taylor 1991. Evaluation of Potential Effects of Major Oil Spills on Grand Banks Commercial Fish Species as a Result of Impacts on Eggs and Larvae. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 110, Calgary, AB. 53 p.

Environmental Assessment Page 208 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Husky. 2000. White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study. Submitted by Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. Husky. 2001. White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study Supplemental Report. Submitted by Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 265 p. + App. Hutcheson, M.S., P.L. Stewart, and J.D. Spry. 1981. The biology and benthic community of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (including the Hibernia area). Grand Banks Oceanographic Studies, Vol. 3. Prepared for Mobil Oil Canada by McLaren Plansearch. IPIECA (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association). 1991. Report Series Volume 1: Guidelines on Biological Impact of Oil Pollution. IPIECA (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association). 1994. Biological Impacts of oil Pollution: Saltmarshes. IPIECA Report Series Volume 6. London, United Kingdom. Irwin, R.J. 1997. Environmental contaminants encyclopedia crude oil entry. National Park Service, Water resources Divisions, Water Operations Branch, Colorado. IWC. 1996. Annex H: report of the sub-committee on small cetaceans. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 46:160- 179. IWC. 2001a. Report of the workshop on status and trends of western North Atlantic right whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. Spec. Iss. 2:61-88. IWC. 2001b. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of North Atlantic right whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. Spec. Iss. 2:1-60. Jaquet, N. and D. Gendron. 2002. Distribution and relative abundance of sperm whales in relation to key environmental features, squid landings and the distribution of other cetacean species in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Mar. Biol. 141:591-601. Jaquet, N. and H. Whitehead. 1996. Scale-dependent correlation of sperm whale distribution with environmental features and productivity in the South Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 135(1-3):1-9. Jefferson, T.A., P.J. Stacey and R.W. Baird. 1991. A review of killer whale interactions with other marine mammals: predation to co-existence. Mamm. Rev. 21(4):151-180. Jensen, A. and R. Frederiksen. 1992. The fauna associated with the bank-forming deepwater coral Lophelia pertusa (Scleractinaria) on the Faroe shelf. Sarsia 77: 53-69. Johns, D.M. and J.A. Pechenik. 1980. Influence of the Water-accommodated Fraction of No. 2 Fuel Oil on Energetics of Cancer irroratus Larvae. Marine Biology, 55: 247-254. JW (Jacques Whitford). 2003. Strategic Environmental Assessment Laurentian Subbasin. Rep. by Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited, St. John’s, NL for Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John’s, NL. JW (Jacques Whitford). 2006. Port au Port seismic program screening and registration report. Report by Jacques Whitford, St. John’s, NL, for TekOil & Gas Corporation, The Woodlands, Texas, USA. 145 p. + appendices. JW (Jacques Whitford). 2007. Port au Port Seismic Program Screening. Rep. by Jacques Whitford, St. John’s, NL for Tekoil & Gas Corporation, St. John’s, NL. 144 p. + appendices. Kadlec, J. A.. 1976. A re-evaluation of mortality rates in adult Herring Gulls. Bird Banding 47: 507– 520.

Environmental Assessment Page 209 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Katona, S.K. and J.A. Beard. 1990. Population size, migration and feeding aggregation of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 12): 295-305. Kenney, R.D. 2001. Anomalous 1992 spring and summer right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) distributions in the Gulf of Maine. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. Spec. Iss. 2:209-223. Kingsley, M.C.S. and R.R. Reeves. 1998. Aerial surveys of cetaceans in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1995 and 1996. Can. J. Zool. 76:1529-1550. Kinze, C.C. 2002. White-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris. pp. 1332-1334. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Kirkham, I. R., P. L. McLaren, and W. A. Montevecchi. 1985. The food habits and distribution of Northern Gannets, Sula bassanus, off eastern Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 181-188. Kocan, R.M., J.E. Hose, E.D. Brown and T.T. Baker. 1996. Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) embryo sensitivity to Prudhoe Bay petroleum hydrocarbons: laboratory evaluation and in situ exposure at oiled and unoiled sites in Prince William Sound. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2366-2375. Koitutonsky V. G. and G. L. Bugden. 1991. The Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: A Review with Emphasis on the Synoptic Variability of the Motion. pp. 57-90. In: Therriault C. [Ed]: The Gulf of St. Lawrence: Small Ocean or Big Estuary? Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 113. Koning, W. 1987. Sensory and chemical analysis of fish tainting by oil sands wastewater. M.Sc., University of Alberta. Kooyman, G.L., R.L. Gentry and W.B. McAlister. 1976. Physiological impact of oil on pinnipeds. Unpubl. Final Rep., Res. Unit 71, to Outer Cont. Shelf Envir. Assess. Program, BLM/NOAA. 26 p. Kooyman, G.L., R.W. Davis and M.A. Castellini. 1977. Thermal conductance of immersed pinniped and sea otter pelts before and after oiling with Prudhoe Bay crude. pp. 151-157. In: D.A. Wolfe (ed.), Fate and effects of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine ecosystems and organisms. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Kovacs, K.M. 2002. Hooded seal Cystophora cristata. pp. 580-582. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Kraus, S.D., P.K. Hamilton, R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton and C.K. Slay. 2001. Reproductive parameters of the North Atlantic right whale. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. Spec. Iss. 2:231-236. Kühnhold, W.W. 1972. The Influence of Crude Oils on Fish Fry. pp. 315-318. In: M. Ruivo (ed.), Marine Pollution and Sea Life. Fishing News (Books) Ltd., London, England. Kühnhold, W.W. 1974. Investigations on the Toxicity of Seawater-extracts of Three Crude Oils on Eggs of Cod (Gadus morhua L.). Ber. Dtsch. Wiss. Kommn. Meeresforsch, 23: 165-180. Kühnhold, W.W. 1978. Effects of the Water Soluble Fraction of a Venezuelan Heavy Fuel Oil (No.6) on Cod Eggs and Larvae. pp. 126-130. In: In the Wake of the Argo Merchant, Center for Ocean Management. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

Environmental Assessment Page 210 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Kulka, D.W., N.C. Antle, and J.M. Simms. 2003. Spatial analysis of 18 demersal species in relation to petroleum licence areas on the Grand Bank (1980-2000). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2473. 202 p. Kulka, D.W., M.R. Simpson, and R.G. Hooper. 2004. Changes in distribution and habitat associations of wolffish (Anarhichidae) in the Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2001/113. Kulka, D.C., C. Hood, and J. Huntington. 2007. Recovery Strategy for northern wolffish (Anarchichas denticulatus) and spotted wolffish (Anarchichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic wolffish (Anarchichas lupus) in Canada [Proposed]. Fisheries and oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 p. Larivière, S. and L.R. Walton. 1998. Lontra canadensis. Mammal. Species 587:1-8. Lavigne, D.M. 2002. Harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus. pp. 560-562. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Leatherwood, S. and R.R. Reeves. 1983. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins. Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA. 302 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. Leighton, F.A., R.G. Butler and D.B. Peakall. 1985. Oil and Arctic Marine Birds: An Assessment of Risk. pp. 183-215. In: F.R. Engelhardt (ed.), Petroleum effects in the arctic environment. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London. 281 p. Lesage, V. and M.C.S. Kingsley. 1998. Updated status of the St Lawrence River population of the beluga, Delphinapterus leucas. Can. Field-Naturalist 112(1):98-114. LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc. 2005. Jeanne d’Arc Basin Geohazard Surveys Environmental Assessment. LGL Rep. SA854. Rep. By LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., prepared for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 105 p. + appendix. LGL Limited. 2001. Habitat requirements of marine fish species occurring in the Newfoundland Region I: Finfish. Draft report by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL for DFO, St. John’s, NL. LGL Limited. 2002. Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin exploration drilling program project description and environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA723. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, and SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 179 p. LGL Limited. 2003. Husky Lewis Hill prospect exploration drilling program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA746. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, and SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 324 p. LGL Limited. 2005a. Husky delineation/exploration drilling program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin area environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA845. Rep. by LGL Limited, Canning and Pitt Associates, Inc., and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 340 p. + appendix.

Environmental Assessment Page 211 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

LGL Limited. 2005b. Orphan Basin exploration drilling program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA825. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John’s, NL, SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Lorax Environmental, Vancouver, BC, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, 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. 2005c. Northern Jeanne d’Arc Basin seismic program environmental assessment. LGL Rep. SA836. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 241 p. LGL Limited. 2006a. Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area Environmental Assessment Update. LGL Rep. SA886. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John’s, NL, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, for Services, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 67 p. + appendix. LGL Limited. 2006b. Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction & Operations Program Environmental Assessment Addendum. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 126 p. + appendices. LGL Limited. 2006c. Orphan Basin Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment Addendum. LGL Rep. SA825. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John’s, NL, SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Lorax Environmental, Vancouver, BC, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, 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. + Appendices. LGL Limited. 2007. Husky White Rose Development Project: New Drill Centre Construction & Operations Program Environmental Assessment Addendum. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 126 p. + appendices. Lien, J., G.B. Stenson and P.W. Jones. 1988. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, 1978-1986. Rit Fiskideildar 11: 194-201. Lien, J., R. Sears, G.B. Stenson, P.W. Jones and I.-H. Ni. 1989. Right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, sightings in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador and the Gulf of St Lawrence, 1978-1987. Can. Field-Naturalist 103(1):91-93. Lock, A.R., R.G.B. Brown and S.H. Gerriets. 1994. Gazetteer of Marine Birds in Atlantic Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. 137 p. Lowry, L.F., K.J. Frost and K.W. Pitcher. 1994. Observations of oiling of harbor seals in Prince William Sound. pp. 209-225. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p. Lutz, P.L., M. Lutcavage and C.W. Caillouet. 1989. The effects of petroleum on sea turtles: applicability to Kemp’s Ridley. p. 52-54. In: A.M. Landry (ed.), Proceedings of the First International symposium on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, October 1-4, 1985, Galvaston, TX. Texas A&M University Sea Grant Program. Lynch, K.D. 1987. Humpback, finback, minke and pilot whale distributions in Newfoundland and Labrador 1976 - 1983. Master of Science thesis. Department of Psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland. 196 p. Environmental Assessment Page 212 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Mackintosh, N.A. 1965. The Stocks of Whales. Fishing News, London, U.K. 232 p. 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. Marquez, R., J. Diaz, M. Sanchez, P. Burchfield, A. Leo, M. Carrasco, J. Pena, C. Jimenez and R. Bravo. 1999. Results of the Kemp's ridley nesting beach conservation efforts in Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 85: 2-4. Marty, G.D., J.E. Hose, M.D. McGurk, E.D. Brown and D.E. Hinton. 1997. Histopathology and Cytogenetic Evaluation of Pacific Herring Larvae Exposed to Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Laboratory or in Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 1846-1857. Marty, G.D., M.S. Okihiro, E.D. Brown, D. Hanes and D.E. Hinton. 1999. Histopathology of Adult Pacific Herring in Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. . Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56: 419-426. Matkin, C.O., G.M. Ellis, M.E. Dahlheim and J. Zeh. 1994. Status of killer whales in Prince William Sound, 1985-1992. pp. 141-162. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p. Maunder, J. E., W. Threlfall. 1972. The breeding biology of the Black-legged Kittiwake in Newfoundland. Auk 89: 789–816. Meades, S. 1990. Natural Regions of Newfoundland and Labrador. A contract report submitted to the Protected Areas Association. Meades, S. 1993. Planning a Trip to Newfoundland? In Wildflower 9(1): 10-15. Meades, W.J., and L. Moores. 1989. Forest Site Classification Manual. A Field Guide to the Damman Forest Types of Newfoundland. Forest Resource Development Agreement Report 003. Mecklenberg, T.A., S.D. Rice and J.F. Karinen. 1977. Molting and Survival of King Crab (Paralithodes camtschatica) and Coonstripe Shrimp (Pandalus hypsinotus) Larvae Exposed to Cook Inlet Crude Oil Water-soluble Fraction. pp. 221-228. In: D.A. Wofe (ed.), Fate and effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in marine Organisms and Ecosystems. Proceedings of a Symposium, 10-12 November 1976. Seattle, Washington. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Melquist, W.E., P.J. Polechla, Jr. and D. Toweill. 2003. River otter Lontra canadensis. pp. 708-734. In: G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson and J.A. Chapman (eds.). Wild Mammals of North America. Biology, Management, and Conservation. Second Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Menchenton, E. 1977. Classification of the La Poile River, Gaff Topsails, Humber River, Northern Peninsula, Port au Port Peninsula, Blow Me Down Mountains, Gregory Plateau and Grey Islands caribou herds. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Project no. 76C-22. MEP (Marine Environment Protection, Australian Government). 2003. The effects of oil on wildlife MLI (Maurice Lamontagne Institute). 1999. The St. Lawrence Marine Environment. Knowledge and Action: 1993-1998. Chapter 4. Marine Mammals. pp. 29-40. Edited by Nathalie Simard. Mont- Joli, Quebec: MLI, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Laurentian Region, 1999. MMS (Minerals Management Service). 1997. Federal Offshore Statistics: 1995. Leasing, exploration, production and revenues to December 31, 1995. U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service, Operations and Safety Management, OCS Report MMS 97-0007.

Environmental Assessment Page 213 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Mobil 1985. Hibernia Development Project, Environmental Impact Statement. Volume IIIa: Biophysical Assessment. Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd. (Operator), Gulf Canada Resources Inc., Petro- Canada Inc., Chevron Canada Resources Ltd., and Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd. 258 p. Moles, A. and B.L. Norcross. 1998. Effects of Oil-laden Sediments on Growth and Health of Juvenile Flatfishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55: 605-610. Montevecchi, W. A., J. M. Porter. 1980. Parental investments by seabirds at the breeding area with emphasis on Northern Gannets, Morus bassanus. Pp. 323–365 In Behavior of marine animals. Vol. 4. Marine birds (J. H. Burger, E. Winn, and B. L. Olla, eds.). Plenum Press, New York. Moore, S.F. and R.L. Dwyer. 1974. Effects of Oil on Marine Organisms: A Critical Assessment of Published Data. Water Research, 8: 819-827. Mortensen, P., L. Buhl-Mortensen, S. Gass, D. C. Gordon, E. Kenchington, C. Bourbonnais, and K. Macsaac. 2006. Deep Water Corals in Atlantic Canada: A summary of ESRF-Funded Research (2001-2003), March 2006, Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 143. Calgary. 83 p. Mortensen, P.B. 2001. Aquarium observations on the deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa (L., 1758) (Scleractinia) and selected associated invertebrates. Ophelia 54: 83-104. Mosbech, A. (Ed.). 2002. Potential environmental impacts of oil spills in Greenland. An assessment of information status and research needs. Moulton, V.D., J. Christian, R.A. Pitt, B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2006a. Jeanne d’Arc Basin 3D Seismic Program, Environmental Assessment Update, 2006 - 2010. LGL Rep. SA884. Rep. by LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt Associates Inc., St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 56 p. + appendices. Mowbray, T. B. 2002. Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus). In The Birds of North America, No. 693 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. National Wetlands Working Group. 1988. Wetlands of Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series No. 24. Sustainable Development Branch, Environment Canada, Ottawa Ontario, and Polyscience Publication Inc., Montreal, Quebec. Naud, M.-J., B. Long, J.-C. Brêthes and R. Sears. 2003. Influences of underwater bottom topography and geomorphology on minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) distribution in the Mingan Islands (Canada). J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 83:889-896. Nelson, J. B. 1978. The gannet. Buteo Books, Vermillion, SD. 336 pp. NERI (National Environment Research Institute, Ministry of the Environment, Denmark). 2002. NERI Technical Report No. 415. Nettleship, D. N. 1972. Breeding success of the Common Puffin (Fraturcula arctica L.) on different habitats at Great Island, Newfoundland. Ecological Monographs 42: 239-268. Nettleship, D. N.. 1980. A guide to the major seabird colonies of eastern Canada: identity, distribution and abundance. Can. Wildl. Serv. “Studies on Northern Seabirds” manuscript rep. no. 97: 1–133. Nisbet, I. C. T. 2002. Common Tern (Sterna hirundo). In The Birds of North America, No. 618 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. NLDOEC (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation, Wildlife Division). 2007. Hunting and Trapping Guide 2007-2008.

Environmental Assessment Page 214 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Norcross, B.L., J.E. Hose, M. Frandsen and E.D. Brown. 1996. Distribution, Abundance, Morphological Condition, and Cytogenetic Abnormalities of Larval Herring in Prince William Sound, Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53: 2,376-2,387. NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. Committee on Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. NRCan (Natural Resources Canada). 2000. 1:50,000 Topographic Maps. O’Connell, M.F., J.B. Dempson, C.C. Mullins, D.G. Reddin, C.E. Bourgeois, T.R. Porter, N.M. Cochrane, and D. Caines. 2003. Status of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocks of insular Newfoundland (SFAa 3-14A), 2002. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2003/002. O’Connell, M.F., J.B. Dempson, D.G. Reddin, C.E. Bourgeois, T.R. Porter, N.M. Cochrane, and D. Caines. 2006. Status of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocks of insular Newfoundland (SFAs 3-14A), 2005. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/058. Oceans Ltd. 2007. Oil spill simulations in Port au Port Bay, Newfoundland. Rep. by Oceans Ltd., St. John’s, NL, for PDI Production Inc., St. John’s, NL. 256 p. OGP. 2006. Environmental Performance in the E&P Industry – 2005 Data, OGP Repot No. 383, October 2006. Ollerhead, L.M.N., M.J. Morgan, D.A. Scruton, and B. Marrie. 2004. Mapping spawning times and locations for 10 commercially important fish species found on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2522: iv + 45 p. Olson, P.A. and S. B. Reilly. 2002. Pilot whales. pp. 898-903. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Ouellet, P. 1997. Characteristics and vertical distribution of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) eggs in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the possible effect of cold water temperature on recruitment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 211-223.

PAA (Protected Areas Association). 2000. Western Newfoundland Forest Port au Port subregion. Newfoundland and Labrador Ecoregion Brochures Project.

Palma, A.T., Steneck, R.S. and Wilson, C.J. 1999. Settlement-driven, multiscale demographic patterns of large benthic decapods in the Gulf of Maine. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 241: 107-136. Payne, J.F., L.L. Fancey, A.D. Rahimtula, and E.L. Porter. 1987. Review and perspective or the use of mixed function oxygenase enzymes in biological monitoring. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 86C: 233-245. Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, S. Whiteway, and K. Lee. 2001a. Definition of sediment toxicity zones around oil development sites: dose response relationships for the monitoring surrogates Microtox® and amphipods, exposed to Hibernia source cuttings containing a synthetic base oil. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2577, 10p + vi. Payne, J.F., L. Fancey, C. Andrews, J. Meade, F. Power, K. Lee, G. Veinott, and A. Cook. 2001b. Laboratory exposures of invertebrate and vertebrate species to concentrations of IA-35 (Petro- Canada) drill mud fluid, production water and Hibernia drill mud cuttings. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2560, 27p +iv.

Environmental Assessment Page 215 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Payne, J.F., A. Mathieu, and T.K. Collier. 2003. Ecotoxicological studies focusing on marine and freshwater fish. pp. 191-224. In: PAHs: an Ecotoxicological Perspective. Edited by P.E.T. Douben, John Wiley and Sons, London. Pearson, W.H., D.L. Woodruff, P.C. Sugarman and B.L. Olla. 1984. The Burrowing Behavior of Sand Lance, Ammodytes hexapterus: Effects of Oil-contaminated Sediment. Marine Environmental Research, 11: 17-32. Petro-Canada. 1996a. Development Application Terra Nova Development Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Petro-Canada on behalf of Terra Nova Proponents (Petro-Canada, Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Husky Oil Operations Limited, Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Mosbacher Operating Limited. Petro-Canada. 1996b. Development Application Terra Nova Development Environmental Impact Statement. Supplement. Prepared by Petro-Canada on behalf of Terra Nova Proponents (Petro- Canada, Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Husky Oil Operations Limited, Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Mosbacher Operating Limited. Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W.Butler, M. Kendziorek and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate Impact of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Marine Birds. Auk, 107: 387-397. Pierotti, R.. 1982. Habitat selection and its effect on reproductive output in the Herring Gull in Newfoundland. Ecology 63: 854–868. Pierotti, R. J. and T. P. Good. 1994. Herring Gull (Larus argentatus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds. The Birds of North America, No. 124. The Birds of North America Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Pollett, F.C., 1972. Classification of peatlands in Newfoundland. Proceedings of the Fourth International Peat Congress I-IV, Helsinki 1972. Porter, T.R., L.G. Riche, and G.R. Traverse. 1974. Catalogue of rivers in insular Newfoundland, Volume C. Data Record Series No. NEW/D-74-9. Resource Development Branch, Fisheries and Marine Service, Department of the Environment. 366 p. Read, A.J. 1999. Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (Linnaeus, 1758). pp. 323-355. In: S. H. Ridgway and R. J. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 6. The Second Book of Dolphins and the porpoises. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Reeves, R. and H. Whitehead. 1997. Status of the Sperm Whale, Physeter macrocephalus, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111: 293-307. Reeves, R.R., E. Mitchell and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the Northern Bottlenose Whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus. Can. Field-Naturalist 107: 491-509. Reeves, R., C. Smeenk, C.C. Kinze, R.L. Brownell Jr. and J. Lien. 1999. White-beaked Dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray, 1846. pp. 1-30. In: S.H. Ridgeway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals Volume 6, the Second Book of Dolphins and Porpoises. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 486 p. Regehr, H.M. and M.S. Rodway. 1999. Seabird Breeding Performance During Two Years of Delayed Capelin Arrival in the Northwest Atlantic: a Multi-species Comparison. Waterbirds, 22: 60-67. Reid, R.N., Cargnelli, L.M., Griesbach, S.J., Packer, D.B., Johnson, D.L., Zetlin, C.A., Morse, W.W., Berrien, P.L. 1999. Essential fish habitat source document: Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus, life history and habitat charatcteristics. NOAA Tech. MEM. NMFS-NE-126. 48 p.

Environmental Assessment Page 216 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

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. Rice, D.W. 1989. Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758. pp. 177-233. In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 4. River Dolphins and the Larger Toothed Whales. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Rice, S.D. 1985. Effects of Oil on Fish. pp. 157-182. In: F.R. Engelhardt (ed.), Petroleum Effects in the Arctic Environment. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., NY. Rice, S.D., D.A. Moles, T.L. Taylor and J.F. Karinen. 1979. Sensitivity of 39 Alaskan Marine Species to Cook Inlet Crude Oil and No.2 Fuel Oil. pp. 549-554. In: API, EPA, and USCG, 1979 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup), Proceedings. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Rice, S.D., M.M. Babcock, C.C. Brodersen, M.G. Carls, J.A. Gharrett , S. Korn, A. Moles and J.W. Short. 1986. Lethal and Sub-lethal Effects of the Water-soluble Fraction of Cook Inlet Crude on Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) Reproduction. Final report, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, NOAA. Rice, S.D., R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright (eds). 1996. Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18, Bethesda, MD. Rodway, M.S., H.M. Regehr and J.W. Chardine. 1996. Population census of breeding Atlantic Puffins at Great Island, Newfoundland in 1993-1994. Technical Report Series, No. 263. Environmental Conservation Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region. Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle and J.R. Hampson. 1981. Long Term Effects of the Barge Florida Oil Spill. Washington, D.C: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hampson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price and C.C. Jones. 1990. Anatomy of an Oil Spill: Long-term Effects from the Grounding of the Barge Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research, 38: 265-380. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Savenkoff, C., L. Savard, B. Morin, and D. Chabot. 2006a. Main prey and predators of northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence during the mid-1980s, mid-1990s, and early 2000s. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2639: v + 28 pp. Savenkoff, C., M. Castonguay, D. Chabot, A. Fréchet, M.O. Hammill, and L. Morissette. 2006b. Main prey and predators and estimates of mortality of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence during the mid-1980s, mid-1990s, and early 2000s. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2666: vi + 32 pp. Scandpower A/S. 2000. Blowout Frequencies 2000, BlowFAM Edition, Report No. 27.20.01/R3, March 2000. Schmelzer, I. (2005). A management plan for the Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus flammeus) in Newfoundland and Labrador. Wildlife Division, Department of Environment and Conservation. Corner Brook, NL. Schreer, J.F. and K.M. Kovacs. 1997. Alometry of diving capacity in air-breathing vertebrates. Can. J. Zool. 75: 339-358. Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219. 731 p. Environmental Assessment Page 217 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Sears, R. and J. Calambokidis. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 32 p. Sears, R., J.M. Williamson, F.W. Wenzel, M. Bérubé, D. Gendron and P. Jones. 1990. Photographic identification of the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn Spec. Iss. 12:335-342. Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of fin whales Balaenoptera physalus L. in the North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 27:460-473. Short, JW. and P.M. Harris. 1996. Chemical Sampling and Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Near-surface Seawater of Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez Oil SPill. pp. 17-28. In: S.D. Rice, R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright (eds.), Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18. Simpson, M.R. and D.W Kulka. 2002. Status of three wolffish species (Anarhichus lupus, A. minor, and A. denticulatus) in Newfoundland waters (NAFO Divisions 2GHJ3KLNOP). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2002/078. 96 p. Simpson, M.R. and D.W. Kulka. 2003. Formulation of an incidental harm permit strategy for wolffish species (Anarhichadidae). Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2003/047. Sjare, B., M. LeBeauf and G. Veinott. 2005. Harbour seals in Newfoundland and Labrador: a preliminary summary of new data on aspects of biology, ecology and contaminant profiles. CSAS Res. Doc. 2005/030. 34 p. + appendix. Smultea, M.A. and B. Würsig. 1995. Behavioral reactions of bottlenose dolphins to the Mega Borg oil spill, Gulf of Mexico 1990. Aquatic Mammals 21:171-181. South, G.R. 1983. Benthic marine algae. In: (ed.) G.R. South. Biogeography and Ecology of the Island of Newfoundland. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague-Boston-London. 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. Spraker, T.R., L.F. Lowry and K.J. Frost. 1994. Gross necropsy and histopathological lesions found in harbor seals. pp. 281-311. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.). Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p. St. Aubin, D.J. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects on polar bears. pp. 235-239. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.), Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego. 282 p. Stenhouse, I.J. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999b. Increasing and expanding populations of breeding Northern Fulmars in Atlantic Canada. Waterbirds 22(3): 382-391. Stewart, B.S. and S. Leatherwood. 1985. Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacépède, 1804. pp. 91-136 In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 3. The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, London, U.K. Stobo, W.T. and C.T. Zwanenburg. 1990. Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) pup production on Sable Island and estimates of recent production in the Northwest Atlantic. pp. 171-184. In: W.D. Bowen (ed.), Population biology of sealworm (Pseudoterranova decipiens) in relation to its intermediate and seal hosts. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 222 p.

Environmental Assessment Page 218 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Swail V.R., V.J. Cardone, M. Ferguson, D.J. Gummer, E.L. Harris, E.A. Orelup, and A.T. Cox. 2006. The MSC50 Wind and wave Reanalysis. 9th International Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting. September 25-29, Victoria, B.C., Canada Taylor, D.M., R.G. Hooper, and G.P. Ennis. 1985. Biological aspects of the spring breeding migration of snow crabs, Chionoecetes opilio, in Bonne Bay, Newfoundland (Canada). Fish. Bull. 83(4): 707-711. Templeman, W. 1948. The life history of capelin (Mallotus villosus O.F. M〈ller) in Newfoundland waters. Res. Bull. Newfoundland Govt. Lab. No. 17. 151 p. Tendal, O.S. 1992. The North Atlantic distribution of the octocoral P. arborea (L., 1758) (Cnidaria, Anthozoa). Sarsia 77: 213-217. Thomas, D.C., and D.R. Gray. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-98 pp. 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. Thomson, D.H. and W.J. Richardson. 1995. Marine mammal sounds. pp. 159-204. In: W.J. Richardson, C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme and D.H. Thomson, Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Thomson, D.H., R.A. Davis, R. Bellore, E. Gonzalez, J. Christian, V. Moulton and R. Harris. 2000. Environmental assessment of exploration drilling off Nova Scotia. Report by LGL Limited for Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Mobil Oil Canada Properties Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Gulf Canada Resources Ltd., Chevron Canada Resources, PanCanadian Petroleum, Murphy Oil Ltd., and Norsk Hydro. 278 p. Tibbo, S.N. 1956. Populations of herring (Clupea harengus L.) in Newfoundland waters. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 13: 449-466. Tibbo, S.N., Scarratt, D.J., McMullon, P.W.G. 1963. An investigation of herring (Clupea harengus L.) spawning using free-diving techniques. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 20: 1067-1079. Tilley, S., L. Hermanutz, N. Djan-Chekar, J. Brazil, D. Ballam, T. Bell, M. Burzynski, N. Lights, H. Mann, J.E. Maunder, S.J. Meades, W. Nicholls, L. Soper, and G. Yetman. 2005. Recovery Strategy for the Low Northern Rockcress (Neotorularia humilis). Wildlife Division, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Corner Brook. v + 14 pp. Trudel, K. 1985. Zooplankton. Part 3.3. In. W.S. Duval (ed.), A Review of the Biological Fate and Effects of Oil in Cold Marine Environments. Report by ESL Limited, S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and Artic Laboratories Ltd. for Environment Canada, Edmonton, AB. 242 p. Vandermeulen, J H. and C.W. Ross. 1995. Oil spill response in freshwater: assessment of the impact of cleanup as a management tool. Journal of Environmental Management 44(4): 297-309. Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. VanVleet and G. Bossart. 1986. Study of the effects of oil on marine turtles. Final report to Minerals Management Service MMS Contract No. 14-12-0001-30063. 181 p.

Environmental Assessment Page 219 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Vavrek, M.C. and W. J. Campbell. 2002. Contribution of seed banks to freshwater wetland vegetation recovery. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Louisiana Tech University Freshwater Spills Symposia. Walker, D.A., P.J. Webber, K.R. Everett, and J. Brown. 1978. Effects of crude and diesel oil spills on plant communities at Prudhoe Bay, Alsaska, and the derivation of oil spill sensitivity maps. Arctic 31(3): 242-259. Waring, G.T., J.M. Quintal and C.P. Fairfield (eds.). 2002. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2002. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-169. 318 p. Watkins, W.A. and K.E. Moore. 1982. An underwater acoustic survey for sperm whales (Physeter catodon) and other cetaceans in the southeast Caribbean. Cetology 46:1-7. Weber, D.D., D.J. Maynard, W.D. Gronlund and V. Konchin. 1981. Avoidance Reactions of Migrating Adult Salmon to Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38: 779-781. Wells, E.D. & F. D. Pollett. 1983. Peatlands. In Biogeography and Ecology of the Island of Newfoundland. Ed R. South. P. 207-265. Wells, P.G. 1972. Influence of Venezuelan crude oil on lobster larvae. Mar. Poll. Bull. 3: 105-106. Whitehead, H. 2002. Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus. pp. 898-903. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Whitehead, H. and S. Waters. 1990. Social organisation and population structure of sperm whales off the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador (1985-1987). Rep. Int. Whal. Commn Spec. Iss. 12:249-257. Whitehead, H., W.D. Bowen, S.K. Hooker and S. Gowans. 1998. Marine mammals. pp. 186-221. In: W.G. Harrison and D.G. Fenton (eds.), The Gully: a scientific review of its environment and ecosystem. DFO, Ottawa, ON. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document 98/83. Wiens, J.A. 1995. Recovery of Seabirds Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: An Overview. pp. 854- 893. 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. Wiese, F.K. and P.C. Ryan. 1999. Trends of Chronic Oil Pollution in Southeast Newfoundland Assessed Through Beached-bird Surveys 1984-1997. Bird Trends, No.7: 36-40. Wiese, F.K. and P.C. Ryan. 2003. Chronic oil pollution in Newfoundland assessed through beached bird surveys 1984-1999. Mar. Poll. Bull. 46: 1090-1101. Williams, A.S. 1985. Rehabilitating Oiled Seabirds. In: J. Burridge and M. Kane (eds.). A Field Manual. International Bird Rescue Research Center, Berkely CA. 79 p. Williams, H. 1985. Geology, Stephenville Map Area, Newfoundland; Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1579A (sheets 1 and 2), scale 1:100 000. Williams, H. and Cawood, P.A. 1989. Geology, Humber Arm Allochthon, Newfoundland; Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1678A, scale 1:250 000. Wimmer, T. and H. Whitehead. 2004. Movements and distribution of northern bottlenose whales, Hyperoodon ampullatus, on the Scotian Slope and in adjacent waters. Can. J. Zool. 82(11): 1782-1794.

Environmental Assessment Page 220 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Winn, H.E. and N.E. Reichley. 1985. Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781). pp. 241-273. In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 3. The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press, London, U.K. Winn, H.E., C.A. Price and P.W. Sorensen. 1986. The distributional biology of the right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn Spec. Iss. 10:129- 138. Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. Fish. Bull. 97:200-211. Woodley, T.H. and D.E. Gaskin. 1996. Environmental characteristics of North Atlantic right and fin whale habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 74:75-84. Yochem, P.K., B.S. Stewart, R.L. DeLong and D.P. DeMaster. 1987. Diel haulout patterns and site fidelity of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) on San Miguel Island, California, in autumn. Marine Mammal Science 3:323-332. Zhu, X., A.D. Venosa, M.T. Suidan, and K. Lee. 2001. Guidelines for the bioremediation of marine shorelines and freshwater wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Research and Development.

Environmental Assessment Page 221 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Personal Communications

Andrews, Ken Director, Mineral Lands with NL Department of Natural Resources, Mines Branch, Mineral Lands Division in St John’s, NL Barney, Wayne Biologist with NL Department of Environment and Conservation,, Wildlife Office in Corner Brook, NL Bell, Ian Land Management Specialist with NL Department of Natural Resources, Agrifoods Development Branch in Corner Brook, NL Djan Chekar, Nathalie The Rooms Provincial Museum English, Bas Senior Management Planner with NL Department of Natural Resources, Forest Ecosystem Management office in Corner Brook, NL Gosse, John Terrestrial Biologist, Parks Canada, Terra Nova National Park Guzzwell, Keith Groundwater Resources Manager with NL Department of Environment and Conservation, Water Resources Management Division in St John’s, NL Hanel, Claudia Ecosystem Management Ecologist (Botanist) Wildlife Division, NL Department of Environment and Conservation, Corner Brook Hermanutz, Luise Plant Ecologist and Head of the Limestone Barrens Species at Risk Recovery Team, Dept. of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s Kirby, Fred Project Geologist with NL Department of Natural Resources, Mines Branch, Mineral Lands (Quarry Materials) Division in St John’s, NL Lawson, Jack DFO, pers. comm. in JW 2006 Linegar, Paul Birds of NL, pers. comm., 2007 Mactavish, Bruce Wildlife Ecologist with expertise in birds, LGL Limited, St. John’s NL Maunder, John Curator Emeritus of Natural History, The Rooms Provincial Museum Pardy, Shelley Wildlife Biologist with NL Department of Environment and Conservation, Wildlife Office in Corner Brook, NL Reynolds, Ken Archaeologist with NL Department of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, Culture and Heritage Division in St John’s, NL Romer, Meherzd Atlantic Canadian Conservation Data Centre, Corner Brook, NL Spingle, J. FFAW Taylor, Paul Natural Areas Planner with NL Department of Environment and Conservation, Parks and Natural Areas Division in Deer Lake, NL Thomas, Peter Recovery Biologist, Canadian Wildlife Service, Mount Pearl NL Watkins, B. DFO Winsor, Bill Naturalist, Long time resident of Study Area Wright, Boyd Environmental Protection Officer with NL Department of Government Services in Corner Brook, NL

Environmental Assessment Page 222 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program

Websites

AML 2007 http://www.atlanticminerals.com/

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2007. Status Reports in Preparation, http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct2_4_e.cfm

CLO (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). Birds of Forested Landscapes. http://www.birds.cornell.edu/bfl/speciesaccts/olsfly.html

DFO. 2007. Newfoundland and Labrador Region Landed Quantities and Values. http://www.nfl.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapports/Land_All_2007.htm

EC (Environment Canada). 2006. Species at Risk. http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca

NLDOEC (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Environment and Conservation). 2002. Government protects 20 species under Endangered Species Act. http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2002/tcr/0809n02.htm

NLDOEC (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Environment and Conservation). 2006. Insular Newfoundland Caribou Initiative. http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/env/0405n01.htm

NLDOEC (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Environment and Conservation). 2006. New Species to be Protected under Endangered Species Act. http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/env/0220n01.htm

NLDOEC 2007b http://www.mapsnl.ca/industry.php

Important Bird Areas of Canada www.ibacanada.com

NF Birds. http://groups.google.com/group/nf.birds

NLDNR 2007a http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/mines&en/industry/milestones.pdf

NLDNR 2007(b) http://www.geosurv.gov.nl.ca/minesen/mines_commodities/mining_overview.asp

NLSAR (Newfoundland and Labrador Species at Risk). 2002. The Peregrine Falcon. http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/wildatrisk/Perigrine_Falcon.pdf

NLSAR (Newfoundland and Labrador Species at Risk). 2002. The Tundra Peregrine Falcon. http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/wildatrisk/Tundra_Peregrine_Falcon.pdf

Environmental Assessment Page 223 Port au Port Bay Exploration Drilling Program