TRIM Jl ~.~ J c:''723;;l..
Dt,te n':"'_,f\yr; I~~c~I_,_ 0-..-'-' -c: Energy f de .lj ~1:i500b -_cO~ __-_gJl /O~ -'::>1 :)ffshore _,. .Jvurd
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR MARINE 2D SEISMIC REFLECTION SURVEY LABRADOR SEA AND DAVIS STRAIT OFFSHORE LABRADOR BY MULTI KLiENT INVEST AS (MKI)
Report No. HOP0417 RPS Energy (Halifax) Liberty Place, 2nd Floor Authors Tony LaPierre, M.A.Sc., P.Geoph. 1545 Birmingham Street Alexandra Arnott, PhD. (Earth Sciences) Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2J6 Chris Hawkins, PhD. (Marine Ecology) Canada Kent Simpson, B.Sc., Dip. GIS, P. Geo. Tel: +1 9024251622 Darlene Davis, Project Co-ordinator Fax: +1 902 425 0703 Web: www.rpsgroup.com/energy/ Date of Issue March zs", 2011
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 10 1.1 2D MARINE SEISMIC EXPLORATION SURVEY ...... 12 2. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND JURISDICTION ...... 14 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 15 3.1 PURPOSE ...... 15 3.2 LOCATION ...... 15 3.3 SITE HISTORY ...... 15 3.4 SCHEDULE ...... 15 3.4.1 Operating Schedule ...... 16 3.5 OFFSHORE SEISMIC SURVEY ...... 16 3.6 SOUND AND SEA LIFE ...... 18 3.6.1 Effects of Noise ...... 22 3.7 SEISMIC EQUIPMENT ...... 1 3.7.1 Survey Vessel ...... 1 3.7.2 Support Vessels ...... 2 3.7.3 Energy Source ...... 2 3.7.4 Streamer ...... 3 3.8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ...... 4 4. PHYSICAL SETTING ...... 6 4.1 CLIMATE ...... 6 4.2 OCEANOGRAPHY ...... 7 4.3 SEA CONDITIONS ...... 8 4.4 BATHYMETRY ...... 8 4.5 ICE CONDITIONS ...... 9 4.6 GEOLOGY ...... 9 5. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 10 5.1 PHYTOPLANKTON ...... 10 5.2 ZOOPLANKTON ...... 11 5.3 MARINE BENTHOS ...... 11 5.4 SNOW CRAB AND SHRIMP ...... 11 5.5 SOFT CORALS ...... 11 5.6 MARINE FISH ...... 14 5.6.1 Behavioural Effects ...... 17 5.6.2 Physical Effects ...... 18 5.7 MARINE ASSOCIATED BIRDS ...... 19 5.7.1.1 Thick-Billed Murres ...... 21 5.7.1.2 Northern Fulmars ...... 24 5.7.1.3 Black-legged Kittiwakes ...... 26 5.7.1.4 King Eiders ...... 28 5.7.1.5 Ivory Gull ...... 30 5.7.1.6 Harlequin Duck ...... 32 5.7.1.7 Peregrine Falcon ...... 34 5.8 MARINE MAMMALS ...... 35 5.8.1 Pinnipeds ...... 35 5.8.1.1 Ringed seal (Phoca hispida)...... 35 5.8.1.2 Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus) ...... 38
Multi Klient Invest ii Environmental Impact Assessment 2D Marine Seismic Survey, Labrador Sea
5.8.1.3 Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) ...... 38 5.8.1.4 Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) ...... 40 5.8.1.5 Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) ...... 41 5.8.1.6 Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) ...... 41 5.8.1.7 Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus ) ...... 41 5.8.2 Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) ...... 41 5.8.2.1 Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) ...... 43 5.8.2.2 Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ...... 3 5.8.2.3 Narwhal (Monodon monoceros) ...... 5 5.8.2.4 Northern Bottlenose Whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) ...... 7 5.8.2.5 White-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus)...... 9 5.8.2.6 Pilot Whale (Globicephala melaena) ...... 9 5.8.2.7 Killer Whale (Ornicus orca) ...... 9 5.8.2.8 Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) ...... 9 5.8.2.9 Sowerby’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon bidens) ...... 10 5.8.3 Baleen Cetaceans ...... 12 5.8.3.1 Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) ...... 12 5.8.3.2 Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ...... 13 5.8.3.3 Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ...... 15 5.8.3.4 Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ...... 17 5.8.3.5 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) ...... 19 5.8.3.6 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ...... 21 5.8.4 Marine Reptiles ...... 23 5.9 SPECIES AT RISK ...... 25 6. COMMERCIAL FISHING...... 27 6.1 KEY FISHERIES ...... 27 6.1.1 Shrimp ...... 27 6.1.2 Snow Crab ...... 29 6.1.3 Greenland Halibut (Turbot) ...... 32 7. SENSITIVE AREAS ...... 35 7.1 GILBERT BAY ...... 35 7.2 HAWKE CHANNEL...... 35 7.3 TIDAL WATERS OF THE LABRADOR INUIT SETTLEMENT AREA (THE ZONE)...... 37 8. SOCIO ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ...... 39 8.1 COMMUNITY ...... 39 8.2 SOCIETY AND CULTURE ...... 39 8.3 ABORIGINAL PEOPLES ...... 39 9. VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT (VEC) SELECTION ...... 40 9.1 SELECTED VEC ASSESSME NT ...... 43 9.1.1 Impact Definitions and Criteria...... 43 9.1.2 Marine Fish ...... 44 9.1.3 Marine Birds ...... 48 9.1.4 Marine Mammals...... 49 9.1.4.1 Pinnipeds ...... 50 9.1.5 Marine Reptiles ...... 51
Multi Klient Invest iii Environmental Impact Assessment 2D Marine Seismic Survey, Labrador Sea
9.1.6 Fishing Gear Conflict ...... 52 9.1.7 Avoidance ...... 52 9.1.8 Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO) ...... 52 9.1.9 Communications with Fishing Industry ...... 53 9.1.10 Single Point of C ontact ...... 53 9.1.11 Fishing Gear Compensation ...... 53 9.2 MITIGATIONS ...... 56 9.2.1 Ramp-Up ...... 57 9.2.2 S tart-Up and Shutdown Procedures ...... 58 9.3 ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS ...... 58 9.4 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT ...... 58 9.5 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 59 9.6 CONSULTATIONS ...... 59 9.7 FOLLOW-UP ...... 60 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Entire Survey-Further Extents of the Program...... 12 Figure 2. Location of Proposed Survey Lines ...... 13 Figure 3. Seismic Acquisition using Seismic Reflection Method (Sikumiut 2008) .... 17 Figure 4. Broadband Mweighted Low Frequency Cetacean ...... 20 Figure 5. Broadband Mweighted Pinniped ...... 21 Figure 6. Survey Vessel Sanco Spirit ...... 1 Figure 7. Ocean Currents in the Labrador Sea (Sikumiut 2008) ...... 7 Figure 8. Regional Bathymetry ...... 8 Figure 9. MODIS bi-weekly composite images of surface chlorophyll a concentrations...... 10 Figure 10. Coral Distribution off Northern Labrador (CNSOPB 2008) ...... 12 Figure 11. Density of Corals along the Labrador coast (Edinger et al. 2007) ...... 13 Figure 12. Distribution of Turbot (Greenland Halibut 1999) (after Bowering 2001) .. 16 Figure 13. Thick-billed Murre Spring and Summer Distribution (after Gaston 1980) ...... 22 Figure 14. Thick-billed Murre Fall and Winter Distribution (after Gaston 1980) ...... 23 Figure 15. Range of Northern Fulmars ...... 25 Figure 16. Range of Black-legged Kittiwakes (after McLaren 1982 ...... 27 Figure 17. Molt migration of King Eiders and main molting area off Greenland (after Mosbech and Boertmann 1999) ...... 29 Figure 18. Distribution of Ivory Gull ...... 31 Figure 19. Summer distribution of Harlequin ducks along the Labrador coast ...... 33 Figure 20. Distribution of Peregrine Falcon in North America ...... 34 Figure 21. Seal distribution along the Labrador Coast (after Sikumiut 2008) ...... 37 Figure 22. Range, Migratory Pathways, and Whelping Locations of Harp Seals in the Northwest Atlantic (Reproduced from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005b) .. 39 Figure 23. Range of Harbour Seals (after NMFS 2009) ...... 40 Figure 24. Polar Bear Observations (Sikumuit 2008) ...... 42
Multi Klient Invest iv Environmental Impact Assessment 2D Marine Seismic Survey, Labrador Sea
Figure 24. Toothed Whale Observations (after Sikumuit 2008) ...... 1 Figure 26. Extent of occurrence (area of extent) and summer core area of the Eastern Hudson Bay population of belugas (COSEWIC 2004)...... 2 Figure 27. Distribution of Harbour Porpoise in Eastern Canada ...... 4 Figure 28. Narwhal Distribution in the Arctic Ocean...... 5 Figure 29. Distribution of Narwhals in Northern Canada ...... 6 Figure 30. Location of Tagged Narwhals in Northern Canada and Greenland ...... 6 Figure 31. North Atlantic showing primary distribution of northern bottlenose whales (after COSEWIC 2002) ...... 8 Figure 32. Range of Sperm Whales (MNFS 2009) ...... 10 Figure 33. Distribution of Sowerby’s Beaked Whale in the North Atlantic Ocean .... 11 Figure 34. Baleen Whale Observations (Sikumuit 2008) ...... 14 Figure 35. Fin Whale Observations (after Sikumuit 2008) ...... 16 Figure 36. Sei whale distribution in and around Canadian waters. Stippled areas show possible areas of sporadic occurrence (after Sikumiut 2008)...... 18 Figure 37. Humpback whale primary feeding and breeding areas ...... 20 Figure 38. Blue Whale Observations (after Sikumuit 2008) ...... 22 Figure 39. Occurrence of Leatherback in offshore Canadian Waters (COSEWIC 2001a) ...... 24 Figure 40. Northern shrimp harvesting locations 2004 to 2006 (after Sikumiut 2008) ...... 28 Figure 41. Snow Crab Harvesting locations 2004-2006 (after Sikumiut 2008) ...... 31 Figure 42. Halibut harvesting locations 2004 to 2006 (after Sikumiut 2008 ...... 33 Figure 43.Regional Sensitive Areas (after Sikumuit 2008)...... 38
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Authorizing Agencies ...... 14 Table 2. Proposed Injury Criteria for Individual Marine Mammals Exposed to Noise Events ...... 18 Table 3. Regional Cetacean Acoustic Characteristics ...... 19 Table 4. Energy Source ...... 2 Table 5. PGS GeoStreamer® ...... 3 Table 6. Recording System ...... 3 Table 7. Common Finfish Species of the Labrador Sea Region ...... 14 Table 8. Marine Associated Birds ...... 19 Table 9. Marine areas identified as important to seabirds, by status and season Huettmann and Diamond (2000), ...... 21 Table 10. Cetaceans observed in the Labrador Sea: ...... 35 Table 11. Pinnipeds observed in the Labrador Sea (Boles et al. 1979 ...... 35 Table 12. Species at Risk that could be found within the Labrador Sea study area during the scheduled survey period...... 25 Table 13. Northern shrimp harvest (metric tonnes) by month 2004 to 2006 average ...... 29 Table 14 Snow crab harvest (metric tonnes) by month 2004 to 2006 average ...... 32
Multi Klient Invest v Environmental Impact Assessment 2D Marine Seismic Survey, Labrador Sea
Table 15 Greenland Halibut harvest (metric tonnes) by month 2004 to 2006 average ...... 34 Table 16. Initial Potential Interactions Matrix Field Acquisition Component ...... 40 Table 17. Impact Definitions and Criteria ...... 44 Table 18. Matrix of Potential Environmental Effects of the Project components on Value Ecosystem / Environmental Components ...... 54
Multi Klient Invest vi Environmental Impact Assessment 2D Marine Seismic Survey, Labrador Sea
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A IAGC Marine Seismic Operations – An Overview Appendix B IAGC AirGun Arrays & Marine Mammals Appendix C Survey Vessel Sanco Spirit Appendix D A list of phytoplankton species Appendix E A list of zooplankton species collected from the Continuous Plankton Recorder Appendix F Canadian Statement of Practice Appendix G Review of Scientific Information on Impacts of Seismic Sound on Fish, Invertebrates, Marine Turtles and Marine Mammals Appendix H The Leach's Storm-Petrel: General information and handling instructions Appendix I Sikimuit Environmental Management Consultation Report Appendix J JNCC Guidelines
Multi Klient Invest vii Environmental Impact Assessment 2D Marine Seismic Survey, Labrador Sea
.
NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY
TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA (hereinafter referred to as TGS) & Multi Klient Invest AS) hereinafter referred to as KMI or the Operator) a company associated with Petroleum Geo-Science (herein referred to as PGS).have entered into a joint venture to conduct a regional marine 2D (two-dimensional) seismic reflection survey offshore north- eastern Canada, Labrador Sea starting in 2011, within the regulatory jurisdiction of C- NLOPB.
This Environmental Assessment prepared by RPS Energy assesses potential impacts from the proposed operations on the surrounding environment.
The main sensitivities and environmental constraints identified in the project area include marine mammals, fish species, and resident breeding and migrant bird species. Commercial Fisheries also takes place within the operational area during the summer season.
The environmental aspects of the proposed operations, which have been assessed as resulting in impacts of low, medium to high significance, include potential fuel spills from survey and support vessels; waste management, atmospheric emissions from fuel combustion, The potential environmental impacts of the seismic survey include pollution of the marine environment by accidental spills, disturbance of marine mammals and fish species, airborne pollution from emissions, interference with fishing and shipping.
It is highly likely that certain marine mammals, listed as “Species of Concern” could potentially be present during the scheduled survey, mainly Sowerby’s Beaked Whale, Fin Whale and Harbour Porpoise. The Marine Reptile “Leatherback Sea Turtle” may potentially also be expected to be within the study area, and is an “Endangered Species”. The marine bird, “Ivory Gull” an “Endangered Species” is potentially within the study area. Special care must be taken in the start up meeting onboard the seismic vessel to inform crew and marine mammal observers of the potential that these species may be encountered and the use of “The Canadian Statement of Practice with respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment “ , JNNC Guidelines for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Surveys an established operating procedure for Geophysical contractors will mitigate underwater noise impacts to cetaceans, pinnipeds and fish species.
Upon completion of this EA, it has been determined that the lines running through “Sensitive Areas” will be cut back to stay out of these areas, as shown in (Figure 43) Contractors should have in place Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans (SOPEP) to combat any spills and ensure adequate training for all crew members. For port spills Port Oil Contingency Plan must be adhered to.
It must be ensured that waste segregation, handling and disposal are carried out in line with existing company and contractor environmental policies and standards. Any hazardous wastes produced throughout the course of operations should be disposed of with great care and in conformity with environmental aims, objectives, and Canada legislation.
The environmental performance of any project is dependent largely on the commitment of the contractors involved. MKI need to employ best practice in pollution prevention
.
programmes to effectively protect the environment. They must also ensure that contractors employ best environmental practice in their waste disposal programmes and spill contingency planning.
To this end, an Operational Project Plan incorporating the measures specified in the Environmental Protection Plan will be implemented to ensure operations are completed in full compliance of the company's stated environmental aims and objectives. This will facilitate the final planning, implementation, and follow-up activities associated with the operations.
MKI representatives need to monitor contractors and measure their practices through active programmes that are reviewed at regular intervals. This will help ensure that operations are carried out in an environmentally acceptable manner.
.
1. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and based on the information presented in the project description “Project Description for 2D Marine Seismic Survey Offshore North-eastern Coast of Canada” (MKI December 2010), the C- NLOPB has determined that a screening level of environmental assessment is required for the proposed offshore seismic program. This document is a screening level environmental assessment (EA) as defined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) for a multi-year seismic program (2011-2015) proposed for the Labrador Shelf by MKI.
Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd. (Sikumiut) was engaged by RPS Energy (Canadian Lead Consultancy for the Operator) to carry out a consultation program in support of the Environmental Assessment for a proposed Seismic Project to be conducted on the Labrador Offshore Shelf in 2011. Contacts were made with 105 stakeholders in communities on the north coast of Labrador from Nain to Rigolet; the upper Lake Melville towns of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River and Sheshatshiu; and the south coast communities from Cartwright to Mary’s Harbour. Some non-residents with business interests in coastal Labrador were also consulted.
An Information package was distributed to 105 stakeholders and follow-up contacts wer e made to each individual. A total of 13 of the stakeholders provided an immediate response by e-mail and an intense effort was made by Sikumiut staff to contact the others by telephone. The overall effort resulted in receiving responses and holding discussions with the majority of those contacted.
Direct meetings with held with the Fish Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW) and One Ocean and the Chairperson of the Labrador North Coast Fishers’ Committee at their request.
A full report on these consultations can be found in Appendix I. As a result of these consultations it was agreed that in house meetings would be held in the following communities:
The meetings will begin tentatively on April 11 through until April 21, 2011. The meetings will consist of a brief PowerPoint presentation and a question and answer period to address more technical concerns, mitigation measures, and commercial fisheries concerns.
1) Nain, 2) Makkovik 3) Rigolet 4) Port Hope Simpson 5) North West River 6) St. Anthony 7) Goosebay
.
The objective of the proposed project is to determine the presence and likely locations of geological structures within Canadian Arctic offshore acreage, whic h may contain petroleum hydrocarbons. If such locations are identified, more precise (i.e. 3D) surveys may be conducted in future years.
.
1.1 2D MARINE SEISMIC EXPLORATION SURVEY
Figure 1 shows the location of the entire multiyear survey area and Maximum extents of the program area. Fig ur e 2 represents proposed survey lines in the jurisdiction the C- NLOPB, totalling 9600 km. Through the course of the assessment lines were identified in the proposed survey plan which enter sensitive areas and have been modified accordingly, and presented at the conclusion of the EA.(Fig ur e 43).
The proposed 2D Seismic survey is outside the 12 nautical mile limit and does not enter the Labrador Inuit Settlement Zone.
Figure 1. Location of Entire Survey-Further Extents of the Program
.
Figure 2. Location of Proposed Survey Lines
.
2. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND JURISDICTION
Authorizations to Conduct a Geophysical Program will be required from the C-NLOPB. The C-NLOPB is mandated by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act. In addition, offshore geophysical surveys on federal lands are subject to screening under CEAA.
The C-NLOPB will act as the Responsible Authority (RA) under the CEAA and take the lead as the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC). Because seismic survey activities have the potential to affect biota such as seabirds, marine mammals and fish, as well as commercial fisheries, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Environment Canada (EC) are the federal agencies primarily interested and involved as Federal Authorities (FA) under CEAA.
One of the specific guidelines issued by the C-NLOPB, the Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines (May 2008), is directly relevant to this undertaking.
Legislation that is relevant to the environmental aspects of this Project is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Authorizing Agencies Instrument and Legislation A g e n c y Activities Remarks • Canada Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) • Canada Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) • Oceans Act • Fisheries Act • Navigable Waters Act • Canada Shipping Act • Canada- Screening Migratory bird Newfoundland and required pursuant Convention Act Geophysical Labrador Offshore to CEAA. EIA • Species at Risk Act Program Petroleum Board submission (SARA) Authorization • Canada Newfoundland (C-NLOPB) herein. & Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act • Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act
.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TGS proposes to conduct an offshore t wo-dimensional (2D) seismic reflection survey in the Labrador Sea over the next 5 years (2011-2016) Season.
No survey lines will enter the waters of the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area (the Zone) as defined pursuant to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, or within 12 nautical miles of the coast of Labrador.
3.1 PURPOSE
The proposed project is a regional survey designed to provide a better understanding of the offshore geology of Northern Labrador Shelf, and to use this information to introduce new exploration opportunities to the industry. This information will be used to determine the regional extent of geological formations. This program is being used to develop geological concepts and is not the basis of an exploration drilling program, as the survey line spacing is much too coarse for that purpose.
3.2 LOCATION
The proposed survey program covers a specific area offshore Labrador Shelf. All lines within the CNLOPB jurisdiction and are outside the Canada 12 mile nautical limit. The lines do not enter the Labrador Settlement Zone.
3.3 SITE HISTORY
Interest in oil and gas offshore Labrador dates back to the late-1960s. At that time, several companies were given exploration permits for the Labrador Shelf area. Drilling in the area started in 1971 and continued until 1983. During that period 28 wells were drilled. This early drilling proved the presence of 4.2 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of re-coverable natural gas in five separate wells. The focus of exploration in the 1970s and 1980s was on oil. With the major finds at the time being gas, no development or further drilling has occurred in the area since 1983. However, the increasing demand for clean energy in the Eastern US and Canada creates impetus for a new cycle of exploration drilling for gas resources in Labrador.
3.4 SCHEDULE
The proposed survey season is mid June through mid November 2011, depending on the location, weather conditions, and vessel availability. Based on previous work in Labrador weather usually allows productive recording until approximately mid October. it is expected that work might be able to continue as late in the year as November. The proposed survey lines (Figure 2) represent the proposed program for 2011. Infill lines will be acquired in subsequent seasons.
Although the proposed survey vessel is an ice-class vessel (1A1 Ice C) data will not be acquired in areas of pack ice. The survey data will be acquired such that ice-free areas are surveyed first (i.e. the southern portion of the survey area) then, as the season
.
progresses, the vessel will move north. This will also serve to maximize the distance between known marine mammal areas and the survey vessel.
It is possible that there may be transects in pack ice waters; however, the sound source will not be active during these periods and the vessel will merely be transiting through. Marine mammal observations (described further in this document) will still be made during these transects, which will serve to enhance the database of observations that will be obtained during the project. Due to the seasonal nature of offshore marine conditions, it is hoped that work will also take place in future years, as the area is mapped. For any work beyond that described in this document, separate applications will be provided to ensure that any future work is fully documented and any project-specific considerations made.
3.4.1 Operating Schedule
The vessel will be at sea and operate continuously (i.e. 24-hour operations) during survey operations. Seismic vessels typically operate on a 5/6-week crew change schedule, which will be maintained for this project. Crew changes will be made via port call.
3.5 OFFSHORE SEISMIC SURVEY
The following is an introduction to seismic surveying.
“A marine seismic survey is a method of determining geological features below the seafloor, by sending acoustic sound waves into the various buried rock layers beneath the seafloor and then recording the time it takes for each wave to bounce back as well as measuring the strength of each returning wave. It is the most reliable form of initial exploration for oil and gas and is essential in identifying geological features that may contain oil or gas deposits.
Seismic surveys generally take place over a few weeks in a given area. Once geophysicists have studied the subsurface “picture”, they may ask for some parts of the area to be surveyed again to provide greater detail. This extra data helps them to map potential prospects more accurately and to decide the best place to drill exploration wells. Shallow seabed surveys can also be used to detect changes in the sub-surface rock layers that may present a safety hazard during drilling operations.”(APPEA 2004)
A marine seismic survey is conducted using purpose-built ships, towing a number of air guns as the acoustic energy source at depths of 6-10 metres below the sea surface. The sound (or seismic) waves are generated by the rapid release of compressed air from an underwater piston. These seismic waves are directed down t o war d the seabed. They are reflected back to the surface by the layers of different rock types under the seafloor. The returning sound waves are detected and recorded by hydrophones that are spaced out along “streamers” that are typically 6 – 10 km in length, towed behind the survey vessel (Figure 3). For regional surveys (often referred to as 2D surveys) the seismic vessel sails up and down gridlines which can be 5 to 100 km apart. (In the case of the current project the line spacing is ranges from 120km-120km.
Seismic waves travel through different rock types at different speeds, so it is possible to calculate the depth and the shape of the rock layers by measurements such as the t wo- way travel time taken for the reflected seismic waves to reach the hydrophones and the
.
strength of each returning wave. In 2D surveys the resultant picture is a general view because the cross sections are far apart.
As further background on marine seismic surveys, Appendix A contains the International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) overview document Marine Seismic Operations – an Overview, which provides a thorough introduction to all aspects of marine seismic operations, including the underlying principles of seismic data acquisition, methodology, and equipment. This document is also available on the Canadian Association of Geophysical Contractors (CAGC) website (IAGC, 2002). The reader is also referred to Seismic and the Marine Environment (APPEA, 2004).
Figure 3. Seismic Acquisition using Seismic Reflection Method (Sikumiut 2008)
A 2D marine seismic survey will be conducted within the proposed project areas. The field acquisition program will consist of the following four activities: • Mobilization to the survey area • Deployment and calibration of the seismic gear • Data acquisition, and • Seismic gear retrieval and demobilization.
.
3.6 SOUND AND SEA LIFE
One of the purposes of this EIA is to address the affects the acoustic energy source has on sea life. In Appendix B is an IAGC document, entitled Airgun Arrays and Marine Mammals, which provides a very detailed technical description of the seismic source signals generated during a marine seismic survey, a brief description of the auditory processes of marine mammals, and an analysis of how the two may interact. This document is also available on the CAGC website (IAGC, 2002):
https://www.cagc.ca/index.html?DISPLAY=studies_arrays
A collection of recent publications on the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals gives a science-based interpretation of available data regarding these affects (Southall et al., 2007). These papers attempt to recommend noise exposure criteria for mitigating behavioural disturbances and injuries using the most current information. The proposed injury criteria for individual marine mammals exposed to multiple pulses is given in Table 2. Table 2. Proposed Injury Criteria for Individual Marine Mammals Exposed to Noise Events Marine Mammal Multiple Pulse Low-Frequency Cetaceans Sound Pressure Level 230 dB re 1 µPa (peak) (flat) Sound Exposure Level 198 dB re 1 µPa2-s (Mlf) Mid-Frequency Cetaceans Sound Pressure Level 230 dB re 1 µPa (peak) (flat) Sound Exposure Level 198 dB re 1 µPa2-s (Mmf) High-Frequency Cetaceans Sound Pressure Level 230 dB re 1 µPa (peak) (flat) Sound Exposure Level 198 dB re 1 µPa2-s (Mhf) Pinnipeds (in water) Sound Pressure Level 218 dB re 1 µPa (peak) (flat) Sound Exposure Level 186 dB re 1 µPa2-s ( M p w ) Pinnipeds (in air) Sound Pressure Level 149 dB re 20 µPa (peak) (flat) Sound Exposure Level 144 dB re (20 µPa)2-s (Mpa) Note: Proposed injury criteria are for individual marine mammals exposed to multiple pulse noise events within a 24-hour period.
.
Table 3 summarizes the regional Cetacean acoustic Characteristics for the project area.
Table 3. Regional Cetacean Acoustic Characteristics
Inherent in seismic operations is a “Safety Zone” for which is defined in the “Statement of Canadian Statement of Practice for the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment”. The Operator must establish a safety zone which is a circle with a radius of at least 500 metres as measured from the centre of the air source array(s); and for all times the safety zone is visible, a qualified Marine Mammal Observer must continuously observe the safety zone for a minimum period of 30 minutes prior to the start up of the air source array(s), and maintain a regular watch of the safety zone at all other times if the proposed seismic survey is of a power that it would meet a threshold requirement for an assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, regardless of whether the Act applies.
The calculations in Figure 4 and Figure 5 below, help to demonstrate how the sound level falls off very rapidly with distance from the array.
They show examples of the interpolated single shot weighted response for low frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectfully at a receiver depth of 10m. The individual contour plots for the single pulse injury criteria (Southhall et. Al., 2007) of 198 db re 1uPa²s and of 186 dB re 1uPa²s for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively are given surrounding the array location (Lepper, 2011).
.
Sound spreads out and attenuates with distance from the source. The standard reference for sound pressure level from arrays is derived from the far field signature. Typical airgun arrays have theoretical output of approximately 220 dB re 1µPa at 1 metre
Figure 4. Broadband Mweighted Low Frequency Cetacean
.
Figure 5. Broadband Mweighted Pinniped
The behavioural disturbance criteria are far more complex and not easily quantified. Southall et al. (2007) state that the behavioural reactions are context-dependent and less predictable than the physiological effects. In addition, there is a lack of comparable data for cetaceans other than bowhead, grey, and humpback whales. There are no data for some species, such as narwhal (which may frequent the study area), for the multiple pulse noise class which seismic surveys include.
Belugas show a range of responses to airgun sounds from 100-150 dB re 1 μPa received, with significant responses limited to the 120-150 dB range. For bowheads, it appears that during migration the responses to an airgun sound from 120-180 dB re 1 μPa (RMS over pulse duration) may result in a wide scope of reactions ranging from simple curiosity to a significant response (Southall et al., 2007). When feeding, however, they may display active avoidance at received sound levels only exceeding 140 dB re 1 μPa.
Other cetaceans with low frequency hearing abilities appear to be much more tolerant than migrating bowheads in their behavioural response to seismic generated sound exposure, having the onset of significant disturbance at received sound levels in the range of 140 to 180 dB re 1 μPa (Southall et al., 2007).
Pinnipeds (more commonly known as seals and sea lions) show minimal responses at any sound level attributed to airgun arrays (Southall et al. 2007). Pinnipeds in water only
.
displayed significant responses to received sound levels of 160-200 dB re 1 μPa (Southall et al., 2007); however based on survey location interaction with pinnipeds seems unlikely.
Sound Source Discussion:
As mentioned above, sound spreads out and attenuates with distance from the source. The standard reference for sound pressure level from arrays is derived from the far field signature. Typical airgun arrays have theoretical output of approximately 220 dB re 1µPa at 1 metre.
Note that the sound pressure level is quoted in geophysical literature at a standard distance of 1 metre from the centre of the source, and this is a theoretical maximum value that is never actually reached. As discussed in a recent study on acoustic modelling of seismic survey noise offshore British Columbia (MacGillivray and Chapman, 2005), the high values of primary peak pressure quoted from far field signatures can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the impact on marine mammals and fish because the peak source levels of the seismic signature quoted by the geophysicists are relative to the vertical direction only. However, due to the intrinsic directionality of seismic arrays, the levels of the radiated sound off to the sides are much lower.
The values quoted are calculated from the far field signatures, which are then back- calculated to a standard 1 metre from the source for comparison between arrays. In reality these values are much higher than actually experienced because in the near field (close to the array) the individual guns do not sum coherently and thus the sound levels in the near field are in fact lower than what is calculated from the far field signature.
Another measure of sound is the Sound Exposure Level (SEL), which is the total noise energy produced from a single noise event. The SEL is a measurement used to describe the amount of noise from an event such as an individual aircraft flyover or airgun discharge. The SEL is the integration of all the acoustic energy contained within the event. SEL units are dB re (1 µPa)2 s, and the SEL value for a given airgun pulse, in those units, is typically 10 to 15 dB less than the RMS level for the same pulse (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al., 1998, 2000a, and 2000b), with considerable variability (Madsen et al., 2006).
3.6.1 Effects of Noise
The possible effects of offshore oil and gas activities on marine mammals and sea turtles can vary from none to severe. Most effects can be divided into the following three categories:
• masking; • behavioural disturbance; and • Hearing impairment and other physical effects.
Masking Underwater ambient sound may prevent an animal from detecting another sound through a process known as masking. Masking can occur because of either natural sounds (e.g., periods of strong winds or heavy rainfall) or anthropogenic sounds (e.g., ship propeller sound). The sea is a naturally noisy environment and even in the absence of
.
anthropogenic sounds, this natural sound can “drown out” or mask weak signals from distant sources. Marine mammals are highly dependent on sound for communicating, detecting predators, locating prey and, in toothed whales, echolocation (Lawson et al. 2000, in LGL Limited 2005b). Natural ambient noise created by wind, waves, ice and precipitation alone can cause masking or interfere with an animal’s ability to detect a sound. Marine animals themselves also contribute to the level of natural ambient noise. The calls of a blue whale have been recorded for 600 km (Stafford et al. 1998). A sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) call can be as loud as 232 dB re 1μPa at 1 m (rms) (Mǿhl et al.2003) and a species of shrimp has been recorded at 185 to 188 dB re 1μPa at 1 m (Au and Banks 1998). In areas where natural background noise is relatively high, such as near a shelf break or high surf, anthropogenic noise itself can be masked and reduce the area in which it is detectable. Anthropogenic noise is undetectable for marine mammals once it falls below the ambient noise level or the hearing threshold of the animal. Given this and the fact that mammal responses will vary by species and between individuals, the zone of potential influence of noise on marine mammals is highly variable.
Marine mammals have evolved in an environment that contains a variety of natural sounds. As such, marine mammals have evolved systems and behaviour to reduce the impacts of masking (NRC 2003b). Since little is known about the importance of how a temporary interruption in sound detection affects mammals (Richardson and M a l m e 1995), it is very difficult to assess the effect. In general, the effect of both natural and anthropogenic noise is less severe when it is intermittent rather than continuous (NRC2003b). The level of masking may be considerably reduced if the anthropogenic noise originates from a direction different from that of the mammal vocalization (NRC 2003b).
While marine mammals may adapt behaviour changes to reduce masking, the physiological costs associated with the behavioural changes cannot be estimated at this time (NRC 2003b). The low frequency spectrum of industrial noise does not typically overlap with the optimal hearing range of belugas, dolphins, or pilot whales. However, industrial noise frequencies do overlap with the sounds of baleen whales and will reduce the area of audible sound for the whale. The impact of such a reduction is unknown (NRC 2003b). Toothed whales have demonstrated the ability to alter their call frequencies and increase the level of transmission when competing with ambient noise (NRC 2003b). Masking effects from seismic surveys are unlikely to be notable. LGL Limited (2005b) reports that some marine mammals continue calling in the presence of seismic operations, which typically emit a pulse every 15 seconds. It has been postulated that an increase in interval time will enable mammals to receive communications that persist through the survey operation, as reported during other surveys (McDonald et al. 1995, ; Greene and McLennan 2000, ; Madsen et al. 2002, ; Jochens and Biggs 2003). However, other factors may limit the potential effectiveness of increased interval time to mitigate concerns regarding interruptions to marine mammal communications because of seismic activities.
Behavioural Disturbance Behavioural disturbances observed in marine mammals have included avoidance, deviation from normal migration routes, interruption of feeding, reduced surface intervals, reduced dive duration, and lower numbers of blows (Ljungblad et al. 1988; Richardson and Malme 1993; McDonald et al. 1995; Richardson et al. 1995, 1999; Greene and McLennan 2000; McCauley et al. 2000a, 2000b; Madsen et al. 2002; Jochens and Biggs
.
2003; Gordon et al. 2004; LGL Limited 2005b). Noise may displace an animal or restrict access to critical habitats.
Hearing Impairment and Other Effects Extended periods of moderate noise levels under water can cause a temporary threshold shift (TTS) in some marine mammals, resulting in a reduction in hearing sensitivity and a small degree of permanent loss (Kastak et al. 2005). At TTS exposure levels, hearing sensitivity is generally restored quickly after the sound dissipates. Noises of greater intensity may result in a permanent threshold shift (PTS), in which hearing loss is not recovered (Finneran et al. 2002). A PTS may be a symptom of physical damage and may alter the functional hearing sensitivity at some or all frequencies. Although there are no data to quantify sound levels required to cause a PTS, it is believed that a source level would have to far exceed the level required for a TTS, the exposure would have to be prolonged, or the rise level would be extremely short (LGL Limited 2005b). Richardson et al. (1995) hypothesized that permanent hearing impairment of marine mammals would not likely occur unless prolonged exposure to continuous anthropogenic sounds exceeding 200 dB re 1 μPa-m was experienced.
Research has shown that marine mammals exposed to intense sounds may exhibit decreased hearing sensitivities (TTS) following cessation of the sound (Au et al. 1999; Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000). TTS have been observed in captive marine mammals exposed to pulsed sounds in experimental conditions (Finneran et al. 2002), but the likelihood of these effects occurring have not been evaluated under field operating conditions. There is currently no agreement as to what level of TTS and time to recovery would present unacceptable risk to a marine mammal. NMFS policy is under review and currently states that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsive sounds exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively (NMFS 2000). Criteria can be established for zones of influence based on ambient sound levels, absolute hearing thresholds of the species of interest, slight changes in behaviour of the species of interest (including habituation), stronger disturbance effects (e.g., avoidance), temporary hearing impairment and permanent hearing or other physical damage, re 5.3 (Lawson et al. 2000, in LGL Limited 2005b).
Exposure to high-intensity pulsed sound such as explosions can cause other, non- auditory physical effects such as stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects and other types of organ or tissue damage (NRC 2003b; LGL Limited 2005b). Little is known about the potential for the sounds produced during geophysical surveys to cause auditory threshold shifts or other effects in marine mammals and turtles. Data suggest that if these effects do occur, they would only occur in close proximity to the sound sources. Thus, species that show behavioural avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some toothed whales and some pinnipeds, would not likely experience threshold shifts or other physical effects (LGL Limited 2005b).
Baleen whales predominantly communicate using low frequency sounds (generally between 4 Hz and 25 kHz (Richardson and Malme 1995)) that can propagate for long distances. These sounds range in duration from 50 millisecond thumps produced by minke whales (Winn and Perkins 1976; Thompson et al. 1979) to moans produced by blue whales, which can have durations up to 36 seconds (Cummings and Thompson 1971). Acoustic energy in the sound pulses produced by seismic airguns and sub-bottom
.
profilers overlap with frequencies used by baleen whales, but the discontinuous, short duration nature of these pulses is expected to result in limited masking of baleen whale calls. Side-scan sonar and echo-sounder signals do not overlap with the predominant frequencies of baleen whale calls. Several species of baleen whales have been observed to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, including bowhead whale, blue whales and fin whales (McDonald et al. 1995).
Behavioural reactions to acoustic exposure are generally more variable, context- dependent, and less predictable than effects of noise exposure on hearing or physiology. Animals detecting one kind of signal may simply orient to hear it, whereas they might panic and flee for many hours upon hearing a different sound, potentially even one that is quieter, but with some particular significance to the animal. The conservation of cochlear properties across mammals justifies judicious application of auditory data from terrestrial mammals where data on marine mammals are missing. However, the context-specificity of behavioural responses in animals generally makes extrapolation of behavioural data inappropriate. Assessing the severity of behavioural disturbance must consequently rely more on empirical studies with carefully controlled acoustic, contextual, and response variables than on extrapolations based on shared phylogeny or morphology. (Southall et al 2007).
3.7 SEISMIC EQUIPMENT
3.7.1 Survey Vessel
The program is proposed to be conducted with a dedicated seismic research vessel, the M/V Sanco Spirit, which was purpose built in 2009 (Appendix C). The vessel will have equipment, systems, and protocols in place for prevention of pollution by oil, sewage, and garbage in accordance with international standards and certification authorities, specifically the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Act (ASPPA) and Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASPPR). These regulations require that the survey vessel possess an Arctic Pollution Prevention Certificate. The vessel will be subject to pre-survey audits by the operator in the port of mobilization prior to survey commencement. Transport Canada will conduct a Safety Inspection of the vessel in accordance with the issuing of the Coasting Trade License to operate in Canada.
The survey vessel will comply with all applicable regulations concerning management of waste and discharges of materials into the marine environment. The vessel has a ballast water management plan. The International Maritime Organization (IMO; http://www.imo.org/) is the United Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships. Canada became a member of the IMO in 1948.
Figure 6. Survey Vessel Sanco Spirit
3.7.2 Support Vessels
The primary functions of support boats are to provide supplies for the seismic vessel and to assist in emergency situations (including oil spills). At least one support vessel will be utilized for the duration of the proposed seismic survey.
Seismic vessels are recognized as having restricted manoeuvrability and, in this respect, under marine sailing directions, they have priority over vessels that are not similarly restricted. In areas where poor charting, or the presence of other vessels, may pose a potential problem to the survey operation, the support boats will ensure that other vessels do not cross over, or otherwise interfere with, the towed equipment. The support boats may also check that the way ahead of the survey vessel is clear of obstructions, such as uncharted shallow water and fishing equipment. The seismic vessel or the support vessel carries a Fisheries Liaison Officer to make communication with the fisheries in order to ensure that seismic activity does not interfere with the fishermen.
3.7.3 Energy Source
The seismic air guns are Sercel – G Gun 2. The guns have a working pressure of 2000 psi and the typical array is a Single Source array made up of 6 sub-arrays. The Energy Source proposed for the program is shown below in Table 4
Table 4. Energy Source Manufacturer and type Sercel – G Gun 2 Effective volume of standard array(s) 3111 ci Maximum number of sub-arrays 6 Standard array depth(s) 7 M Position of depth transducers Front and tail of sub-array Working pressure 2000 psi Type of firing sensors Pressure activated Position of firing sensors Mounted directly on the gun. Type of firing synchroniser unit RTS BigShot Timing resolution 0.1ms ms Timing accuracy +/- 1.0ms Position of near field phones 1 mounted on each gun hang frame. Air compressors capacity Neuman & Esser, 2200 cfm each Number of air compressors 2
3.7.4 Streamer
The vessel utilizes the PGS GeoStreamer®. Solid streamers are less sensitive to weather related noise than liquid streamers and further minimize the environmental impact of fluid loss from breaks or tears in conventional fluid filled streamers.
Table 5. PGS GeoStreamer® Manufacture and type PGS GeoStreamer® Solid Skin material Polyurethane Outside diameter 62mm cm Length of each group 12.5m m Streamer set-up Typical 1 x 10050m Manufacture and type of hydrophones Hydrophones: Teledyne T-2BX or equivalent, Velocity Sensors: PGS confidential (Mark III) Type of array (e.g. linear, binomial) Linear Number of hydrophones per group/distance Hydrophones: 12 per 12.5m, Velocity apart Sensors: PGS confidential Coupling between phones and pre-amp Capacitive Sensitivity of near group at 1/P to recorder 20V/Bar Sensitivity of far group at 1/P to recorder 20V/Bar Bandwidth over which above sensitivities apply Specified at 100Hz Availability of shore-side spares if required Pool system Manufacturer and type of depth controller ION DigiCourse 5011 Manufacturer and type of compass ION DigiCourse 5011
Table 6. Recording System Manufacturer, Acquisition System: GPS GeoStreamer type 24 bit, Recording system: PGS gAS Number of seismic and auxiliary Typical 1 X 804 +48 channels Format(s) available SEG-D revision 1.0 and 2.1 Tape drives IBM 3592 Sample rates 1ms, 2ms, 4ms High cut filter 428Hz, 214 Hz, 107Hz @341 DB/oct Low cut filter Hydrophones: 3.04Hz @ 7.5dB/oct 4.4Hz @ 12dB/oct, Velocity Sensors PGS Confidential Auxiliary Channels allocation Recorded as separate streamer or appended to streamer 1 Telemetry systems array forming Optional capabilities
3.8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to survey method:
No method for surveying deep marine geology has been developed that is more accurate, time efficient, or has fewer environmental impacts than the use of a towed airgun array and hydrophones contained in a long streamer. Prior to the development of airguns, dynamite was used for marine seismic surveying, but that survey method was abandoned over 30 years ago by the exploration industry and marine geological research community.
Alternatives to survey parameters:
The main survey parameters such as line position, line length, line spacing, shot-point interval, and streamer length are determined by geophysicists considering the objectives of the survey. With regard to location, proposed survey lines are carefully selected based on a current understanding of the geological conditions of the study area and are intended to test geological concepts at those specific locations. The survey lines tie into the grid established offshore Greenland where exploration is also taking place.
Parameters such as airgun array and streamer tow depths may be adjusted at the start of the survey to optimize data quality. Gun types, array configurations, and streamer type are limited to what equipment is available on the vessel and, therefore, cannot be easily changed.
Alternatives to program timing:
Specific timing of the program will depend on a variety of factors, including ice conditions, weather conditions, timing, and sensitivities associated with biological and socio-economic constraints. For example, mitigation options to minimize potential impacts can potentially include modification of the operations schedule within specific areas, and the survey plan has been developed on this basis.
Because there are no viable alternatives that can be genuinely considered from an environmental viewpoint (as described above), the two alternatives may simply be proceeding or not proceeding (i.e. no-go alternative).
No-go alternative
In the case that the project does not proceed, the mitigated impacts of seismic operations on the environment will of course not occur, however, the environment will not necessarily maintain its current baseline condition as impacts from fishing and vessel activity (i.e. ice breakers, cargo vessels, cruise ships, and other research vessels), waste materials, sedimentation, fall-out of atmospheric pollutants, discharge of ballast waters, etc. will still take place.
The 'no-go alternative' would also mean that the renewed interest in exploration in this area would cease, or at least be significantly set back, as geologists would not have the information required to map the sub-surface in this area. This would consequently mean
that the potential to assess the hydrocarbon potential of this area would not proceed, along with the assessment of opportunity for further subsurface exploration and drilling programs. Ultimately, the project not proceeding in this case would effectively preclude the potential to evaluate the area’s offshore hydrocarbon resources. This would result in the removal of future potential business, royalty, and tax revenue sources and the data would not exist for future knowledge and research.
It would also lead to significant reduction in direct employment opportunities on the vessel and the opportunity to collect biological observation information.
4. PHYSICAL SETTING
4.1 CLIMATE
Winters in Labrador are very cold, with typical daytime temperatures for January between -10 and -15°C, colder than Newfoundland and more like the frigidity of the southern Prairies. An occasional incursion of Atlantic air will warm up the winter.
The summer season is brief and cool along the coast because of the cold Labrador Current. July average temperatures are from 8 to 10°C along the coast but are 3 to 5°C warmer in the interior. The pleasantness of the summer day along the coast is often determined by wind direction - westerly winds bring clear, mild continental air, whereas easterlies, blowing off the Labrador Current, bring cold, cloudy, and moist weather.
The Labrador Sea is frequented by floating pack ice and icebergs for eight months of the year. The masses of ice keep sea temperatures below 4°C. An east wind off the Labrador Current is a cool wind in summer, often with light rain or drizzle in winter, when the Atlantic air is relatively mild, the accompanying weather includes cloud and frequent snow flurries. Whenever easterly winds bring very moist air from the Atlantic, widespread fog occurs.
Precipitation is heaviest in the south and decreases northwards. On the whole it is much lighter than in Newfoundland, although amounts can vary considerably from year to year. Southern Labrador is not unlike the moist northern shores of Newfoundland, with 1000 mm, as a typical yearly falls of precipitation. About 45% of this occurs as snow. Over much of Labrador 800 mm is a more typical amount, with about half of it being snow. In summer, rainfall is quite consistent, with seasonal totals seldom less than 175 mm in the north and 275 mm in the south.
Snowfall is heavy, with Churchill Falls in the interior having 481 cm, making it one of the snowiest places in Canada. Goose Bay has a mean snowfall of 445 cm. In the south, Cartwright averages 440 cm, and in the north Nain is typical with 424 cm. The ground is snow-covered for eight months in the far north and for six months in the south.
Sea surface temperatures in the Labrador Shelf Area remain relatively sea surface temperatures in the Labrador Shelf Area remain relatively cold in the north (typically -2°C to 0°C) throughout the year. South of 55°N temperatures range from approximately 0°C during the winter months to approximately 10°C during summer. Salinity hovers around 30 psu (practical salinity units) inshore and over the banks during spring and summer, and increases to greater than 35 psu at the edge of the Labrador Shelf. During fall and winter, it tends to increase to approximately 33 psu inshore and remains fairly constant at approximately 35 to 36 psu over the edge of the shelf.
4.2 OCEANOGRAPHY
The Labrador Current, one of the largest movements of cold water in the North Atlantic, governs the primary circulation within the region (Canning and Pitt 2006). One branch of this current hugs the coastline, while another moves along the edge of the continental shelf. In the spring, the freshwater runoff originating from Hudson Bay and the rivers of Labrador influences the general characteristics of the water in the Labrador Current.
Here, the Labrador Current consists of three layers. The surface layer, to a depth of about 40 m, varies greatly in temperature and salinity with the seasons. During winter the extent and the duration of ice coverage may change both the salinity and the temperature of this layer each year (DFO 2005c). The Cold Intermediate Layer (CIL) covers a depth of 150-200m. Its temperature may vary several degrees due to movements of the water masses and mixing with the surface layer in winter. As a result, a cold winter may reduce the temperature in the CIL. The bottom layer is warmer and more saline than the upper layer (Canning and Pitt 2002, Hendry 2007, MRAG 1998). The Labrador and Nova Scotia currents have been identified by Canning and Pitt (2002) as individual features of an interconnected coastal current system that extends over 5,000 km and represents the largest known coastal current system in the world.
Figure 7. Ocean Currents in the Labrador Sea (Sikumiut 2008)
4.3 SEA CONDITIONS
Sea surface temperatures in the Labrador Shelf remain relatively cold in the north and range from an average of 0°C during the winter months to an average of 10°C during summer.
Extreme wave heights range from 9.63 m on a 10-Year significant wave height to 12.36 m on a 100-Year significant wave height. Extreme wind speeds range from 25.40 meters/second to 31.02 meters/second on a 10 year and 100 year basis.
4.4 BATHYMETRY
Water depths within the Project Activity Area range from about > 300 m up to 3000 m. A coarse scale bathymetry map can be found in Figure 8
Figure 8. Regional Bathymetry
4.5 ICE CONDITIONS
The average start of the ice season offshore Labrador ranges from mid-November in the north, to December in the south. Ice growth typically continues until late spring, when the pack ice begins to melt and dissipate through the month of July. The ice season ends, on average, by late-June/early-July in the south but extends until late-July/early-August in coastal and northern regions; however icebergs can be present in all seasons. The average annual pack ice concentration in the vicinity of the banks is 3/10 to 4/10, decreasing with distance from shore.
This observation includes all conditions (including areas designated as open water and ice-free). When ice is present, the mean annual concentration varies from 3/10 to 9/10 over the entire Labrador Shelf Area. Multi-year ice concentration displays a high degree of variability; occasionally occurring in small areas at concentrations of 2/10. It tends to appear in trace amounts within the overall pack throughout most of the season.
4.6 GEOLOGY
The seabed and near-seabed material of the Labrador Shelf Area is a combination of bedrock, till and marine sediments. The Labrador Shelf Area has a moderate risk for earthquake hazard.
The Labrador shelf is approximately 150 km wide, with water depths of less than 70 m, within 2 km of shore. Deep saddles run in a northeast-south west direction and there are separate shallow offshore banks with water depths less than 200m. The banks extend to the edge of the shelf that rapidly drops off to depths greater than 3000m. The Labrador Shelf can be divided into four distinct regions: the coastal embayment, a shallow rough inner shelf, a marginal trough; and a smooth, shallow outer shelf consisting of banks and intervening saddles.
5. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
5.1 P HYTOPLANKTON
The seasonal cycle of phytoplankton production within the Labrador Sea is characterized by two peaks in production: one in the spring (April/May), the other in late fall and early winter (October/January). Pepin et al. (2003) noted a peak in surface chlorophyll concentration in late May and early June on the northern Labrador Shelf (Table 17Table 16. In general, phytoplankton concentrations tend to be higher during the summer along the Labrador Coast relative to the shelf coast of Newfoundland (Canning and Pitt, 2003, 2005, 2006). A list of phytoplankton species found in the survey area is presented in Appendix D.
Figure 9. MODIS bi-weekly composite images of surface chlorophyll a concentrations in the NW Atlantic region during AZMP seasonal surveys in 2006 (Pepin et. al 2007)
5.2 ZOOPLANKTON
Head et al. (2000) have investigated the ecology of the major zooplankton species, (Calanus spp.) in the Labrador Sea. Concentrations, abundance, and egg distribution of Calanus finmarchicus populations were made in the Labrador Sea and south Greenland. In the Labrador Sea, the annual growing season is relatively short and C. finmarchicus only produces one generation per year, with the timing of the spring phytoplankton bloom having a significant impact on recruitment of next years generation. More recently, Head et al. (2003) have studied the distribution of Calanus spp. in the Labrador Sea, and Dalley et al. (2001) have traced decadal changes in zooplankton on the Newfoundland Shelf and Grand Banks.
A list of zooplankton species collected from the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey is presented in Appendix E.
5.3 MARINE BENTHOS
The benthic communities in the deep waters off the Labrador Shelf (> 1500 m) have not been investigated for species, their distribution, abundance, and related community structure. It is highly likely that the soft bottom benthic community will be dominated by macrobenthos such as brittle stars and infaunal bivalves and polychaetes. There are no benthic species that are actively fished in the deep waters of the survey area that range from 2500 to 3500 + m.
5.4 SNOW CRAB AND SHRIMP
Northern or pink shrimp (Pandalus borealis) distributions in the Northwest Atlantic range from the Davis Strait to the Gulf of Maine. This is discussed in section 6.1.1.
Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) occurs over broad depths in the Northwest Atlantic, from Greenland to the Gulf of Maine. This is discussed in section 6.2.1.
5.5 SOFT CORALS
Soft Corals also occur in the region there is no published evidence (to our knowledge) that corals are evenly remotely affected by seismic survey methods since these organisms to not pocess swim bladders or other gas filled organelles.
Figure 10. Coral Distribution off Northern Labrador (CNSOPB 2008)
Figure 11. Density of Corals along the Labrador coast (Edinger et al. 2007)
5.6 MARINE FISH
Common finfish species to the Labrador Sea region are listed in Table 7. In general, the distribution of commercial species is restricted to the continental shelf and bank areas off the Labrador coast. Some Atlantic Cod, Redfish, and American Plaice, among others are harvested commercially
Table 7. Common Finfish Species of the Labrador Sea Region Commercial and Non-commercial (Canning and Pitt 2002, 2003, DFO 2005b, Kulka et al. 2004, NAFO 2007 website, C-NLOPB 2008)
American Eel Redfish
American Plaice Roughhead Grenadier
Angler Fish Roundhead Grenadier
Atlantic Cod Roundnose Grenadier
Atlantic Mackerel Sculpins
Atlantic Wolffish Turbot
Capelin White Hake
Cusk Winter Flounder
Haddock Witch Flounder
Herring Witch Flounder
Lumpfish Yellowtail Flounder
Northern Wolffish
Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), commonly known as turbot, is a deep-water flatfish preferring temperatures of 0°C to 4.5°C (FAO 2007b). In the Northwest Atlantic, their range extends from Greenland to the Scotian Shelf and most are taken from depths greater than 450 m. Their depth range is from 90 to 1,600 m, with larger individuals occurring in deeper waters. Unlike most flatfishes, the Greenland halibut spends much of its time off the bottom, behaving as a pelagic fish (Scott and Scott 1988).
The spawning grounds of Greenland halibut (Boje 2002) are believed to be located southwest of Iceland (Sigurdsson 1979) and cover an extended area from Davis Strait, south of 67°N (Jensen 1935; Smidt 1969) to south of Flemish Pass off Newfoundland (Junquera and Zamarro 1994) between 800 and 2,000 m depths. Studies on the maturation and spawning of Greenland halibut have revealed a great deal of variability with the proportion of adult fish at size and age that maturation and spawning occurs exhibiting a high degree of geographic and temporal variation (Morgan and Bowering
1999). Large sized immature fish are common, fish in spawning condition over most months and fish skipping spawning seasons (Morgan et al. 2001).
The Turbot is by far the most important commercial species to the region (Figure 12) (Bowering 2001 in TGS-NOPEC 2005), Canning and Pitt 2003, 2005, 2006, Hutchings et al. 1993). This species is not unique to the study area and are found elsewhere within the Labrador Sea. Turbot spawn from February to September (Canning and Pitt 2002) and will not be actively reproducing in the deep far offshore when the proposed seismic survey will take place. The proposed survey area is distant from the relatively shallow continental shelf and bank waters where most finfish species are harvested. The commercial finfish resources has been extensively reviewed by Canning and Pitt (2002, 2003, 2005, 2006), C-NLOPB (2008) and will not be discussed here.
Figure 12. Distribution of Turbot (Greenland Halibut 1999) (after Bowering 2001)
5.6.1 Behavioural Effects
Behavioural effects of seismic activity on marine fish may include avoidance behaviour, increased swimming speeds, disruption of reproductive behaviour and alteration of migration routes (McCauley et al. 2000a, 2000b). Noise generated by seismic activity may also cause some species to avoid the zone of influence around the seismic vessel.
Many finfish species display an alarm response of tightening schools, increased swimming speed and moving towards the sea floor at levels between 156 to 168 dB re 1 m (McCauley et al. 2000b). McCauley et al. (2000a) studied the responses of fish contained within a 10 m x 6 m x 3 m cage to a nearby operating airgun. These studies indicated that the effects to fish from nearby airgun operations might include: a startle response (C-turn) to short-range start-up or high level airgun signals. A greater startle response was observed for smaller fish; evidence of alarm responses that were more noticeable for received airgun level above approximately 156 to 161 dB re 1 μPa mean squared pressure; a lessening of severity of startle and alarm responses through time (habituation); • an increased use of the lower portion of cage during airgun operation periods; • the tendency in some trials for faster swimming and formation of tight groups correlating with periods of high airgun levels; a general behavioural response of fish to move to bottom, centre of cage in periods of high airgun exposure (for levels greater than 156 to 161 dB re 1 μPa (rms));• no significant measured stress increases which could be directly attributed to airgun exposure and• evidence of damage to the hearing system of exposed fishes in the form of ablated or damaged hair-cells although an exposure regime required to produce this damage was not established and it is believed such damage would require exposure to high level airgun signals at short range from the source .McCauley et al (2000b) indicated that a level of 156 dB re 1 m can be detectable between 3 and 5 km from a 3-D array (2,678 cubic inches 100 to 120 m of water). As a result, alarm responses could be expected to occur 3 to 5 km from a seismic vessel, with active avoidance behaviour beginning at distances of 1 to 2 km from a source of this level (McCauley et al. 2000b).
Most schools of fish will not show avoidance if they are not in the path of the approaching seismic vessel (Davis et al. 1998). Observed responses of schooled fish indicate that they are quite variable and depend on species, life history stage, current behaviour, time of day, whether the fish have fed and how the sound propagates in a particular setting. Schools that the vessel passes over may show lateral avoidance or tighten and move towards the bottom. Fish moving towards the seabed appears to be a common response to seismic activity (Davis et al. 1998). Seismic activity has also been shown to reduce the density of demersal species several kilometres from the source, in up to 250 m of water (Engås et al. 1996).
Fish sounds are normally generated in the range of 50 to 3,000 Hz. Fish use sound for communication, navigation and sensing of prey and predators. Sound transmission is thought to play an important role. in cod and haddock (Melanogrammus aegtefinus) mating (Engen and Folstad 1999; Hawkins and Amorin 2000). Seismic signals are typically in the range of 10 to 200 Hz (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994) and will therefore overlap slightly with signals produced by fish. However, detecting a signal does not mean the fish will have any measurable reaction to the noise. The hearing ability of fish varies considerably by species, as will the effects of seismic exploration. Variability in
effect may also vary within a species because seismic signals have a more pronounced effect on larger fish than of smaller fish of the same species (Engås et al. 1996).
If a seismic survey overlaps with the presence of migrating fish species (such as redfish and cod), startle responses and temporary changes in swimming direction and speed could be expected, but schooling behaviour is not expected to be affected (Blaxter et al. 1981). Any temporary change in behaviour is not expected to interrupt the natural migration instinct to a spawning or feeding area.
Seismic activity can have a greater spatial effect on the behaviour of fish than on the physiology of fish. Most available literature (Blaxter et al. 1981; Dalen and Raknes 1985; Pearson et al. 1992; McCauley et al. 2000a, 2000b; Davis et al. 1998) seems to indicate that the effects of noise on fish are brief and if the effects are short-lived and outside a critical period, they are expected not to translate into biological or physical effects. It appears that behavioural effects on fish as a result of seismic shooting should result in negligible effects on individuals and populations in most cases.
The potential for interactions during particularly sensitive periods, such as spawning or migration, are a concern. Two proposed seismic surveys near Cape Breton were evaluated (C-NSOPB 2002) and results seemed to indicate that displacement of marine fish is short-term.
5.6.2 Physical Effects
No mass fish kills associated with the operation of airguns have been recorded (Payne 2004). Since fish are likely to be driven away by approaching seismic shots, mortality of adult fish mortality is not expected (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994). Depending on source noise level, water depth and distance of the fish relative to the source, injuries (such as eyes and internal organs) would only occur within a few tens of metres with lesser symptoms such as hearing damage possible out to several hundred metres (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994).
Fish with swim bladders and specialized auditory couplings to the inner ear (e.g. herring) are highly sensitive to sound pressure. Fish with a swim bladder but without a specialized auditory coupling (e.g., cod and redfish) are moderately sensitive, while fish with a reduced or absent swim bladder (e.g., mackerel and flounder) have low sensitivity (Fay 1988). Fay (1988) has developed an approximate threshold for each of these three classifications of hearing sensitivity. The highly sensitive group has a hearing threshold of less than 80 dB re 1μPa3. The moderately sensitive threshold is between 80 and 100 dB re 1μPa and those fish with a low threshold have a sensitivity of greater than 100 dB re 1μPa.
These sensitivity thresholds were derived under quiet laboratory conditions, so thresholds to seismic sound pressure in the ocean are thought to be 40 dB higher due to ambient noise and the start and stop nature of the seismic signal. A comparison of moderately sensitive species such as cod, haddock, pollock and redfish determined a measurable behavioural response in the range of 160 to 188 dB re 1μPa (Turnpenny and Newell 1994). Source levels during seismic surveys are usually in excess of the noise levels that elicit a response in fish, so the area in which fish react to the noise may extend several kilometres in the open ocean. By comparison, underwater ambient noise
in bad weather is in the range of 90 to 100 dB re 1 μPa. As an example, large tankers may have a source noise level of 170 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m.
The expected distance for fish to react to a typical peak source level of 250 to 255 dB re 1 μPa is from 3 to 10 km (Engås et al. 1996). A reaction may simply mean a change in swimming direction. The spatial range of response in fish will vary greatly with changes in the physical environment in which the sounds are emitted. In one environment, fish distribution has been shown to change in an area of 74 km x 74 km (40 x 40 nautical miles (nms)) and 250 to 280 m deep for more than five days after shooting ended, with fish larger than 60 cm being affected to a greater extent than smaller fish (Engåset al. 1996). The potential impact of a spatial response of potentially days in fish during sensitive times is unknown, in part due to data constraints associated with life histories of many species and overall lack of knowledge of seismic effects during sensitive periods for most if not all species.
5.7 MARINE ASSOCIATED BIRDS
There are many species of seabirds and related bird species that can be found associated with the waters off the eastern regions of northern Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador. Not all are breeding populations and some may only frequent the survey area for brief period in the summer. Food, nesting site availability and ice conditions affect seabird distribution locally and seasonally and many variations in the summer habitat and feeding areas will occur each season. A list of seabirds associated with region and areas identified as important to these seabirds is presented below in Table 8 and Table 9 Table 9, respectively and is adapted from various sources (Canning and Pitt 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006; Huettmann and Diamond 2000, C-NLOPB 2008, Montevecchi and Stenhouse 2002 among others).
Table 8. Marine Associated Birds Thick-billed Murre Greenland Mallard (Uria lomvia) (Anas platyrhynchos conboschas) Ivory Gull Common Mallard (Pagophilia eburnea) (Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos) Atlantic Puffin Barrow’s Goldeneye (Fratercula arctica) (Bucephala islandica) Black-legged Kittiwake Lesser Snow Goose (Rissa tridactyla) (Anser Caerulescens) Iceland Gull Northern Fulmar (Larus glaucoides) (Fulmarus glacialis) Herring Gull Greater Shearwater (Larus argentatus) (Puffinus gravis) Glaucous Gull Red Phalarope (Larus hyperboreus) (Phalaropus fulicarius) Great Black-backed Gull Parasitic Jaeger (Larus marinus) (Stercorarius parasiticus) Arctic Tern Pomarine Jaeger (Sterna paradisaea) (Stercorarius pomarinus)
Leaches Storm Petril Long-tailed Jaeger Oceanodrama leucorhoa (Stercorarius lonicaudus) Razorbills Skua (Alca torda) (Catharacta shus) Black Gillimonts Redthroated Loon (Cepphus grylle) (Gavia stellata) Harlequin Duck Common Loon (Histrionicus histrionicus) (Gavia immer) Red-Breasted Merganser Arctic Loon (Mergus serrator) (Gavia arctica) Dovekie King Eider Alle alle Somateria spectabilis
Table 9. Marine areas identified as important to seabirds, by status and season Huettmann and Diamond (2000),
Nevertheless there are several seabird and related species that merit closer attention: The Ivory Gull, Harlequin Duck, Peregrine Falcon, Thick-billed Murre, Black-legged Kittiwake, King Eider and Northern Fulmar, are discussed below.
5.7.1.1 Thick-Billed Murres
Thick-billed murres are the most abundant colonial seabird in eastern Canada (Orr and Ward 1982). They breed along the Labrador coast and the northern islands between May and August (McLaren 1982). At this time flightless birds (adults and chicks) from both western and eastern arctic colonies utilize surface water currents and travel rapidly through Hudson Strait, Davis Strait and the Labrador Sea (Orr and Ward 1982). During this period, August to October, several hundred thousand flightless adults and chicks will be migrating. However, as Figure 13 indicates, these birds are not expected to be in the survey area during seismic activity. They are largely absent in the survey period July, August, September but may be present in October and November. The survey is not expected to carry into October and November.
Figure 13. Thick-billed Murre Spring and Summer Distribution (after Gaston 1980)
Figure 14. Thick-billed Murre Fall and Winter Distribution (after Gaston 1980)
5.7.1.2 Northern Fulmars
Northern Fulmars that reside in the Canadian Arctic in summer, winter in offshore open water areas in southern Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, and the Labrador Sea (McLaren 1982) (Figure 15). From May to June, prior to nesting, Fulmars generally occur in similar densities on coastal and ice edge habitats, it is unlikely that they will be encountered during the scheduled seismic survey in the distant offshore waters of the Labrador Sea where seismic surveying will take place.
Figure 15. Range of Northern Fulmars (after McLaren 1982 (http://whatbird.wildbird.com/obj/610/_/target.aspx)
5.7.1.3 Black-legged Kittiwakes
Black-legged Kittiwakes that summer in the eastern Canadian Arctic winter pelagically in open waters of the Labrador Sea and North Atlantic (McLaren 1982) (Figure 16). During the spring and early summer their densities were found to be higher along coastal areas than along fast ice edges and both higher than in offshore areas (McLaren 1982). As with other seabird species that frequent ice free waters, mitigation methods will be imposed to reduce potential interaction with the proposed seismic activity
Figure 16. Range of Black-legged Kittiwakes (after McLaren 1982 (http://whatbird.wildbird.com/obj/457/_/target.aspx)
5.7.1.4 King Eiders
King eiders (Somateria spectabilis) migrate from dispersed breeding sites in eastern and central Arctic Canada (eastern Canadian population), and possibly north-western Greenland, to undergo prebasic (post-breeding) moult along the central west coast of Greenland (Fig ur e 17) According to Salomonsen (1968), several hundred thousand male and immature king eiders congregate in this area, with peak numbers in early August. (Mosbech and Boertmann 1999).
King Eiders, according to Mosbech and Boertmann (1999) Figure 17 shows that King Eiders will not be in the survey area during the period scheduled for this seismic activity.
Figure 17. Molt migration of King Eiders and main molting area off Greenland (after Mosbech and Boertmann 1999)
5.7.1.5 Ivory Gull
Although the east coast of northern Newfoundland and Labrador support many seabird colonies only a few species have been identified as at risk (Fig ur e 18). The Ivory Gull was assigned as an endangered species by COSEWIC (2006d) due to decline in their distribution and abundance (Gilchrist and Mallory 2005). Although the historic winter range shows that the species may frequent areas of the proposed seismic survey in the late fall the seismic survey will be completed by the end of August. Consequently, these birds that may frequent the most southern regions of the seismic survey area for wintering (November) are less likely to be exposed to measurable influences related to human activity undertaken in the summer.
Figure 18. Distribution of Ivory Gull During winter range (after COSEWIC 2006d)
5.7.1.6 Harlequin Duck
The Harlequin Duck is a species of special concern on the SARA Schedule 1. This species breeds in Labrador and although the primary breeding habitat is freshwater inland streams and rivers, some breeding may take place near coastal areas. Broods have been observed in saltwater bays and fjords north of Hopedale (Fig ure 19) (Gilliland et al.2002). Additionally, the entire coastline of Labrador is a significant staging and moulting area for these birds prior to migrating to Greenland during summer to early fall (Gilliland et al.2002, Environment Canada 2007). The survey is offshore > than 40 km offshore and it is not anticipated to encounter this species.
Figure 19. Summer distribution of Harlequin ducks along the Labrador coast (Gilliland et al. 2002)
5.7.1.7 Peregrine Falcon
In 2007 the Peregrine Falcon was assigned as a species of special concern by COSEWIC (2007a) and is listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as a threatened species. In Labrador this species can inhabit coastal areas, and may forage at considerable distances offshore (Figure 20). In 2003 a nest was located on the Gannet Island (Fig ur e 20), about 18 km from the coast.
Offshore areas >40 km where seismic activity will take place, are not prime habitats for this species consequently it is unlikely that large numbers of this species will be encountered during the seismic survey program. Mitigation measures will be adhered to and Observations recorded.
Figure 20. Distribution of Peregrine Falcon in North America (COSEWIC 2007a)
5.8 MARINE MAMMALS
The most common marine mammal species that may frequent the Labrador program area are listed in Table 10 (Canning and Pitt 2005, LGL 2003,2005, McLaren et al. 1982, Boles et al.1979).
Table 10. Cetaceans observed in the Labrador Sea: Beluga whale Blue Whale Bowhead Whale (Davis Strait Population) Fin whale, Harbour porpoise Humpback whale, Killer Whale Minke whale, North Atlantic Right Whale Northern bottlenose whale (tentatively identified) Pilot Whale Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Sperm whale, Sei Whale
Table 11. Pinnipeds observed in the Labrador Sea (Boles et al. 1979 Atlantic Walrus Bearded Seal Grey Seal Harbour Seal Harp Seal Hooded Seal Ring Seal
5.8.1 Pinnipeds
5.8.1.1 Ringed seal (Phoca hispida)
The ringed seal, Phoca hispida, is one of the smallest of the phocids, and is the most common seal in Nunavut waters, those waters north of 60o (MacLaren, 1958). Nevertheless, the Ring seal (Phoca hispida), is a common seal within the Labrador Sea region (MacLaren, 1958). The immature ringed seals may move offshore during open water season, but the adults will stay around the islands and within the bays and fjords (MacLaren, 1958). Consequently, they are unlikely to be encountered in large numbers during the seismic survey that will take place in the summer.
Collections of traditional knowledge (in Nain 2007 and Rigolet 2007) and from information contained in Our Footprints Are Everywhere (Brice-Bennett 1977) suggest that ringed seals are hunted within the Labrador Shelf. Areas of importance for the
ringed seals included areas from Hare’s Ears and The Highlands to Back Bay; Groswater Bay in The Channel area; Double Mer; area around Drunken Harbour Point and the Advalik Islands; Napartok Bay; Hebron Fjord; Saglek Fjord; Kangalaksiorvik Fjord; Okak Bay; Tasiuyak Bay; Mugford Bay; Anchorstock Bight;Aulatsivik Island area; Tunungayualok Island; Nain Bay; Voisey’s Bay; Tikkoatokak Bay; Webb Bay; Anaktalak Bay; Areas around Hopedale; Flowers Bay to Island Harbour Bay; and the Turnavik Islands (Brice-Bennett 1977, C-NLOPB 2008).
Figure 21. Seal distribution along the Labrador Coast (after Sikumiut 2008)
5.8.1.2 Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus)
Bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus, are often seen hauled out on inshore pack ice (Stonehouse, 1985). This species prefers shallow coastal waters where the benthos is rich in hard-shelled crustaceans and molluscs, their principal prey (Stonehouse, 1985). It is expected that very few bearded seals will be encountered during the seismic program in this southern portion of the survey.
5.8.1.3 Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica)
The harp seal, Phoca groenlandica, annually migrates between winter whelping grounds off the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland to summer foraging areas in Davis Strait and Baffin Bay (Figure 22); Fisheries and Oceans, 2005b). Harp seals may travel in large groups (50 to 500+) during ice break-up, and are common at the floe edge feeding or hauled out on ice floes (DFO, 2005). Groups tend to be smaller during the open water season (Fall is et al., 1983), and a major portion of their population moves through Davis Strait region in June (MacLaren, 1978a, 1978b, 1979, C-NLOPB 2008) travelling north to Ellesmere Island by late summer As the survey will begin in mid to late June in open water it is not anticipated to interfere is this process. All Mitigation measures will be followed.
Traditional knowledge (Nain 2007; Rigolet 2007), public consultations and from information contained in Our footprints Are Everywhere (Brice-Bennett 1977) indicate that harp seals are hunted within the Labrador Shelf Area. Some areas identified for their of importance for the harp seal harvest in Labrador Shelf Area included Back Bay; Head of Groswater Bay; Black Island; Island Harbour Bay; Jako’s Bight; Makkovik Bay; Adlavik Bay; Saglek Fjord; and Kanairiktok Bay (Brice-Bennett 1977).
Figure 22. Range, Migratory Pathways, and Whelping Locations of Harp Seals in the Northwest Atlantic (Reproduced from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005b)
5.8.1.4 Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina)
Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) are a common seal that occur within coastal and insular habitats around North Atlantic and Pacific regions. Generally harbour seals occur in habitats that are sea-ice free all year or where their coast haulout and rookery sites are clear of sea-ice during the breeding season (Burns 2002). The global distribution of harbour and spotted seals is shown in (Figure 23) The coastal species Phoca vitulina (Harbour seal) is generally associated with regions of up welling and tidal action or out on the floe edge (Mansfield, 1967), and are not often observed far offshore where seismic activity will occur in the Labrador Sea. Harbour seals in the eastern Atlantic region occur over a latitude range from 30°N to 80°N.
Figure 23. Range of Harbour Seals (after NMFS 2009)
Areas of importance for the harbou seals and the local communities within area included: Tunungayualok Island and area; Shoal Tickle; Big Bay; Flowers Bay; Kikkektak and Ivjogiktok Islands; Okak Bay; Tasiuyak Bay; Amitok Island; Illuviktalik Island; Iglusuaktaliak Island; Tikkigaksuk Peninsula; Napartok Bay; Seal Bight; Cod Bag Harbour; Shark Gut Harbour; Saglek Fjord; Kaipokok Bay; Big Brook; Jeanette Bay (including Sandy Cove); and Jako’s Bight (Brice-Bennett 1977).
5.8.1.5 Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata)
Hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), are not commonly observed in the Labrador Sea (Sergeant and Hay, 1978, Sergeant 1977). This species is generally associated with heavy pack ice (Sergeant, 1974), and their presence would extend until ice break-up. It is unlikely they will be encountered during the scheduled period of seismic exploration in the offshore area of the Labrador Sea. As seismic will take place in ice-free waters.
5.8.1.6 Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus)
The Northwest Atlantic stock of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) occurs primarily in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, off Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. Although the population is centered in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, grey seals may be present along the Labrador Shelf in the summer and fall. Information gathered by Brice-Bennett (1977) suggests that although grey seals are present, they are not frequently hunted within the Labrador Shelf Area. Areas in which hunting may occur included areas around Tunungayualok Island and near Tasiuyak Bay (Brice-Bennet 1977).
5.8.1.7 Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus )
The Atlantic walrus, Odobenus rosmarus is unlikely to be encountered in the southern portion of this survey. Its distribution and range is presented in the section on marine mammals frequenting or occurring in the northern survey area, presented above.
5.8.2 Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus)
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) distribution and range is discussed above. Due to the distance offshore area of > 40 km from shore they are not likely to be encountered since they are most likely to be around coastal areas foraging for food. Nevertheless location of sightings of Polar bear along the Labrador Coast is presented in Figure 24.
Figure 24. Polar Bear Observations (Sikumuit 2008)
5.8.2.1 Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)
Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are circumpolar in distribution. Prior to the 1950s, belugas were common along the northern Labrador coast in summer (Figure 26). and along the Labrador coast as far south as Nain (Sergeant and Brodie, 1969)., M o r e recently, beluga sightings in this area have become rare and the Labrador Inuit Association only receives reports of approximately a dozen sightings per year (COSEWIC 2004). In the summer, it can be found in the warm shallow bays and estuaries of large rivers, whereas in the fall (mid-September) it migrates south to over- winter amongst the pack ice, in leads and polynyas, where open water provides access to air (Doidge and Finley, 1993; DFO 2002; NAMMCO, 2005, (COSEWIC 2004).). During this period, belugas will frequent specific river estuaries and glacier fronts (COSEWIC 2004). Due to the beluga’s summertime preference for shallow warm estuarine waters, it is unlikely that it would be encountered offshore at this time where the majority of the seismic activity will take place. COSEWIC (2004) SARA both have determined that the Ungava Bay beluga population that occurs south of 60o N along the Labrador coast is one that is endangered. As this species is not known to be in the study area, it is not anticipated that they will be encountered during the survey.
5.8.3 Toothed Cetaceans
There were 363 sighting events of over 1,710 whales reported in Atlantic Canada between 1864 and 2007, with most records occurring since 1950 (Lawson et al. 2007) A large portion (31.4 percent) being recorded in the last seven years and during the June to September period with a majority of them in Newfoundland and Labrador waters (Lawson et al. 2007). They have been recorded in all areas, including Nova Scotia, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Labrador, Hudson Bay and the Canadian Arctic).(Error! Reference source not found.) This population is designated data deficient, with no genetic information available and no estimate on population numbers (COSEWIC In Press).
Figure 25. Toothed Whale Observations (after Sikumuit 2008)
Figure 26. Extent of occurrence (area of extent) and summer core area of the Eastern Hudson Bay population of belugas (COSEWIC 2004).
5.8.3.1 Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
There are three sub-populations of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). The subspecies present along the Atlantic coast of Canada is Phocoena phocoena phocoena. In the western Atlantic, the harbour porpoise range from Cape Hatteras to Upernavik, Greenland (Read 1999, COSEWIC 2006) and there is evidence of separate subspecies: Gulf of Main/Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland/Labrador, and West Greenland (Gaskin 1984, 1992). In eastern Canada, the porpoise may be found as far north as Cape Aston, Baffin Island (~70°N) (Gaskin 1992). No harbour porpoise surveys have been conducted in Labrador, by-catch and incidental observation data suggest that they occur in southern Labrador as far north as Nain (COSEWIC 2006). In May 2003, COSEWIC designated the harbour porpoise Special Concern. Their general distribution and range is presented in Figure 27.
Figure 27. Distribution of Harbour Porpoise in Eastern Canada
5.8.3.2 Narwhal (Monodon monoceros)
It is highly unlikely that Narwhal will be encountered in the survey area south of 60°N since present knowledge of their distribution and range indicates that this species is not found this far south (see Figure 28, Figure 29 and Figure 30). The three figures illustrate that Narwhal populations are found north of 60°, and do not enter the project area.
Figure 28. Narwhal Distribution in the Arctic Ocean Stippling indicates the species’ general distribution and the dots indicate extralimital reports (Reeves, 1992; reproduced from COSEWIC, 2004a).
Figure 29. Distribution of Narwhals in Northern Canada Summer concentrations are shown in solid black, wintering concentrations in medium grey, and known range in pale grey (reproduced from COSEWIC, 2004a)
Figure 30. Location of Tagged Narwhals in Northern Canada and Greenland Summering Localities (Yellow), Wintering Areas (Blue), and Seasonal Locations during Migration (Red) Tagged Narwhals in Northern Canada and Greenland (Laidre et al., 2004b)
5.8.3.3 Northern Bottlenose Whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus)
The northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) that inhabit the Davis Strait are listed under COSEWIC (2007) as “not at risk”, and belong to the Western North Atlantic stock. In the summer, they are found along the northern limits of their range in Davis Strait, though little information on their use of this area is available (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011). Regional known distribution is presented in Error! Reference source not found. and Figure 31.
Figure 31. North Atlantic showing primary distribution of northern bottlenose whales (after COSEWIC 2002)
5.8.3.4 White-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus)
The white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) may be considered as seasonal visitors to the Davis Strait region, occurring from late spring through late November. W hit e-sided dolphins displays a season movement, moving closer inshore as they move north in the summers. Areas of importance for Atlantic white-sided dolphin in Labrador Shelf Area included Big Bay; Double islands; Kingitok Islands; Hare Islands; Windy Tickle; Napatalik Islands; Aulatsivik Island; Kikkertavak Island; Kiglapai shore; Cutthroat; Mugford Bay; Napartok Bay; Hebron Fjord; Saglek Fjord; and Long Island to East Turnavik (Brice-Bennett 1977).
5.8.3.5 Pilot Whale (Globicephala melaena)
Long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melaena) are a generally pelagic species with a summer range along the Labrador coast and may migrate into Davis Strait during warm water temperature periods. Long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) are commonly occur in small pods of approximately 10 to 20 individuals. Long-finned pilot whales have been sighted in the offshore waters of Labrador from May to July (Abend and Smith 1999) and are common off the southwest coast of Newfoundland during the summer (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). They are frequently observed along shelf breaks, offshore, but may occur coastally as well (Error! Reference source not found.).
5.8.3.6 Killer Whale (Ornicus orca)
Although uncommon in Atlantic waters, they have been recorded in all areas, including Nova Scotia, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Labrador, Hudson Bay and the Canadian Arctic. Killer whales are generally found in near-shore areas where they search for prey such as seals (Leatherwood et al., 1976) and juvenile bowhead whales (Finley, 2001). Observation points of killer whales off the coast of Labrador are shown in Error! Reference source not found.
5.8.3.7 Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)
The sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus, relatively abundant at Arctic latitudes ( Rice, 1989) and generally inhabit deep offshore waters (Rice, 1989) and they may occur in Davis Strait during the summer months (Rice, 1989). Male sperm whales range more widely in the North Atlantic than females and calves (Mitchell, 1974). Sightings of sperm whales in the Labrador Sea are shown in Figure 32.
Figure 32. Range of Sperm Whales (MNFS 2009)
5.8.3.8 S o w e r b y ’ s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon bidens)
Sowerby’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon bidens) are endemic to the North Atlantic However, their distribution, abundance, and biology is generally not well known. The northern limit of confirmed sightings and strandings in Canadian waters is Notre Dame, Newfoundland, however it is expected this species may extend further north into the Labrador Shelf area. Their habitat is thought to be deep water and the Continental Shelf and slopes. Nearshore sightings are generally very rare (C-NLOPB 2008, Figure 33, COSEWIC 2007). This species is one of “Special Concern” by COSEWIC (2007) and SARA 2011 (on line registry information).
Figure 33. Distribution of Sowerby’s Beaked Whale in the North Atlantic Ocean (COSEWIC 2007)
5.8.4 Baleen Cetaceans
5.8.4.1 Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)
The bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus (or Greenland right whale), was once abundant in the eastern Canadian waters. The Davis Strait Baffin Island Population is most likely to have individuals that may frequent habitat near the Labrador Shelf Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) are distributed throughout most of their known historic range except for the Strait of Belle Isle area and presumably throughout the Labrador Sea where they are not regularly observed (DFO 2006b). Occasionally, dead bowheads have washed up along the Newfoundland and Labrador coast in recent years and likely would have died nearby rather than being carried down from the Arctic.
Evidence suggests that they get occasional juvenile stragglers but there are no common sightings of bowheads in this area now (DFO 2006b). The bowhead whale has a nearly circumpolar distribution in the Northern Hemisphere. Bowheads occur in marine waters and in conditions ranging from open water to thick, extensive (but unconsolidated) pack ice. They are able to break thick ice (over 20 cm) to breathe and can navigate under extensive ice fields (George et al. 1989). Five populations have been identified, based mostly on physical barriers to their movement (COSEWIC 2005b). Three of these populations inhabit Canadian waters; however, the Davis Strait Baffin Island.
Population is most likely to have individuals that may frequent habitat near the Labrador Shelf. All populations were depleted in the early twentieth century due to commercial whaling and estimates of the eastern Canadian Arctic populations now range between 2,611 to 9,633. Once bowheads arrive on their summering grounds, their primary activity is feeding (Thomas 1999). Thus, habitat requirements during this time would depend on the distribution of their primary food source (zooplankton), primarily on euphausiids, copepods, or benthic invertebrates. Their Arctic Environment has led to unique adaptations, such as increased longevity and late maturity, energy storage capability, and a sophisticated acoustic sense for ice navigation and long range communication (COSEWIC 2005b). Bowheads are slow swimmers, averaging speeds of 4.50 ± 1.22 km/h during their fall migration and approximately 4.0 km/h (COSEWIC 2005b) during their spring migration.
Bowheads are among the more vocal of baleen whales (Clark and Johnson 1984) and it has been suggested that calls may function to maintain social cohesion of groups and monitor changes in ice conditions (COSEWIC2005b). Bowheads may use the reverberations of their calls off the undersides of ice floes to help them orient and navigate (Ellison et al. 1987; George et al. 1989). Both eastern Canadian Arctic bowhead whale populations have been designated as threatened by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2005b).
Recent satellite tag evidence suggests that the Hudson Bay and the Davis Strait Baffin Island populations may constitute a single stock (Dueck et al. 2006). Threats and limiting factors to the population include predation, illegal hunting, ice stranding, noise and ship collisions (COSEWIC 2005b). The killer whale is the only known predator of bowhead whales. Bowhead whales are particularly sensitive to anthropogenic noise, and diving
and avoidance behaviour have been observed after exposure to aircraft, drill-ships and seismic vessels (COSEWIC 2005b).
5.8.4.2 Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)
The minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, is a coastal-pelagic species inhabiting the northern hemisphere (Born et al., 2002). The population that inhabits the western part of Davis Strait, offshore from the coast of Labrador, is part of the Canadian east coast stock. The majority of individuals move north from warm-water wintering grounds to the cold-water feeding grounds southeast of Greenland. Minke wha les arrive in inshore waters of Newfoundland and Labrador in April. Most stay only for the summer and fall as late as October or November; however, some individuals remain into the winter. Minke whales are common in shallow water, less than 200 m deep, but may also occur offshore in deeper waters (Fig ur e 34). They are often solitary in the western North Atlantic, but may occur in groups of two or three. Overall, there is little information regarding the presence of minke whales within north eastern Atlantic waters. All Mitigation measures as outlined in the statement of Practice will be adhered to and observation reports kept by the Marine Mammal Observers.
Figure 34. Baleen Whale Observations (Sikumuit 2008)
5.8.4.3 Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
The fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus, is the second largest baleen whale. On the east coast of Canada, North Atlantic fin whales migrate northward during the summer months to foraging areas off the Labrador and Scotian shelves (Sergeant, 1977). Fin whales may occur off Labrador year round (COSEWIC 2005), but are more likely to occur near- shore during the summer (Figure 35). Sightings of fin whales in Labrador waters are mainly near-shore (COSEWIC 2005). This species is considered one of “Special Concern” by SARA and COSEWIC (2005). As the closest point to shore is >40km it is not expected that this species will be encountered.
Figure 35. Fin Whale Observations (after Sikumuit 2008)
5.8.4.4 Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis)
The sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis, is a large baleen whale that inhabits deep offshore waters (Gambell, 1985, COSEWIC 2003). Sei whales prefer temperate waters and although, historically, the sei whale was hunted in the Davis Strait/Labrador Sea region in the months of May and June, this appears to represents the northernmost extent of its range. Known distribution is shown in Figure 36. The survey is expected to begin mid to end June with mitigations in place, any possible observations will be recorded.
Figure 36. Sei whale distribution in and around Canadian waters. Stippled areas show possible areas of sporadic occurrence (after Sikumiut 2008).
5.8.4.5 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
The humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, is a medium-sized baleen whale that has been sighted in both offshore and inshore waters of The Labrador Sea (COSEWIC, 2003). Humpback whales may occur within the proposed project area, although their abundance is expected to be low. Humpback whales have seasonal migrations from high-latitude feeding areas in the summer (i.e., Canadian waters) to low-latitude breeding and calving grounds (COSEWIC 2003). Humpbacks are common along the Labrador shelf, with primary feeding areas concentrated along the shoreline from Hudson Strait to the southern coast of Newfoundland. (COSEWIC, 2003). Humpback whale, primary feeding and breeding areas are shown in Figure 37. Noted observations of Humpback whales off the coast of Labrador are plotted on Figure 34. As their abundance is the project area is low, it is not expected that this species will be encountered during the survey.
Figure 37. Humpback whale primary feeding and breeding areas (a) North Atlantic. (b) North Pacific. Feeding areas are represented by light stipple and breeding areas by dark shading. Broken arrows indicate undocumented or poorly documented migrations. In most regions, actual travel routes are not known, and arrows merely connect migratory endpoints. Map reproduced from Stevick et al. (2002)..
5.8.4.6 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)
The blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus, is globally distributed (Figure 38) In North America, there are two stocks of blue whales, the eastern and western. In the North Atlantic, the eastern stock’s range is from Greenland to eastern Canadian waters. They inhabit both coastal and offshore waters off Newfoundland during the summer months and are likely within the Labrador Shelf area in late winter (Sears and Calambokidis 2002), here they are often found feeding in aggregations at shelf edges, where up welling results in high concentrations of krill. Blue whale observations (1975-2004) near the Labrador Shelf are illustrated in (Figure 38). Blue Whale populations are considered “Endangered’ by COSEWIC (2002) and SARA (2011, on line registry). As the Blue Whale is very rare in the Labrador Shelf, it is not expected that this species will be encountered.
Figure 38. Blue Whale Observations (after Sikumuit 2008)
5.8.5 Marine Reptiles
Leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, may be in the study area during active seismic data collection (Figure 39). Leatherbacks occur annually in Atlantic Canadian waters to forage, with the majority of turtles present between June and November; they do not nest in Canada (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006, O’Boyle 2001). Bleakney (1965) documented the occurrence of leatherbacks in eastern Canada and his analysis of 26 records of leatherbacks in this region (1889-1964) suggested a seasonal, rather than accidental, movement of the species into the cold waters of the northwest Atlantic. Recently, research by James and Herman (2001), James et al. (2005a, 2005b) supported the conclusion that leatherbacks regularly enter temperate waters off eastern Canada. Leatherback occurrences in Canadian waters peak during August-September; however, there are records for leatherbacks in Canadian waters for many months of the year (McAlpine et al., 2004). Leatherbacks have been recorded off the coasts of Nova Scotia (e.g., Bleakney, 1965; James et al.2005a, 2005b), Newfoundland (e.g., Goff & Lien, 1988; Lawson and Gosselin, 2003), and Labrador (Threlfall, 1978). However they are very rare north of 54o (C-NLOPB 2008) and a recent report by Ledwell and Huntington (2006) indicated that of the number of Leatherback turtles recorded through the Release and Strandings Program, none were in the area where proposed seismic profiling will take place. This sea turtle has been assessed by SARA and COSEWIC (2001) as a species with a status of Endangered. It is anticipated that the Leatherback turtle could potentially be in the study area, but based on information above it may be unlikely that they be encountered. None the less mitigation measures are being followed and all sightings will be recorded.
Figure 39. Occurrence of Leatherback in offshore Canadian Waters (COSEWIC 2001a)
5.9 SPECIES AT RISK
The relevant SARA-listed species that might occur in the study area during scheduled seismic activity are listed in Table 12. Information on these species is presented in the appropriate sections related to the specific groups below.
Table 12. Species at Risk that could be found within the Labrador Sea study area during the scheduled survey period. Species Risk Category Comment Source Marine Mammals Beluga whale Endangered Not in survey area COSEWIC (2004a) (Eastern Hudson during seismic Bay Population) activity Blue Whale Endangered Vary rare in COSEWIC (2002) Labrador Sea region Bowhead Whale Threatened Late fall wintering COSEWIC (2005a) (Davis Strait area north tip off Population) Labrador , unlikely to be in study area Sowerby’s Beaked Special Concern Potentially in study COSEWIC (2006a) Whale area all year Fin Whale Special Concern Potentially in study COSEWIC (2005b) area Harbour Porpoise Special Concern Potentially in study COSEWIC (2006b) area Atlantic Walrus Special Concern Not in study area COSEWIC (2006c) Stewart (2002)
Marine Reptiles Leatherback Sea Endangered Potentially in study COSEWIC (2001a) Turtle area
Birds Harlequin Duck Special Concern Coastal, will not Environment likely be seen at 40- Canada (2007) 70 km offshore COSEWIC (2001b) where seismic activity will begin Ivory Gull Endangered Potentially in study COSEWIC (2006d) area Peregrine Falcon Special Concern Coastal, will not COSEWIC (2007a) likely be seen at 40 -70 km offshore where seismic activity will begin Marine Fish American Eel Special Concern Coastal and COSEWIC (2006e) continental shelves
Cusk Threatened Rare but potentially COSEWIC (2003b) in study area Porbeagle Shark Endangered Potentially in study COSEWIC (2004b) area Roughhead Special Concern Potentially in study COSEWIC (2007b) Grenadier area Atlantic Cod Endangered Potentially in study COSEWIC (2003c) (Newfoundland and area Labrador Populaton) Atlantic Wolffish Special Concern Inshore Shelf areas COSEWIC (2000) unlikely to be in depths associated with seismic survey Northern Wolffish Threatened Shelf areas to 900 COSEWIC (2001c) m unlikely to be in depths associated with seismic survey Spotted Wolffish Threatened Shelf areas to 600 COSEWIC (2001b) m unlikely to be in depths associated with seismic survey
6. COMMERCIAL FISHING
6.1 KEY FISHERIES
6.1.1 Shrimp
Northern or pink shrimp (Pandalus borealis) distributions in the Northwest Atlantic range from the Davis Strait to the Gulf of Maine. They occupy soft muddy substrates up to depths of 600 m in temperatures of 1°C to 8°C. Larger individuals generally occur in deeper waters (DFO 2006d). Shrimp undergo a diel vertical migration, moving off the bottom into the water column during the day to feed on small pelagic crustaceans. They migrate up the water column at night, feeding on pelagic copepods and krill (DFO 2006d). Female shrimp also undergo a seasonal migration to shallow water where spawning occurs (DFO 2006d). Northern shrimp are a protandric hermaphrodite, meaning that it first functions sexually as a male, undergoes a brief transitional period, and spends the rest of its life as a female (DFO 2006d). Eggs (2,400 for the average female (Haynes and Wigley 1969)) are laid in the summer and remain attached to the female until the following spring, when the female migrates to shallow coastal waters to spawn (Nicolajsen 1994, in Ollerhead et al. 2004). The hatched larvae float to the surface feeding on planktonic organisms (DFO 2006d).
As with most crustacea, northern shrimp grow by moulting their shells. During this period, the new shell is soft, causing them to be highly vulnerable to predators such as Greenland halibut (turbot), cod (DFO 2006d), Atlantic halibut, skates, wolffish and harp seals (Phoca groventandica) (DFO 2000b). Northern shrimp are vulnerable to these predators regardless of whether they have a soft shell.
In addition, the northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, and the stripped shrimp Pandalus montagui are important species to the region (Canning and Pitt 2006). The northern shrimp is the most important commercial species and is found from Davis Strait to the Gulf of Maine (Orr et al., 2006, DFO 2006a).
They are fished off Labrador all year in depths of 150 to 600 m (Figure 40) . All mitigations will be adhered to during the survey and especially with this area. Assessment of northern and stripped shrimp stocks are available by consulting DFO (2006, 2008a, b), Orr et al. (2006). Their growth and abundance are linked to the spring phytoplankton bloom on the Newfoundland-Labrador shelf (Fuentes-Yaco 2007).
Northern Shrimp harvesting locations are show in Figure 40 and Table 12 show Northern Shrimp harvest by month.
Figure 40. Northern shrimp harvesting locations 2004 to 2006 (after Sikumiut 2008)
Table 13. Northern shrimp harvest (metric tonnes) by month 2004 to 2006 average
6.1.2 Snow Crab
Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) occurs over broad depths in the Northwest Atlantic, from Greenland to the Gulf of Maine. Distribution is widespread on the Newfoundland and Labrador shelves (DFO 2005b). Commercial-size crabs commonly occur on mud or sand substrates (DFO 2005b) at depths of 70 to 280 m (Elner 1985) at temperatures of - 1°C to 5°C (Fisheries Resources Conservation Council (Fisheries Resources Conservation Council (FRCC)) 2005). Smaller crabs are also found on harder substrates (DFO 2002b).
There are indications that snow crabs move from gravel bottom to mud bottom, usually in deeper waters, as they reach maturity (DFO 1993b). Snow crabs grow by molting their shells in the spring. Females cease molting upon achieving sexual maturity, between 40 to 95 mm carapace widths (CW). Conversely males may continue molting until their terminal molt sometime in adulthood, between approximately 40 to 115 mm CW (DFO 2005b).
There is little or no information on the offshore snow crab migrations. Offshore mating is known to occur during the late winter or spring; however the actual area is unknown. Most females reach terminal molt sometime between December and April (FRCC 2005).
Most adolescent males reach terminal molt and maturity in the early spring but a small percentage does molt during the winter (FRCC 2005). First time mating generally takes place from February to mid-March, following the terminal molt (FRCC 2005). Mating by repeat spawners occurs later in the spring, sometime between April and June (FRCC 2005).
It is believed that first-time spawnersprimiparous) are less productive than the repeat (multiparous) spawners (FRCC 2005). Depending on size, females lay between 20,000 to 150,000 eggs deposited on hairy appendages under the abdomen. Fertilized eggs are carried for approximately two years. During this period, the eggs change color from bright orange to dark purple or black (DFO 1993). The eggs hatch in the late spring or early summer and larvae spend may spend two to eight months depending on temperature and planktonic food supply before settling to the seabed (DFO 2002b; FRCC 2005). Once on the bottom, snow crabs go through a series of molts, with growth of approximately 20 percent between molts. It takes 5-10 years for male snow crab to reach legal size (95-mm carapace width). The full natural life cycle for snow crabs is approximately 15 years (FRCC 2005).
Snow crab feed on fish, clams, benthic worms, brittle stars, shrimps and crustaceans, including smaller snow crabs. Feeding activity is apparently higher at night (DFO 1993b). Predators include various ground fish and seals (DFO 2002b).
The snow crab is a commercially exploited species in shallower depths of the region. Figure 41 shows the harvesting area, the crab fishing areas will not be subject to intense seismic survey activity. DFO (2004) has investigated the potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab (Christiansen et al 2003). Their observations indicated that seismic energy did not elicit any acute or mid-level mortality or change in laboratory feeding behavior. In addition, the survival of embryos carried by females and locomotion of the resulting larvae after hatch were unaffected by seismic energy exposure.
Figure 41. Snow Crab Harvesting locations 2004-2006 (after Sikumiut 2008)
Table 14 Snow crab harvest (metric tonnes) by month 2004 to 2006 average
6.1.3 Greenland Halibut (Turbot)
Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), commonly known as turbot. This species is not unique to the study area and are found elsewhere within the Labrador Sea. Turbot spawn from February to September (Canning and Pitt 2002) and will not be actively reproducing in the deep far offshore when the proposed seismic survey will take place. The proposed survey area is distant from the relatively shallow continental shelf and bank waters where most finfish species are harvested. Turbot are discussed in section 5 – Marine Fish.
The following (Fig ur e 42) indicates Halibut harvesting locations 2004 – 2006 (after Sikumiut 2008). Table 15 shows Greenland Halibut harvest (metric tonnes) by month 2004 to 2006 average
Figure 42. Halibut harvesting locations 2004 to 2006 (after Sikumiut 2008
Table 15 Greenland Halibut harvest (metric tonnes) by month 2004 to 2006 average
7. SENSITIVE AREAS
Sensitive areas are unique or critical habitats which are important for VECs at some point in their life cycle or areas that support a large concentration of a VEC or VECs. Identified sensitive areas include: Gilbert Bay, the Hawke Channel and the coastal regions of Labrador. The location of these sensitive areas is shown in (Fig ur e 43).
7.1 GILBERT BAY
Gilbert Bay is considered a sensitive area because it is classified as Marine Protected Area (MPA) under Canada’s Oceans Act since October 2005 (DFO 2005e) Gilbert Bay has a genetically and geographically distinct population of Atlantic cod (DFO 2007j). It is the first MPA in eastern Canada’s subarctic coastal zone established and managed under the Oceans Act (Wroblewski et al. 2007). Gilbert Bay is 28 km long, but relatively shallow, with two narrow openings to the Labrador Sea near the community of Williams Harbor (Government of Canada 2005).
There are a number of coralline algae beds (sensitive habitat) present within Gilbert Bay (Government of Canada 2005) that support a wide variety of marine organisms and plants. The 47 km2 waters of Gilbert Bay (Fig ur e 43) area supports a wide range of marine resources including a wide range of marine species, including shellfish, demersal fish, pelagic fish, and anadromous fish as well as aquatic plants. The area is frequented by several species of marine mammals, including minke whales, harbor porpoise and harp seals, and is inhabited seasonally by several species of waterfowl, including common loons, Canada geese, and common mergansers. Researchers have also found that the area supports a distinct, resident population of Atlantic cod which remain in the bay year round (Canning and Pitt 2005).
Data Constraints for Gilbert Bay While Gilbert Bay has more information that most other areas within the Labrador Shelf area, key data constraints with respect to spawning, nursery areas, migrations and species distribution within Gilbert Bay is limited. The effect of global warming on the distribution and ecosystems is evolving but still is limited and poorly understood. This even more important as the cod in Gilbert Bay are unique. The understanding of which species are resident, migratory or occasional visitors is important to the overall understanding of the ecology of Gilbert Bay.
7.2 HAWKE CHANNEL
In 2003, the Fisheries Research Council of Canada recommended that an area around the Hawke Channel be closed to certain fishing gear. In July 2003, this zone was expanded by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as shown in Figure 43 (Canning and Pitt 2005).
Hawke Channel (Figure 43) coupled with the Hamilton Bank forms a sensitive area because of its productivity and species diversity. The high productivity of the Hamilton Bank is related to regional upwelling processes at the shelf break and in the marginal trough of Hamilton Bank (Drinkwater and Harding 2001). The circulation on the Labrador shelf is dominated by bathymetry (Bueher et al. 1997) and has a strong current that flows along the southern border of the Hawke Saddle (located west of the Hawke Channel area). The Hawke Saddle is a deep trough that intersects the offshore bank, extends to the shelf, and is characterized by strong gradients in water depth. The Hamilton Bank has a mean depth of 200 meters and is surrounded by deep channels and troughs on the north and south (i.e., Hawke Channel and Hawke Saddle) that provide Nutrients input into the Hawke Channel-Hamilton Bank area via regional up- welling processes (Brown 1999).
The Hawke Channel-Hamilton Bank areas is host to several major commercial fish species, including redfish, Atlantic cod, and capelin, shrimp and snow crab (Brown 1999). In addition to the 51 varieties of fish species, the Hawke Channel-Hamilton Bank is also important to marine mammals and seabirds and is considered unrivalled in its overall importance to the Newfoundland and Labrador marine ecosystem (Brown 1999).
The area of the Hawke Channel-Hamilton Bank are home to the northern spawning grounds of the Atlantic Cod (Rose and O’Driscoll 2002). The importance of the Hawke Channel-Hamilton Bank spawning ground is critical to the success and well-being of Atlantic cod because its location allows for increased probability of drift by eggs and larvae to juvenile habitats along the north-eastern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador (Rose and O’Driscoll 2002) via the Labrador Current. Forty-three percent of Canadian cod landings form 1973 to 1997 was harvested from Hawke Channel. In order to reduce by-catch mortality and disturbance to spawning and juvenile cod, a 20 by 20 nm area was closed to shrimp trawling in September 2002 (DFO 2006m).
The FRCC recommended the establishment of an experimental cod box (Thibault 2003) expanding the closed area to 50 by 50 nm by July 2003 (DFO 2006m). Restrictions have also been placed on fishing gear to reduce by-catch such as regulated mesh sizes and Nordmore grates on shrimp trawls (Brown 1999). Harvesters had been fighting for to have the Hawke Channel closure established for several years but only actually got it starting in 2003 (Neis et al. 2006). In union-DFO crab meetings, it was indicated that harvesters had asked DFO to close the Cartwright Channel to shrimp trawling but without success. Many crab fishermen remain convinced that shrimp trawlers damage crab (Neis et al. 2006).
No Geophysical survey data will be collected within the boundaries of Hawke channel. As a result of the consultations and this EIA work survey lines have been shortened as not to enter this area (Fig ur e 43).
7.3 TIDAL WATERS OF THE LABRADOR INUIT SETTLEMENT AREA (THE ZONE).
Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (2005) describes an area identified as the "Zone", which represents the Tidal Waters of the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area (Agreement, Section 1). This Agreement states that the C-NLOPB "shall notify the Nunatsiavut Government in writing about any permit, approval or authorization that it proposes to issue for:
a) a Petroleum Exploration program in the Zone; or
b) a Development of Minerals, or
c) a Petroleum Exploration program in Ocean Areas Adjacent to the Zone,
The Nunatsiavut Government may make recommendations to the Regulator with respect to the proposed permit, approval or authorization (Canning and Pitt 2005). No data will be acquired within the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area.
The Nunatsiavut Government Minister was contacted as a part of the list of stakeholders and received the information package on the potential project. It was advised that the information looked fine in reading the information and sitting down with the presentation that came to the community. They understood that there was some trouble before, and the fishermen were asked to haul up their gear early. They have been advised that this will not happen. That the seismic vessel will adhere to fishing vessels and both parties will continue doing what they need to do without interruption. A more detailed account of the consultation work is found in Appendix I.
A Deputy Minister expressed that last year there were issues with the Nunatsiavut crabfishers. He understood that we would be communicating with Keith Watts at Torngat Fish Producers Co Op to ensure these challenges are addressed with this summers work. He is very pleased that there is an opportunity to have Inuit observers onboard and that they are currently with Sikumiut to ensure adequate training. And would be interested in knowing if there are other potential opportunities for Inuit as a result of the project.
Figure 43.Regional Sensitive Areas (after Sikumuit 2008).
8. SOCIO ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
8.1 COMMUNITY
Next to the family, “community” is the oldest and most basic unit of people living together. A community is a group of people who live in the same area and share the same culture. Members of a community feel that they belong to the group, and identify their interests as coinciding with other members of their community. Newfoundland and Labrador itself is a community, and in turn, consists of many smaller communities.
Each community is different from the others, and each has changed over time. The ethnic makeup of these communities varies, and their individual characters reflect their economic bases. Yet there are many commonalties. Outports share certain characteristics, as do farming communities. As a mercantile and administrative centre, the city of St. John's has long had distinctive features, yet is still recognizably a Newfoundland community. In the 19th and 20th centuries, industrial enterprises built upon mining, the railway and papermaking gave birth to communities in the interior of Newfoundland and in Labrador. These industrial towns, and the communities formed around military bases, are much closer to the urban pattern of towns in the rest of North America. However, they also share many aspects of Newfoundland culture.
8.2 SOCIETY AND CULTURE
Newfoundland and Labrador society has been shaped by a particular combination of geographical, economic, and historical forces. Among the most important influences have been its isolated location on the eastern edge of North America, its marine environment, the work patterns and social relationships that developed in the fishing economy, and the British and Irish roots of the majority of its people.
8.3 ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador today is home to four peoples of Aboriginal ancestry: the Inuit, the Innu, the Micmac and the Metis.
The Inuit are the descendants of the Thule people who migrated to Labrador from the Canadian arctic 700 to 800 years ago. The primary Inuit settlements are Nain, Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik and Rigolet on the north coast of Labrador, but Inuit people are also found in a number of other Labrador communities. They are represented by the Labrador Inuit Association.
The Innu, formerly known as the Naskapi-Montagnais, are descended from Algonkian- speaking hunter-gatherers who were one of two Aboriginal peoples inhabiting Labrador at the time of European arrival. The major Innu communities in Labrador are Sheshatshiu on Lake Melville in central Labrador and Utshimassit (Davis Inlet) on Labrador's northern coast. Today the Innu are represented by the Innu Nation.
The Labrador Metis are descendants of Europeans and Labrador Native people, primarily the Inuit, Labrador Metis today live in a number of communities on the central and southern Labrador coast. They are represented by the Labrador Metis Association which is currently attempting to win acceptance of its Aboriginal status from the federal and provincial governments.
The Newfoundland Micmac are found on the island of Newfoundland. They are descended from Algonkian hunter-gatherers whose homeland included what is now Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, part of New Brunswick, and the Gaspé peninsula. The largest Micmac community is Conne River in Bay d'Espoir on the island's south coast. Conne River is a reserve recognized by the federal government and its people are represented by the Miawpukek Band Council. Other people of Micmac descent live in central Newfoundland and on the west coast of the island. They are represented by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. (1997, Ralph T.Pastore Archaeology Unit & History Department Memorial University of Newfoundland).
9. VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT (VEC) SELECTION
This assessment uses a valued ecosystem component (VEC) approach to define and focus the issues and factors considered in this assessment. These include components that are important for a variety of reasons, such as their economic or social value, their status (e.g. at-risk species), or their importance to/as habitat. The selection of VEC’s is limited, however, to those components that have some reasonable potential for interaction with, or sensitivity to, the planned project activities, most notably the Field Data Acquisition Program during the period of active profiling. This approach was also used in the ‘Labrador Slope Seismic Survey Continuation Environmental Assessment‘, prepared by Canning & Pitt Associates Inc. (February 2005), as commissioned by TGS- NOPEC.
Table 16. Initial Potential Interactions Matrix Field Acquisition Component
Seismic Air-Gun Interaction Potential Valued Ecosystem (VEC) Project Component Phytoplankton - Zooplankton - Macro-Invertebrates (pelagic and benthic) - Marine Fish X Marine Birds X Marine Mammals X Marine Reptiles X Fishing Gear Conflict X
While it is recognized that fish eggs, zooplankton (including icthyoplankton and pelagic / benthic invertebrates), and their larvae could be killed or damaged at distances up to or
less than 5 metres from a large array, various studies have indicated that the impact would be indistinguishable from natural mortality, given the extent of exposure and the numbers of organisms involved.
Sætre and Ona (1996), in a worst-case risk analysis, estimated the total mortality from a typical 3D seismic survey (conducted in a tight, close grid over a relatively small area) on a typical larval population in the North Sea and calculated an effective mortality radius. Their results showed that the maximum population mortality from a large 3D seismic survey would be just 0.45% of the fish larvae, or 0.18% of the total population in the area per day. They note that since natural mortality for eggs and larvae is estimated at 5-15% per day, the effects of the array on fish larvae would be impossible to differentiate from natural mortality, and well within natural variability.
A workshop with oil industry, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and fisheries participants from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland sponsored by Environmental Studies Research Funds (ESRF) in Halifax in 2000, LGL Griffiths Muecke (Thomson et al., 2001) noted that, studies of seismic effects on fish eggs and larvae were of low priority and were not considered further at the workshop.
In addition, the 1998 seismic Scotian Shelf class screening assessment (Davis et al., 1998) calculated that, a volume of water equivalent to about 1% of the volume of water in the study area would contain impulses lethal to fish larvae, but not all types of fish larvae would be affected by the seismic pulses and those that have the potential to be affected would not be within range at all times. For example, herring spawning occurs close to shore in very shallow water and eggs would not be affected by seismic exploration. During the day, few pollock, redfish, flatfish, and mackerel larvae would be found in surface waters and they tend to be found at or below the thermocline. At night, the larvae of mackerel and redfish and other species do rise in the water column and are found in surface waters. Lethal ranges for flatfish larvae, which have no swim bladders, would be considerably less than those with swim bladders. Therefore, considerably fewer than 1% of fish larvae in the potentially affected water mass would be affected by seismic pulses. The assessment concluded that "Impacts on fish eggs and larvae, including those in nursery areas, would be minor, sub-local and short-term and likely to occur.). Authors concluded that "Direct physical impacts on invertebrates and their larvae are likely to be negligible.”.
In another study, Kostyuchenko (1973) concluded that damage to fish eggs would likely be limited to within 5 metres. Dalen and Knutsen (1986) exposed Atlantic cod eggs, larvae, and fry to airguns, with no effects seen on eggs, larvae, and fry at a distance of 1 metre from a seismic energy source where received levels were 222 dB re 1 µPa. F r y that were 110 days old were also exposed to received levels of 231 dB re 1 µPa from a seismic energy source and all survived. Booman et al. (1996) conducted a study of close-range exposure of fish, fish larvae, and eggs (cod, pollock, plaice, turbot, and herring) to seismic sounds from an airgun cluster (242-220 dB re 1 µPa). Mortality and reduction in hatching success were not measurable beyond a few metres from the cluster. The report concludes that the existing mortality and injuries are near distance incidents with highest mortality rates and most frequent injuries observed out to 1.4 metres distance, while low and no mortality rate and more infrequent injuries were observed out to 5 metres distance.
Studies of invertebrate species show similar results. Pearson et al. (1988) reports that stage II zoeae of the Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) were not affected by exposure up to 231 dB re 1 µPa. They concluded that exposure did not affect survival, development, or behaviour.
With regard to phytoplankton, Kosheleva (1992; cited in Turnpenny and Nedwell, 1994) reported that arrays with source levels of 220-240 dB re 1 µPa had no effect on phytoplankton or benthos at distances of 1 metre or more. Studies by the Minerals Management Services of the United States Department of the Interior (MMS) have indicated that, in general, seismic surveys are expected to have little or no effect on plankton, since the energy source (the airgun array) does not appear to have any effect on this group of organisms. Seismic activities are, therefore, considered to elicit little or no effect on lower trophic level organisms (MMS, 1998).
In 2004, Fisheries and Oceans Canada concluded a detailed review of scientific information on impacts of seismic sound on fish, invertebrates, marine turtles, and marine mammals (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004b). It concluded, in relation to zooplankton, eggs, and larvae of fish and invertebrates, the following:
• Few studies of the effects of seismic sound on eggs and larvae or on zooplankton were found. A number of these provided inadequate description of experiment design; properties of the sound applied as treatments, or had methodological shortcomings. • Data are generally insufficient to evaluate the potential damage to eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish (or other planktonic organisms) that might be caused by seismic sound under field operating conditions. • From the experiments reported to date, results do show that exposure to sound may arrest development of eggs, and cause developmental anomalies in a small proportion of exposed eggs and/or larvae; however these results occurred at numbers of exposures much higher than are likely to occur during field operation conditions, and at sound intensities that only occur within a few meters of the sound source. • Effects of seismic sounds on behavioural functions and sensory perception of fish and invertebrate eggs and larvae are unknown; • In general, the magnitude of mortality of eggs or larvae that models predict could result from exposure to seismic sound would be far below that which would be expected to affect populations. However, special life history characteristics such as extreme patchiness in distribution and timing of key life history events in relation to the duration and coverage of seismic surveys may require case by case assessment. • No studies were found which specifically investigated the role of seismic sounds in recruitment variation of marine fish or invertebrates. There have been a large number of research studies on causes of variation in recruitment of marine fish or invertebrates, and none has considered that there are recruitment anomalies (positive or negative) which might be linked in space or time to seismic survey operations. This negative evidence applies at the scale of stocks, but does not provide information about the potential for effects on local-scale recruitment dynamics.
Given the above findings and since the exposure for most such organisms would be a "one time" occurrence, environmental elements such as phytoplankton, zooplankton, invertebrate (pelagic and benthic), their associated larvae, as well as fish eggs and larvae were not directly assigned VEC status (Table 16). Furthermore, since the impacts on eggs, larvae, and juveniles are expected to be insignificant, no specific mitigations are required. The proposed survey does not adversely impact critical or unique spawning grounds, including those of Species at Risk, and the majority of the survey is not on the upper shelf or banks (i.e. shallower than 200 metres). Line spacing, frequency of exposure (effectively 1 time event), location, and water depths, reduce the likelihood of impacts on any areas of concentration. Furthermore, the survey will be conducted progressively by a single vessel, the area occupied by the survey at any given time will be a moving "point" in deeper waters away from the near shore, and there will be no continuing ensonification in any one area.
9.1 SELECTED VEC ASSESSMENT
The assessments for each VEC considered: impact pathways, a review of relevant literature / research, evaluation of potential effects, and identification of specific appropriate mitigation.
9.1.1 Impact Definitions and Criteria
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Practitioner's Guide states that "the criteria for determining significance include magnitude, geographic extent, duration and frequency, irreversibility, ecological context” and that the assessment considers the likelihood of an adverse impact occurring. Significant adverse environmental effects are those that will cause a change in the VEC such that its status or integrity is altered beyond an acceptable level. In other words, a significant adverse anthropogenic environmental effect may alter the assigned VEC in terms of its physical, chemical, or biological quality or extent to such a degree that there is a detrimental change in its ecological integrity beyond which natural mechanisms would not return that VEC to its former level of ecological integrity within the system. Table 17 describes the criteria applied for this project within the ecological context described in this report. Residual impacts are determined after application of applicable mitigation measures.
Table 17. Impact Definitions and Criteria Magnitude LOW > within natural variation/less than one generation MEDIUM > temporarily outside natural variation / 1 to 2
generations HIGH > permanently outside natural variation / whole
population affected Geographic Extent LOW > localized MEDIUM > sectoral HIGH > widespread Duration LOW > less than one month MEDIUM > one to two months HIGH > greater than two months Frequency LOW > one time event MEDIUM > several events low duration HIGH > continuous Reversible / Reversible > by natural processes and or mitigation Irreversible Irreversible > permanent regardless of mitigation Limits of Confidence LOW > high degree of scientific uncertainty MEDIUM > medium degree of scientific uncertainty HIGH > low degree of scientific uncertainty (conclusions
are accurate) Significance No Significant Residual Impact Characterization Post- Significant Residual Impact Mitigation Positive Residual Impact
9.1.2 Marine Fish
Potential effects of seismic surveys on reduced fisheries catches are a concern to fishers as a result of physical impacts on eggs, larvae and juvenile fish; potential scaring of fish (reduced catch rates, diverted migrations, and/or interrupting spawning behaviour) as well as potential physical interference with harvesting practices, (i.e., gear conflicts, particularly with fixed gear, that may become entangled with seismic streamers). Engås et al. (1996) found that cod and haddock moved away from a 3 nm x 10 nm region (5.6 km x 18 km) in which seismic operations were carried out over a five-day period.
Reductions in fish catches were observed out to their sampling limit of 33 km. They postulated that the fish may have been responding to continuously discharging airguns by swimming through a gradient of exponentially decreasing sound levels and, as such, habituation may have occurred. Therefore, the fish may have terminated their avoidance reaction at different distances depending on their size and swimming speed.
Alternatively, the fish may have responded to the airgun discharges by increasing their swimming speed leading to exhaustion. Avoiding the sound source by prolonged swimming speeds (He 1993) may have produced a response pattern of alternating intervals of swimming and resting until habituation terminated the response at different distances for fish of different sizes. Engås et al. (1996) concluded that the effects of seismic had lasted for at least five days. Løkkeborg (1991) analyzed longline catches of cod in the presence of seismic surveys and concluded a reduction in catch rate had occurred. Løkkeborg and Soldal (1993) examined catch data obtained from commercial vessels operating on fishing grounds where seismic explorations were being conducted. They found a 56 percent reduction in longline catches of cod and 81 percent reduction in the by-catch of cod in shrimp trawling. Skalski et al. (1992) reported that catches of various redfish species (using vertical lines) declined by 50 percent during discharges of a single airgun. These observations suggested that the fish had responded by either avoiding the sound field of operating seismic vessels or their behavioural state was changed and as such, they were no longer available to the fishing techniques tested. Løkkeborg and Soldal (1993) suggested that behavioural changes that forced fish to the bottom acted to temporarily increase catch rates of cod in the trawls during seismic activities.
The potential seismic effects on fish do not necessarily translate to disruptions to commercial fisheries. For many fish species, any behavioural changes or avoidance effects may involve little if any risk factor.
Marine fish species differ widely in their ability to hear. Fish, such as herring, in which the swim bladder is connected directly to the inner ear, appear to perceive sounds more acutely than those that do not. For herring, for example, the upper frequency limit of hearing ranges from 4,000 to 13,000 Hz, whereas the upper limit in fish without the connection is about 1,000 to 1,200 Hz (Enger, 1967). While herring are relatively sensitive to sound, cod do not have a direct connection between swim bladder and inner ear, and are less sensitive (Olsen, 1969).
Finfish held in cages and unable to avoid an approaching array have shown damage to their hearing, and fish held immediately under an array may be killed (Thomson et al., 2001). For instance, Falk and Lawrence (1973; cited in Davis et al., 1998) exposed adult Arctic cisco and other small coregonids with swim bladders to a 300 cubic inches source unit operating at 2,000 to 2,200 psi. While no mortalities were observed, some fish sustained damage to the swim bladder. Based on the damage observed, they concluded that the lethal radius of the airgun was between 0.6 and 1.5 metres (at 226-234 dB re 1 µPa). Weinhold and Weaver (1982) tested effects on salmon smolts (130 mm, 25 g). Nineteen of twenty fish survived exposure to pressures of 70 to 166 psi (234 dB re 1 mPa) at a distance of 1 metre from airguns. Studies by Enger, (1981) and Hastings et al. (1996) suggest that exposure to continuous sounds of 180 dB re 1 µPa RMS for 1 to 5 hours can cause damage to the sensory hair cells that are the fundamental sound receptors in fish, McCauley (cited in Thomson et al, 2001) found some damage to fish hearing organs after 10 exposures to seismic sounds at received energy levels of 132- 182 dB re 1 µPa2.
In general, under normal circumstances, most fish would be expected to swim away to avoid the source as it approaches. Gausland (2000) in a review of known impacts on
marine organisms concluded that airgun operations cause little direct physical damage to fish at distances greater than 12 metres from the source. Nevertheless, it is evident that fish respond to sounds emitted from airguns. Reactions to the sound impulses are reported at levels from 180 dB re 1 mPa, but the full extent of the reactions is unknown. Due to the avoidance behaviour by free-swimming fish, they should not suffer physical damage from the airguns. However the immediate catch rate near surveys can be affected, but the reduction in catch rates is not expected to be long lasting. The reason for reduced catches is probably because fish dive to the bottom or disperse when exposed to high-level sound. For mitigation it is standard industry practice to ‘ramp-up’ airguns when starting a survey to ‘warn’ fish and marine mammals in the area.
Similarly, the Western Australian Department of Minerals and Energy’s "Guidelines on minimising acoustic disturbance to marine fauna" (2001, Section 5) state that the effects of seismic surveys on fish are generally observed to be transitory, except at close range. Seismic shots are known to elicit a startle response in fish, resulting in a movement away from the source of the noise, and changes in schooling behaviour. Behavioural changes are observed to cease during the exposure period, sometimes within minutes of commencement of surveying, indicating habituation to the noise. Fish are considered to have good low frequency hearing and so are likely to be able to hear seismic shots for up to several kilometres from the source. Disturbance of fish is believed to cease at noise levels below 180 dB re 1µPa.
Davis et al. (1998) also concluded that adult fish on the Scotian Shelf would not be physically injured by seismic arrays unless immediately adjacent to an airgun, and direct impacts of seismic exploration on adult fish should be negligible.
McCauley et al. (2000a) investigated physiological stress indicators in several species of caged finfish exposed to airgun arrays by measuring changes in cortisol levels. They report, for all species studied there was no significant increases in stress measurements which could be definitively associated with airgun exposure. They concluded that there had been no significant physiological stress increase as a result of exposure.
The recent 2004 Fisheries and Oceans Canada review of potential seismic impacts (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004b) in relation to physical effects on marine fish concluded the following:
• There are no documented cases of fish mortality upon exposure to seismic sound under field operating conditions. With regard to the de-tectability of fish kills, if they occurred, it was noted that in Canada seismic surveys have frequently, but not always, included follow-on vessels instructed to watch for fish kills, and none have been observed. It was also noted that fish kills are not necessarily cryptic events, and kills caused by anoxic events, toxic spills etc are often readily detected. However, it was also argued that the efficiency of detecting fish kills by the follow-on vessels was not tested independently, so the possibility of undetected fish kills cannot be eliminated. • Under experimental conditions one study found that some subjects from three of four species tested suffered lethal effects from low-frequency (<500 Hz) tonal sounds, under exposure levels of 24 h at >170 dB. Participants noted that the experimental regime differed greatly from field operating conditions of seismic surveys, so extrapolation of the results to
seismic surveys was not warranted. However some participants argued that the result indicates that risk of direct fish mortality from sounds with some characteristics of seismic sound cannot be discounted completely. • One anecdotal report of fish mortality upon exposure to an airgun less than 2 m away was discussed and found to be inconclusive when considered relative to field operating conditions. Overall, exposure to seismic sound is considered unlikely to result in direct fish mortality. • Under experimental conditions, sub-lethal and/or physiological effects, including effects on hearing, have sometimes been observed in fish exposed to an airgun. The experimental design made it impossible to determine to the satisfaction of all experts what intensity of sound was responsible for the observed damage to ear structures, nor the biological significance of the damage that was observed. Simulated field experiments attempting to study such effects have been inconclusive. Currently, information is inadequate to evaluate the likelihood of sub-lethal or physiological effects under field operating conditions. The ecological significance of sub-lethal or physiological effects, were they occur, could range from trivial to important depending on their nature.
Considering the limited duration that the survey will be in any particular area and expected distances from the array based on fish avoidance, physical impacts on fish, including sub-lethal and chronic impacts (e.g. permanent effects on hearing), are not expected. Nevertheless, to avoid potential impacts on fish the survey will employ a "ramp-up" procedure (i.e. starting with low energy array components and slowly increasing the volume) each time it starts the array. This will allow finfish (and other non- planktonic organisms such as marine mammals and turtles) to move away from the area before they can be exposed to the full array energy. The ramp-up procedures will begin no later than 30 minutes prior to the use of seismic equipment and will progress continuously until recording starts. Ramp-up will begin with a single low cubic inch airgun firing singly, followed gradually by other airgun units in the array.
Recently, Payne et al. (2008) have reviewed literature appearing since 2003 to early 2008 related to the effects of marine seismic produced energy on finfish and shellfish. From the review of this literature, they conclude that seismic energy sources can produce low levels of noise at considerable distance from the energy source but, in relation to ambient ocean noise and animal behaviour, the “cacophony” of noise associated with marine vessels could be of greater importance.
Furthermore, a literature review of the effects of seismic energy on fish (Worcester 2006) covering the period from 1996 to 2006 indicates that there is considered to be a high probability that some fish within the general vicinity (i.e. a few hundred meters) of a seismic operation will experience a startle response, change in swimming speed or direction, and changes in vertical distribution. However, this response is short lived with recovery within minutes to hours after exposure. In addition, there is a lower but still reasonable probability that seismic surveys will influence the horizontal distribution and related catchability of some species under certain conditions, such as during migration. Nevertheless, seismic surveys are considered unlikely to result in immediate mortality of fish but sub-lethal physical damage and physiological impairments may occur within close proximity to an airgun source. Most recently, November 2009, in a culmination of an extensive study of noise in the marine environment including marine mammals, it was noted by the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic (the “OSPAR Convention”) OSPAR Commission (2009a, 2009b), that: “there is no conclusive evidence of a link between the sounds of seismic surveys and the mortality of any marine life”. Furthermore, there is limited information on the possible physical injury (permanent or temporary threshold shift).
Overall, seismic operations will not measurably impact marine fish within the profiling area.
9.1.3 Marine Birds
Environment Canada’s Eastern Canadian Seabirds at Sea (ECSAS) program, a copy of the CD has been received from Environment Canada and will be reviewed and placed onboard the vessel.
There are many species of seabirds and related species that can be found associated with the waters of proposed survey area. Not all are breeding populations and may only contact water or the shore area for brief period in the summer. There are no endangered or threatened species within the seismic survey area according to the latest information on the Species at Risk (SARA) Registry, however, the Ivory Gull is designated a species of special concern by COSEWIC. Environment Canada protocols for seabird observations will be used for seabirds for this project.
In general, there is little scientific information about impacts of seismic array sounds on birds. Davis et al. (1998) reports that "Stemp (1985) made observations on the reactions of birds to seismic exploration programs in southern Davis Strait over three summer periods. No distributional or mortality effects were detected. Evans et al. (1993) made observations from operating seismic vessels in the Irish Sea. They noted that, when seabirds were in the vicinity of the seismic boats, there was no observable difference in their behaviour, birds neither being attracted nor repelled by seismic testing.
Many of the birds that might forage in the Project Area are divers, such as the Dovekie, Thick-billed Murre, and Atlantic Puffin that dive quite deeply and may spend considerable time under water. Murres regularly dive to depths of 100 metres and have been recorded underwater for more than three minutes (Gaston and Jones, 1998; cited in LGL, 2003).
Since the array will be gradually ramped-up at each start, and the array will generate impulses every 13 seconds, seabirds will be warned as they approach the ship and array. This will reduce or remove the likelihood that birds will choose to come close enough to the array to experience hearing damage or other physical harm.
In terms of risk to birds from pollutants, oil slicks, or wastewater, the survey vessel will comply with all applicable regulations concerning discharges of materials into the marine environment, as described above. The vessel is equipped to minimize risk of any spills and has an emergency response plan in place.
Onboard lights are known to attract birds, though the situation on the survey vessel is not expected to be any different than for any other similar-sized cargo or fishing ship, and the survey vessel will not typically be stationary.
In general, considering the small impact of seismic sounds in the air and the brief time the survey vessel will be in specific areas, the presence of the survey vessel should pose little risk and no measurable impact is predicted on seabirds within the area of survey Table 9.
9.1.4 Marine Mammals
Marine mammals depend on sound to communicate, forage, avoid danger, and navigate. Increases in man-made noise levels can result in the masking of these sounds or a decrease in the distance over which they can be detected. The likelihood that an animal would be impacted by a noise is dependent on its intensity, frequency, duration of exposure, and the distance between the animal and the source. It is also dependent on the frequency of the noise being emitted relative to the hearing sensitivity of the marine mammal.
As a group, marine mammals have a functional hearing range of 0.01 to 200 kHz. However, different species of marine mammals have different acoustic abilities and sensitivities. Toothed and baleen whales, for instance, are known to be sensitive to different frequencies of noise. Toothed whales are less sensitive to low frequency sounds (<500 Hz), but have good sensitivity at up to 100 kHz or more (Evans and Raga, 2001). In contrast, baleen whales are thought to be sensitive to the low frequency sounds (<500 Hz), the frequencies at which they vocalize (Evans and Raga, 2001). If man-made noises occur within these frequencies there is the potential to negatively affect marine mammals either physiologically or behaviourally.
The potential effects of acoustic emissions on marine mammals can be divided into four categories:
• Permanent threshold shift (PTS): Long-term hearing damage due to physical injury to a marine mammal’s hearing apparatus. Occurs when an animal is exposed to high peak pressure sound impulses (Richardson et al., 1995). • Temporary threshold shift (TTS): Temporary reduction in hearing sensitivity. Occurs when an animal is exposed to a strong sound that results in a non-permanent elevation of the hearing sensitivity threshold (Richardson et al., 1995). • Masking: Failure to distinguish the signal when both the signal and masking noise have similar frequencies and either overlap or occur very close to each other in time; and • Changes in the behaviour and/or distribution (i.e. habitat avoidance) of a marine mammal that is of sufficient magnitude to be “biologically significant” (Richardson et al., 1995).
The noises emitted during seismic operations have higher peak source levels than other man-made noises including drilling, construction, and vessel activity. However, seismic exploration sounds tend to be short, discontinuous pulses, which are separated by quiet periods.
The energy from seismic activity varies, however, airgun arrays and other “high energy” sources are generally between 20 and 1,500 Hz. As a result, it is likely below the hearing
sensitivities of toothed whales. This may explain why there is no known seismic data on the behaviour of toothed whales exposed to seismic noise. However, overall received levels of airgun pulses are often ≥ 130 dB re 1 µPa, a level that is potentially audible to toothed whales. Therefore, despite the toothed whales poor low-frequency hearing, it has been suggested that they may be able to hear seismic noise out to a radius of 10- 100 km.
In contrast to toothed whales, the low hearing sensitivity of baleen whales makes them much more sensitive to seismic noise. Baleen whales have been seen slowing, turning away, and increasing respiration rates as a result of airgun noise (Richardson et al., 1995). These behavioural observations have been detected in bowheads 5-10 km away from the sound source and in humpbacks at ranges of up to 3.2 km away (Richardson et al., 1995).
A scientific review on what is known regarding marine mammals and acoustic noise is presented in Appendix C (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004b). This document, titled Review of Scientific Information on Impacts of Seismic Sound on Fish, Invertebrates, Marine Turtles and Marine Mammals, forms the basis of the Statement of Canadian Practice on the Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment described in Section 5.3 of this document (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004a), and is available on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2004/HSR2004_002_E.pdf
As additional reference, another summary document, titled Review of Potential Impacts of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals is presented in Appendix D. This document also reviews relevant information concerning the potential effects of airgun sounds, specifically on marine mammals, and provides a more thorough analysis of mechanisms of sound produced by airguns operating in the marine environment.
Based on current knowledge on hearing sensitivities it is possible that seismic activity related to the project may affect marine mammals, particularly baleen whales. However, because the project will be following the Statement of Canadian Practice on the Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment, the more serious PTS and TTS effects are unlikely. Impacts to marine mammal behaviour, particularly habitat avoidance, are possible but overall these impacts are expected to be limited due to the short term and periodic nature of the proposed seismic activity. The survey acquisition plan (i.e. order of survey lines to be acquired) is intended to maximize separation between marine mammals and the survey vessel, and includes starting acquisition in the south and progressing north. This detailed survey acquisition plan will be prepared prior to project initiation.
9.1.4.1 Pinnipeds
Preliminary results of a radio telemetry study by Thompson et al. (1998; cited in Anderson 2001) suggest that pronounced (but short-term) behavioural changes can occur in harbour seals and gray seals exposed to airgun pulses. They stated that normal foraging dives were interrupted and that avoidance reactions usually occurred. The seals returned to their previous foraging areas after airgun operations ceased. The USNMF Service has also set a safety limit of 190 dB for seals.
9.1.5 Marine Reptiles
There is only one marine reptile that may be encountered during the seismic survey, the leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. The leatherback has been recorded off Labrador (Bleakney, 1965), and may occur further north during July to September when seawater temperatures are seasonally high (Goff and Lein, 1988). Here they are at the most northerly limit of their distributional range for the eastern hemisphere.
There are no specific data on their response to seismic related noise. The review presented below reflects current knowledge of hearing and noise related activity of these marine reptiles.
In general, sea turtles have maximum hearing sensitivity in the 140-500 Hz range (Ridgeway et al., 1969) or 100-700 Hz range (Wever, 1978; cited in McCauley, 1994). The peak sensitivity for the green turtle was 65 dB re 1 μPa at 400 Hz. Outside the above frequency ranges, the hearing sensitivity drops off sharply at 20-40 dB/octave above the range and 35-40 dB/octave below the range, depending upon the study. Likewise, Lenhardt et al. (1983) obtained evidence that loggerhead and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles are sensitive to underwater sounds in the 250-500 Hz range. Thus, turtles will certainly hear sound pulses from a seismic program on relatively shallow shelf areas. That report also notes that there is very little information on the effects of seismic exploration on sea turtles.
O’Hara and Wilcox (1990) conducted experiments to determine whether airguns would be a suitable means of keeping loggerhead turtles from entering waters that were unsafe for them. Turtles maintained an exclusion zone of at least 30 metres around a seismic energy source emitting sound at a level of about 220 dB. The highest level of turtle activity in the experimental situation occurred at the maximum distance (180-210 metres) from the noise source. These results may not be applicable to open water situations since the turtles would have more choices about moving away from a seismic source. Alternatively, substantial amounts of turtle activity occurred closer to the airgun than was necessary, given available quieter habitat (Davis et al. 1998). Describing potential effects on loggerheads, LGL (2003) states "Loggerhead and green turtles showed behavioural avoidance to received sound levels of 166 dB re μPa RMS generated by an airgun. McCauley et al. (2000) found that the behaviour of the animals became more erratic at received sound levels of 175 dB re μPa. Consequently, it is likely that sea turtles will exhibit behavioural reactions or avoidance within an area of unknown size around a seismic vessel (Moulton and Richardson, 2000).In other studies, Moein et al. (1994) observed apparent temporary threshold shift (TTS) in captive loggerhead turtles after exposing the animals to a few hundred airgun pulses at distances of no more than 65 metres. The hearing capabilities of the tested animals returned to normal two weeks later. These researchers did not report the size of the airgun used or the received sound levels.
While the impacts of the arrays would likely not be lethal, the impulses might disrupt their foraging patterns and have other important behavioural consequences. The proposed marine mammal mitigation methods will be adopted in the case a turtle is seen by the dedicated marine observer that will be onboard the survey vessel.
Overall, on the basis of the above information as well as implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, no measurable impact on marine mammals is anticipated during the period of seismic acquisition in the Davis Strait region (Table 18).
9.1.6 Fishing Gear Conflict
All proposed activity associated with this project will occur offshore, fishing vessels and their associated in-sea gear represent the main group that could be potentially affected by the physical presence of the survey vessel and in-sea equipment. In order to manage this effectively, Fisheries Liaison Officers (FLO’s) familiar with the survey area's fisheries will be employed on the vessel during the proposed survey as means of facilitating inter- industry communications, advising on fisheries issues, and avoiding fishing / gear conflicts. It is anticipated that the FLO individuals will be hired based on the recommendation of the local fishing industry. The FLO’s will provide dedicated marine radio contact for all fishing vessels in the vicinity of the survey vessel to discuss potential interactions and solutions. These persons, knowledgeable about local fishing, will assist the vessel's bridge personnel with information about established fishing activities and harvesting methods.
As discussed in Section 6 of this report, commercial fish harvesting activities may occur throughout the survey period within some parts of the survey area, though the timing of specific fisheries varies. The fixed-gear (gill nets and long-lines) of the turbot fishery pose the highest potential for gear conflict if they are concurrent and co-location wit h seismic survey operations. Historically, such gear conflicts have occurred in other areas, typically 2-3 times annually throughout Atlantic Canada. All incidents have involved fixed gear (typically crab or lobster pots, gill nets, or large pelagic long-lines). When these events occur, they are assessed on a case-by-case basis and compensation paid for determined losses.
Mitigation plans to avoid active fishing areas are presented below. These focus on reducing the likelihood of conflicts. With precautions and compensation plans in place, the economic impacts on fishers would be negligible, and thus not significant.
9.1.7 Avoidance
As discussed above, potential impacts on fishing gear will be mitigated by avoiding active fixed gear fishing areas. The Fisheries Liaison Officer is good at-sea communications, and mapping of fishing locations have proven effective in the past at preventing such conflicts.
9.1.8 Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO)
As described above, the onboard fisheries industry FLOs will provide a dedicated marine radio contact for all fishing vessels in the vicinity of the survey vessel to help identify gear locations, discuss potential interactions and find solutions, and provide essential guidance to the Bridge.
9.1.9 Communications with Fishing Industry
During the fisheries consultations, operators noted that good communications are the best way to minimize interference with fishing activities. Good communication with fishers is important before and during the survey. The Operator (through its consultants) has contacted, and will continue to communicate with appropriate fisheries organizations to inform them of planned survey activities and to facilitate information exchange with fisheries participants.
Relevant information about the survey will also be publicized using established communications mechanisms, such as the Notices to Shipping and CBC Radio’s Fisheries Broadcast, as well as direct communications between the survey vessel and fishing vessels via marine radio at sea.
9.1.10 Single Point of Contact
The Operator will arrange for the services of a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) with the fisheries industry. The SPOC role will include updating vessel personnel (i.e. the FLO, the Captain, and the Party Manager) about known fishing activities in the area, and will relay relevant information from Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
9.1.11 Fishing Gear Compensation
In case of accidental damage to fishing gear, The Operator will have available a gear damage compensation contingency plan to provide appropriate and timely compensation to any affected fisheries participants. The Notices to Shipping filed by the vessel will also inform fishers that they may contact the SPOC, if they believe that they have sustained survey-related gear damage.
The Operator is familiar with the C-NLOPB Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Related to Offshore Petroleum Activity (C-NLOPB /2002), and with programs developed jointly by the fisheries industry and offshore petroleum operators (e.g. by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and other Operators) as alternatives to claims through the courts or the C-NLOPB, to address all aspects of compensation for attributable gear damage. These programs include provisions for paying compensation for lost or damaged gear, and any additional financial loss that is demonstrated to be associated with the incident. The programs include mechanisms for claim payments and dispute resolution. The operator will implement similar procedures to settle claims promptly for any gear damage that may be caused by survey operations, including the replacement costs for lost or damaged gear, and any additional financial loss that is demonstrated to be associated with the damage, as required under the C-NLOPB Guidelines. The Operator will provide the C-NLOPB with the details of any compensation to be paid.
By adopting the above mitigation measures it is unlikely that a significant impact on fishing gear will occur during the seismic program (Table 18).
Table 18. Matrix of Potential Environmental Effects of the Project components on Value Ecosystem / Environmental Components Valued Ecosystem Geographic Reversible / Limits of Significance Magnitude Duration Frequency Level Post- Component (VEC) Extent Irreversible Confidence Mitigation
No Significant Whales LOW LOW MED LOW Reversible HIGH Residual Impact No Significant Seals LOW LOW MED LOW Reversible HIGH Residual Impact No Significant W alr us LOW LOW MED LOW Reversible HIGH Residual Impact
Marine Mammals Marine No Significant Polar Bear LOW LOW MED LOW Reversible HIGH Residual Impact No Significant Marine Reptiles LOW LOW MED LOW Reversible HIGH Residual Impact No Significant Birds LOW LOW MED LOW Reversible HIGH Residual Impact No Significant Fish LOW LOW MED LOW Reversible HIGH Residual Impact No Significant Fishing Gear Conflict LOW LOW MED LOW Reversible HIGH Residual Impact
LOW Within natural variation/less than one generation Magnitude MEDIUM Temporarily outside natural variation / 1 to 2 generations HIGH Permanently outside natural variation / whole population affected LOW Localized Geographic Extent MEDIUM Sectoral HIGH Widespread Duration LOW Less than one month
MEDIUM One to two months HIGH Greater than two months LOW One time event Frequency MEDIUM Several events low duration HIGH Continuous Reversible By natural processes and or mitigation Reversible / Irreversible Irreversible Permanent regardless of mitigation LOW High degree of scientific uncertainty Limits of Confidence MEDIUM Medium degree of scientific uncertainty HIGH Low degree of scientific uncertainty (conclusions are accurate) No Significant Residual Impact Significance Level Post- Significant Residual Mitigation Positive Residual Impact
9.2 MITIGATIONS
The Operator will follow the ‘Statement of Canadian Practice on the Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment’ developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in order to minimize the negative effects of its activity on the environment (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004a). This document is available for review online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/im-gi/seismic-sismique/index_e.asp
The Statement of Canadian Practice was created to formalize and standardize the mitigation measures used in Canada with respect to the conduct of seismic surveys in the marine environment. Based on current knowledge and experience, seismic surveys conducted with the mitigation measures contained in the Statement of Canadian Practice are not expected to cause significant adverse environmental effects. A copy of this document is provided in Appendix F. In addition, the JNCC guidelines will also be adhered to.
A scientific review on what is known regarding marine mammals and acoustic noise is also presented in Appendix G (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004b). This document, titled ‘Review of Scientific Information on Impacts of Seismic Sound on Fish, Invertebrates, Marine Turtles and Marine Mammals’, forms the basis of the “Statement of Canadian Practice on the Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment”, and is also available on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2004/HSR2004_002_E.pdf
No residual environmental impacts are expected on the marine resources in the survey area. A seismic energy source for this study produces about 230 db re 1 μPa @ 1 m. At a distance of about 1 km from the sound source the received sound is in the order of 170 db re 1 μPa. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has concluded that exposure to seismic sound is considered unlikely to result in direct fish or invertebrate mortality (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004a).
For marine mammals, at a safety zone distance of 500 metres from the sound source will be established. At this distance the received sound level (180 dB re 1 μPa) is similar to the vocalization sounds made by Humpback, Bowhead, Right, Blue, Fin, as well as other large marine mammals (175-190 dB). Furthermore, vessel traffic in the area, such as commercial fishing, produces sound levels in the order of 154 dB (Richardson et al., 1995). As a note, rain will increase the background noise by up to 35 dB above ambient.
All standard and industrially related mitigation measures pertaining to the use of seismic airgun arrays for exploration will be adopted and followed. For marine mammals, especially whales, the safety radius or zone of 500 metres from the sound generating source will be adopted to reduce received sound levels in the order of 180 dB at the maximum (LGL, 2005). Note that this sound level is about the same sound production level that is produced by cracking and breaking pack ice that is prevalent in this high Arctic environment, and represents a background noise level. Further mitigation measures with respect to potential marine mammal interaction with the project will also be adopted.
These include:
• Alteration of vessel speed / course providing it will not compromise operational safety requirements. • Airguns will be shut down if any marine mammal enters or is anticipated to enter the 500 metres safety zone through observations by a trained marine mammal observer on the research vessel. • Airgun start-up procedures will not commence unless a full 500 metres safety zone is clear of any marine mammal by visual inspection by a trained marine mammal observer for a continuous period of at least 30 minutes. • The airgun array will be “powered down” during transit from one seismic line to another. All guns will be turned off except for one gun, which will function as a signal intended to alert marine mammals of the presence of the vessel. • Total shut down of all airgun activity will occur and not resume until all marine mammals have cleared the 500 metres safety zone. • Airgun start-up procedures will include a “ramping-up” period. • The location of the seismic activity associated with this project will not take place in the vicinity of any native harvest area. • Notice to mariners posting where and when surveying will occur. • Adherence to recent Fisheries and Oceans Canada guidelines for conducting seismic surveys in Canadian waters (Appendix F).
With respect to polar bears, it is highly unlikely that the sub-sea sound produced will impact bears if they are encountered. If seen by the trained marine mammal observer within the 500 metres safety zone, all of the above mitigation measures will be applied to ensure that no project interaction occurs.
For marine fish and invertebrates, federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other scientific studies have indicated that no fish kills have taken place that can be directly attributed to seismic exploration activity, and no measurable impact on populations of phytoplankton, zooplankton, as well as fish eggs, larvae, or juveniles have been reported at distances of 8 metres from the seismic sound source.
Overall, by adopting all industrial mitigation standards as well as more stringent measures discussed above, no anticipated measurable environmental impacts are predicted for this seismic exploration research field program in the Davis Strait project area.
9.2.1 Ramp-Up
"Ramping-up" (i.e. starting with low energy array components and slowly increasing the volume) will allow marine mammals to avoid the survey area if they choose to. The survey vessel will gradually ramp-up (soft-start) the energy of the airgun array to warn away marine mammals and finfish before they can be exposed to the full array energy.
As specified in the C-NLOPB Guidelines, the ramp-up procedures will begin after a 30- minute observation period (see below), at least 20 minutes prior to the use of seismic equipment, and be continuous until recording starts. Ramp-up will begin with a single air-
source unit firing singly followed by other source units in the array. The array will then increase intensity, either through adding units or increasing pressure (or both), at a planned rate until the full intensity of the array is achieved.
9.2.2 Start-Up and Shutdown Procedures
As specified in the 2004 C-NLOPB Guidelines, a visual inspection of the area will be conducted by a designated observer for the presence of marine mammals and/or sea turtles 30 minutes prior to commencement of the soft start.
The Operator undertakes not to commence the array start-up, or to recommence firing the array if stopped, if any marine mammal or turtle is sighted within 500 metres of the survey vessel during this period. During ramp-up, if a marine mammal is sighted within 500 metres of the array, the array will be shut down.
If for any reason the array is shut down, ramp-up procedures will be followed prior to recommencing survey operations. Outside daylight hours, or in periods of low visibility, visual observations may not be practicable. In these situations, a soft-start approach will still be employed, and the reasons for “no observations” will be recorded.
Employing these mitigation methods, no measurable impact is anticipated for the leatherback sea turtle that could potentially enter the area of seismic surveying (Table 18).
9.3 ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS
All safety measures established on the research vessel will be enforced while seismic data are collected. Dedicated safety officers and crew of the research vessel will be fully briefed on the procedures required by the scientific staff for deployment, data collection, and instrument retrieval. No instrument deployment / data collection will occur at any time without the knowledge of the vessel Captain or designate. The vessel carries trained personnel and applies specific protocols to deal with equipment malfunctions that may lead to the spill of toxic materials.
9.4 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT
Sea and ice conditions are the primary sources of potential effects of the environment on the project. If sea states exceed a Beaufort wind scale value of 7, with sea waves in excess of 3-4 metres in height, seismic activity cannot take place. Additionally, if pack- ice is covering the proposed survey area, no seismic data can be acquired in that region and another; ice-free survey area must be visited.
As described in detail in Section 8.2.1, airgun start-up procedures will not commence unless a full 500 metre safety zone is clear of any marine mammal by visual inspection by a trained marine mammal observer for a continuous period of at least 30 minutes. Outside of daylight hours, or in periods of low visibility, visual observations may not be practicable. In these situations, start-up procedures (including a soft-start approach, described below) will still be employed, and the reasons for “no observations” will be recorded.
This gradual ramp-up / soft-start of the seismic array commences by firing a single source (preferably the smallest source in terms of energy output and volume), and then continuing to active additional sources in ascending order of size over a 30 minute period until the desired operating level is attained.
9.5 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Measurable cumulative effects from seismic activity combined with other sources of sound occurring at the same time as the survey are not anticipated. The project activities represent multiple individual one-time events distributed over a broad area. We are unaware of any other seismic program in the area during the same period of data acquisition, however, there may be noise associated with commercial fishing activity. Nevertheless, over the past several years there has been over 1.5 million line km of seismic data collected regionally, with approximately 130,000 line kilometres acquired off Labrador since 1968. No measurable impact to any marine resource has been identified to our knowledge.
9.6 CONSULTATIONS
Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd. (Sikumiut) was engaged by RPS Energy (Canadian Lead Consultancy for the Operator)to carry out a consultation program in support of the Environmental Assessment for a proposed Seismic Project to be conducted on the Labrador Offshore Shelf in 2011. Contacts were made with 105 stakeholders in communities on the north coast of Labrador from Nain to Rigolet; the upper Lake Melville towns of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River and Sheshatshiu; and the south coast communities from Cartwright to Mary’s Harbour. Some non-residents with business interests in coastal Labrador were also consulted.
Information package were distributed to 105 stakeholders and follow-up contacts were made to each individual. A total of 13 of the stakeholders provided an immediate response by e-mail and an intense effort was made by Sikumiut staff to contact the others by telephone. The overall effort resulted in receiving responses and holding discussions with the majority of those contacted.
Direct meetings were held with the Fish Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW) and One Ocean and the Chairperson of the Labrador North Coast Fishers’ Committee at their request.
Currently arrangements are being made for additional in person meetings in the communities listed below: They are expected to begin on April 11, 2011.
8) Nain, 9) Makkovik 10) Rigolet 11) Port Hope Simpson 12) North West River 13) St. Anthony 14) Goosebay
The meetings will consist of a PowerPoint presentation explaining the potential program, mitigation measures, seismic equipment and Mitigation measures. A full report on the outcome of these meetings will be forwarded to the board
9.7 FOLLOW-UP
No specific effects monitoring programs are indicated by this assessment. The survey provides a very good opportunity to collect environmental observation data related to some of the region's VEC’s, specifically seabirds and marine mammals. After the survey the observation data will be submitted to the C-NLOPB, (for on-pass to Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada), and will include a report on the results of the monitoring program.
The proposed program is an exploration survey only, designed to map the sub-sea geology, and is a first step in the exploration cycle. The issues pertaining to drilling and development were not considered here, as they represent separate processes which would occur many years in the future, if at all.
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abend, A.G. and T.D. Smith. 1999. Review of Distribution of the Long-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala melas) in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-117.Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/pubs/abendtm117.pdf Accessed: April, 2010.
Anderson Resources. 2001. Project Description for the Proposed Anderson Resources Ltd. Summer 2001/2002 Marine Seismic Program (Beaufort Sea), Inuvaluit Environmental and Geotechnical Inc. Calgary and Inuvik.
APPEA. 2004. Seismic and the marine environment. Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Limited, Canberra.
Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team. 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2006.
Au, W.W.L. and K. Banks 1998. The acoustics of the snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe Bay. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 103, (1): 41-47.
Au, W.W.L., P.E. Nachtigall, and J.L. Pawloski. 1999. Temporary threshold shift in hearing induced by an octave band of continuous noise in the bottlenose dolphin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84: 2273-2275.
Biers, J. M. 2003. Sounds Ok So Far. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans). January 23, 2003.
Blaxter, J.H. S., J.A.B. Gray, and E.J. Denton. 1981. Sound and Startle Responses in Herring Shoals. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 61:851-869.
Bleakney, J.S. 1965. Report of marine turtles from New England and eastern Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 79(2):120-128.
Boles, B.K., G.J. Chaput, and F.R. Phjillips. 1979. Offshore Labrador Biological Studies, 1979. Seals: A study and review of the distribution and ecology of pinnipeds in Labrador. Offshore Labrador Biological Studies (OLABS) Program. Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, 1979.
Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren, and K. Toklum. 1996. Effects of airguns on eggs, larvae and fry. Fisken og Havet No. 3, Havforskningsintituttet-Institute of Marine Research.
Bowering, W.R. 2001. Population Trends in the Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) Resource of NAFO Subarea 2 and Divisions 3KLMNO based on Canadian Research Vessel Survey Results during 1978-2000., NAFO SCR Doc. 01/39, 2001.
Born, E.W., D. Henning, F.F. Riget, R.D. Nils, and Ø.T. Haug. 2002. Regional variation of caesium- 137 in minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata from West Greenland, the Northeast Atlantic and the North Sea. Polar Biology. (25): 907-913.
Brice-Bennett, C. 1977. Our footprints are everywhere: Inuit land use and occupancy in Labrador, Labrador Inuit Association Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Burns, J.J. 2002. Harbour seal and spotted seal Phoca vitulina and P. largha. Pp: 552-560. InW.F.Perrin, B. Wursig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Canning & Pitt Associates. 2002. Environmental Assessment Report: TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA Seismic Survey – Newfoundland Orphan Basin - Labrador Slope 2002 (S/V Zephyr I), April 2002.
Canning & Pitt Associates. 2003. Environmental Assessment Report Update: TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA Newfoundland Orphan Basin - Labrador Slope Seismic Survey.
Canning & Pitt Associates. 2005Environmental Assessment: TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA Labrador Slope Seismic Survey Continuation.
Canning & Pitt Associates. 2006 Geophysical Services Inc. Labrador Shelf Survey (Infill- Extension) 2006.
Christiansen, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thompson, D. White, and R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effect of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio). LGL Ltd. and Oceans Ltd. Environmental Studies Research Fund report for NEB. Clark, C.W. and J.H. Johnson 1984. The sounds of the bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus, during the spring migrations of 1979 and 1980. Can. J. Zool. 62(7): 1436–1441. doi: 10.1139/z84-206.
C-NLOPB / C-NSOPB. 2002. Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Related to Offshore Petroleum Activity. Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and Canada- Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.
CNLOPB 2004. Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Orphan Basin Exploration Drilling Program Project Description. Prepared by LGL Limited environmental research associates. P.O. Box 13248 Stn. A. St. Jhon’s. NL.
CNLOPB . 2008. Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board Strategic Environmental Assessment Labrador Shelf Offshore Area Final Report. CNLOPB St Johns Newfoundland.
COSEWI C. 2000. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 21 pp.
COSEWIC. 2001. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the northern wolffish Anarhichas denticulatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 21 pp.
COSEWIC. 2001. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 22 pp.
COSEWIC. 2001. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 25 pp.
COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 32 pp.
COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the polar bear Ursus maritimus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 29 pp.
COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus (Scotian shelf population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 22 pp.
COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 32 pp.
COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Atlantic cod Gadus morhua in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 76 pp.
COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the cusk Brosme Brosme in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 30 pp.
COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the sei whale Balaenoptera borealis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 27 pp.
COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the humpback whale Megapteranovaeangliae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.viii + 25 pp.
COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 70 pp.
COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 50 pp.
COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the porbeagle shark Lamna nasus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 43 pp.
COSEWIC. 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 51 pp.
COSEWIC. 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the fin whale Balaenoptera physalus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 37 pp.
COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. ix + 37 pp.
COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (Northwest Atlantic population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 32 pp.
COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Atlantic walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 65 pp.
COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 42 pp.
COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 71 pp.
COSEWI C. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the roughhead grenadier Macrourus berglax in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 40 pp.
COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (paelei subspecies – Falco peregrinus and pealei anatum/tundrius –Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 45 pp.
COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Sowerby’s beaked whale Mesoplodon bidens in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 20 pp.
COSEW IC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the harbour seal Atlantic and Eastern Arctic subspecies Phoca vitulina concolor and Lacs des Loups Marins subspecies Phoca vitulina mellonae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 40 pp.
COSEWIC . 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus (Scotian shelf population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 22 pp. Cummings, M.C. and P.O. Thompson. 1971. Underwater Sounds from the Blue Whale, Balaenoptera musculus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 50, (4B): 1193-1198.
Dalen, J. and A. Raknes. 1985. Scaring effects on fish from three-dimensional seismic surveys. Report FO 8504, 22 p.
Dalen, J. and A. Raknes. 1985. The importance of sound in fish behaviour in relation to capture by trawls. FAO Fisheries Report 62(3): 717-729.
Dalen J. and G.M. Knutsen. 1986. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations. Pp. 93 –102. In H.M. Merklinger (ed). Progress in Underwater Acoustics. Proceedings of the Twelth International Congress on Acoustics. Associated Symposium on Underwater Acoustics, held July 16-18 1986 in Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada. Plenum Press New York.
Dalley, E.L., J.T. Anderson, and D.J. Davis. 2001. Decadal time series of invertebrate zooplankton on the Newfoundland Shelf and Grand Banks 1991-1999. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Res. Doc. 2001/110.
Davis, R.A., D.H. Thomson, and C.I. Malme. 1998. Environmental Assessment of Seismic Exploration on the Scotian Shelf. LGL Ltd.
Dawe, E.G., H.J. Drew, P.W. Veitch, R.Turpin, E. Steward and P.C. Beck. 2003. An assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab in 2002. . Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Res.Doc. 2003/025.
Dawe, E.G., D. Mullowney, D. Stansbury, D.G. Parsons, D.M. Taylor H.J. Drew, P.W. Veitch, E. Hynic, P.G. O’Keefe, and P.C. Beck. 2006. An assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab in 2005. . Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Res.Doc. 2006/031.
DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 1993. Halibut Management Plan. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
DFO. 2000. Atlantic Walrus. DFO Science Stock Status Report E5-21(2000).
DFO. 2002. Underwater World – The Beluga. Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Directorate. Ottawa, Ontario.
DFO. 2004. Potential Impacts of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab. Habitat Status Report 2004/003.
DFO. 2005. Stock Assessment of Northwest Atlantic Harp Seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/037.
DFO. 2005. State of the Ocean: Physical Oceanographic Conditions in the Newfoundland and Labrador Region. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Advis. Rep. 2005/018.
DFO. 2006. Assessment of Divisions 0B-3K Northern Shrimp. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariate Science Advisory Report 2006/007.
DFO. 2006. 2005 State of the Ocean: Physical Oceanographic Conditions in the Newfoundland and Labrador Region. DFO. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/018.
DFO. 2006. Assessment of Division 0B – 3K Northern Shrimp. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/007.
DFO. 2007. 2006 State of the Ocean: Physical Oceanographic Conditions in the Newfoundland and Labrador Region. DFO. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/025.
DFO, 2007. 2006 State of the Ocean: Chemical and Biological Oceanographic Conditions in the Newfoundland and Labrador Region. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/032.
DFO. 2007. Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment, Statement of Canadian Practicehttp://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/im-gi/seismic-sismique/statement- enonce_e.asp.
DFO. 2007. Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariate Science Advisory Report 2007/008.
DFO. 2008. Assessment of Divisions 2G-3K Northern Shrimp. Can. Sci. Advis. Sci. Stock Advisory Report 2008/008.
DFO. 2008. Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/009.
Dueck, L.P., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, M.V. Jensen, and L.D. Postma. 2006. Update on investigations of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) movements in the eastern Arctic, 2003-2005, based on satellite-linked telemetry. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2006/050.
Edinger, E, K. Baker, R. Devillers, and V. Wareham. 2007. Coldwater Corals off Newfoundland and Labrador: Distributions and Fisheries Impacts. World Wildlife Foundation, Toronto, Canada.
Edinger, E. N., V.E. Wareham, and R.L. Haedrich, Richard. 2007. Patterns of groundfish diversity and abundance in relation to deep-sea coral distributions in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. Bulletin of Marine Science, 81, (1): 101-122(22).
Ellison, W.T., C.W. Clark, and G.C. Bishop. 1987. Potential use of surface reverberation by bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, in under-ice navigation: preliminary considerations. Report of the International Whaling Commission, 37:329-332.
Engås,A., S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona, and A. V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2238.2249.
Enger, P.S. 1967.Hearing in herring, Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 22: 527-538.
Enger, P.S. 1981. Frequency discrimination in teleost-central or peripheral? In Tavolga, W.N., A.N. Popper and R.R. Fau (eds.), Hearing and sound communication in fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp.245-255.
Environment Canada. 2007. Management Plan for the Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Eastern Population, In Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Environment Canada May 2007.
Evans, P.G.H. and J.A. Raga, eds. 2001. Marine Mammals: Biology and Conservation. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. New York. 630 pp.
Evans, M.I., P. Symens, and C. Pilcher. 1993. Short-term damage to coastal bird populations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait following the 1991 Gulf War. Mar. Poll. Bull. 22: 157-161.
Falk M.R. and M.J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic Exploration: Its Nature and its Effects on Fish. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. Vol. CEN/T 73-9. 51p
Fallis, B.W., W.E. Klenner, and J.B. Kemper. 1983. Narwhal surveys and associated marine mammal observations in Admiralty Inlet, Navy Board Inlet, and Eclipse Sound, Baffin Island, N.W.T., during 1974-1976. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1211: 20 p.
Fay, R. R. 1988. Hearing in vertebrates: A psychophysics databook. Book (ISBN 0961855908). 621 p.
Finley, K.J. 2001. Natural History and Conservation of the Greenland Whale, of Bowhead in the northwest Atlantic. Arctic 54(1):55-76.
Finneran, J. J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 111 (6): 2929-2940.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004a. Statement of Canadian Practice on the Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment. DFO HSR 2004/002.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004b. Review of Scientific Information on Impacts of Seismic Sound on Fish, Invertebrates, Marine Turtles and Marine Mammals.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005. Stock Assessment of Northwest Atlantic Harp Seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/037.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005. Stock Assessment of Northwest Atlantic Harp Seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/037.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005. Recovery Potential Assessment of Cumberland sound, Ungava Bay, Eastern Hudson Bay and St. Lawrence beluga populations (Delphinapterus leucas). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/036.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005. Fisheries Management Plan, Greenland Halibut, NAFO Subarea 0, 2003-2005. Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Central and Arctic Region. DFO 2005/795.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2011. Northern Bottlenose Whale.Available at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/speciesespeces/ northernbottlenosewhale-baleinebeccommun- eng.htm Accessed: February, 2011.
Folkens, P., R. Reeves, B. Stewart, P. Clapham, and J. Powell. 2002. National Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 527 pp.
Fuentes -Yaco, C., P. A. Koeller, and S. Sathyendranath, T. Platt. 2007. Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) growth and timing of the spring phytoplankton bloom on the Newfoundland–Labrador Shelf. Fisheries Oceanography. 16, (2):116–129. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2419.2006.00402.x.
Gambell, R. 1985. Sei whale – Balaenoptera borealis. In S.H. Ridgway and S.R. Harrison (eds), The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. Academic Press. Toronto, Ontario.
Gaskin, D.E. 1992. Status of the harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in Canada. Canadian Field- Naturalist 196: 36-54.
Gaskin, D.E. 1984. The harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (L.): regional populations, status, and information on direct and indirect catches. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 34: 569-586.
Gaston A.J. 1980. Populationss, movements and wintering areas of Thick-billed Murres Uria lomvis in eastern Canada. Can. Wildl. Ser.Prog. Notes 110:1-10.
Gaston, A.J. and I.L. Jones. 1998. The Auks: Alcidae (Bird Families of the World). Oxford University Press.
Gausland, I. 2000. Impact of seismic surveys on marine life. The Leading Edge. 19(8):903-905.
George, J.C., C. Clark, G.M. Carroll, and W.T. Ellison. 1989. Observations on the Ice-Breaking and Ice Navigation Behavior of Migrating Bowhead Whales (Balaena mysticetus) near Point Barrow, Alaska, Spring 1985. Arctic 42(1):24-30.
Gilchrist, H.G. and M.L. Mallory. 2005. Declines in abundance and distribution of the ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea) in Arctic Canada. Biological Conservation 121(2005) 303-309.
Gilliland, S.G., G.J. Robertson, M. Roberet, J-P L, Savard, D. Amirault, P. Lapoete, and P. Lamothe. 2002. Abundance and distribution of Harlequin Ducks molting in Eastern Canada. Waterbirds 25(3):333-339.2002.
Goff, G.P and, J. Lein. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold water off Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian Field Naturalist Vol. 102(1):1-5.
Goold, J.C. 1996a. Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin Delphinus delphis in conjunction with seismic surveying. Journal of the Marine Biological Association 76:811-820.
Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 2004. A Review of the Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal 374:16.
Greene, C.R. 1997. Underice Drillrig Sound, Sound Transmission Loss, and Ambient Noise near Tern Island, Foggy Island Bay, Alaska, February 1997. Greeneridge Report 187-1. Santa Barbara, CA: Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., 22 pp.
Greene, C.R. Jr. and M.W. McLennan. 2000. Sound levels from a 1210 in airgun array. Pp. 3-1-3-9. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.). Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of Western Geophysical’s Open-water Seismic Program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2000: 90-day Report. Report TA2424- 3. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, ON., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Anchorage, AK, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 121 pp.
He, P. 1993. Swimming speeds of marine fish in relation to fishing gears. ICES Marine Science Symposium, 196: 183.189.
Head, E.J.H., L.R. Harris, and R.W. Campbell. 2000. Investigations on the ecology of Calanus sp. In the Labrador Sea. 1. Relationship between phytoplankton bloom and reproduction and development of Calanus finmarchicus in spring. Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol. 193:53-73.
Head, E.J.H., L.R. Harris, and I. Yashayaev. 2003. Distributions of Calanus sp. And other mesozooplankton in the Labrador Sea in relation to hydrography in spring and summer (1995- 2000). Progress in Oceanography 59:1-30.
Huettmann F. and A.W. Diamond. 2000. Seabird migration in the Canadian northwest Atlantic Ocean: moulting locations and movement patterns of immature birds Can J. Zoology 78:624-647.
Hutchings, J.A., R.A. Myers, and G.R. Lilly. 1993. Geographic variation in the spawning of Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, in the Northwest Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 50: 2457-2467.
Ireland, D., R. Rodrigues, D. Hannay, M. Jankowski, A. Hunter, H. Patterson, B. Haley, and D. W. Funk. 2007. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. in the Chukchi Sea, July–October 2006: 90-day report. LGL Draft Rep. P903-1. Rep. from LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, AK, LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and JASCO Research Ltd., Victoria, BC, for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 116 p.
James, M.C. and T.B. Herman. 2001. Feeding of Dermochelys coriacea on medusae in the northwest Atlantic. Chel. Cons. Biol. 4: 202-205.
James, M.C., C. A. Ottensmeyer, and R.A. Myers. 2005a. Identification of high use habitat and threats to leatherback sea turtles in northern waters: new directions for conservation. Ecological Letters 8:195-201, 2005.
James, M.C., C. A. Ottensmeyer, and R.A. Myers. 2005b. Behaviour of leatherback sea turtles, Demerochelys coriacea, during the migratory cycle. Proc. Royal Society (B) 272:1547-1555.
Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs, eds. 2003. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico; Annual Report: Year 1. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. 139 pp.
Kastak, D., R.J. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater Temporary Threshold Shift Induced by Octave-Band Noise in Three Species of Pinniped. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1062:1142-1148.
Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C.R. Kastak. 2005. Underwater Temporary Threshold Shift in Pinnipeds: Effects of Noise Level and Duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1185:3154-3163.
Kingsley, M.C.S and R.R. Reeves. 1998. Aerial surveys of cetaceans in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1995 and 1996. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76: 1,529-1,550.
Kosheleva, V. 1992. The impact of air guns used in marine seismic explorations on organisms living in the Barents Sea. Fisheries and Offshore Petroleum Exploitation 2nd International Conference, Bergen, Norway, April 6th-8th, 1992.
Kostyuchenko, L.P. 1973. Effect of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea. Hydrobiological Journal. 9(5):45-48.
Kulka, D. W., M. R. Simpson and R.G. Hooper. 2004. Changes in distribution and habitat associations of wolfish (Anarhichidae) in the Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Res.Doc. 2004/113.
Laidre, K.L., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, M.L. Logdson, R.C. Hobbs, P. Heagerty, R. Dietz, O.A. Jørgensen, and M.A. Treble, 2004. Seasonal narwhal habitat associations in the high Arctic. Marine Biology, 145, (4): 821-831, DOI: 10.1007/s00227-004-1371-1.
Lawson, J.W., R.A. Davis, W.J. Richardson, and C.I. Malme. 2000. Assessment of noise issues relevant to key cetacean species (northern bottlenose and sperm whales) in the Sable Gully Area of Interest. Rep. by LGL Limited, environmental research associates, King City, Ont., for the Oceans Act Coordination Office, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, NS. 130p.
Lawson, J.W., and J.-F. Gosselin. 2003. SARCEP 2002 pilot cetacean survey - Atlantic Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, SARCEP. 14 p.
Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn. 1976. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises of the Western North Atlantic. A Guide to their Identification. NOAA Technical Report. NMFS Circ. 396. 176 pp.
Ledwell, W. and J. Huntington. 2006. Whale, Leatherback Sea Turtles and Basking Shark Entrapments in Fishing Gear in Newfoundland and Labrador and a Summary of the Whale Release and Strandings Program during 2005. Report to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St.John's, NL. 19 pp.
Lenhardt, M.L., S. Bellmund, R.A. Byles, S.W. Harkins, and J.A. Musick. 1983. Marine turtle reception of bone-conducted sound. Journal of Auditory Research. 23:119-125.
LGL. 2003. Orphan Basin Strategic Environmental Assessment. LGL Ltd. for Chevron Canada Resources, St. John's, Canada.
LGL. 2005. Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area Environmental Assessment, Husky Oil Operations Limited.
Ljungblad, D.K., B. Wursig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral responses of bowhead whales (Balacena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic. 41:183-194.
Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of a geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. ICES (CM) B:40.
Løkkeborg, S. and A.V. Soldal. 1993. The Influence of Seismic Exploration with Airguns on Cod (Gadus morhua) Behaviour and Catch Rates. ICES Marine Science Symposium, 196:62-67.
MacLaren, I. A. 1958. The biology of the ringed seal (Phoco hispida Schreber) in the eastern Canadian Arctic Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, 118: viii + 97.
MacLaren Atlantic Limited. 1978a. Biological Studies, Offshore Cruise 77-7 through 77-7, July to December 1977 in Davis Strait. Arctic Petroleum Operators Association Project No. 138, May 1978.
MacLaren Atlantic Limited. 1978b. Biological Literature Review of the Davis Strait Region. Arctic Petroleum Operators Association Project No. 138, January 1978.
Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen, and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behavior during exposures to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammals, 2: 231-240.
Madsen, P.T., M. Johnson, P.J.O. Miller, N. Aguilar Soto, J. Lynch, and P. Tyack. 2006. Quantitative measures of air-gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) using acoustic tags during controlled exposure experiments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, (4): 2366-2379.
Mansfield, A.W. 1967. Distribution of harbour seal, Phoca Vitulina Linnaeus, in Canadian arctic waters. Journal of Mammalogy, 48(2):249-257.
McAlpine, D.F., S.A. Orchard, K.A. Sendall, and R. Palm. 2004. Status of marine turtles in British Columbia waters: a reassessment. Canadian Field-Naturalist 118:72–76.
McCauley, R.D. 1994. Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia- seismic surveys. In J.M. Swan, J.M. Neff, and P.C. Young (eds.), Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia. Australia Petroleum Exploration Association and Energy Research and Development Corporation, Sydney, pp 19-122.
McCauley, R.D., M.N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The Response of Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaengliae) to Offshore Seismic Survey Noise: Preliminary Results of Observations about a working Seismic Vessel and Experimental Exposures. APPEA Journal 1998:692-707.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of and propagation of air-gun signals and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Prepared for Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.N. Jenner, J. Penruse, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000b. Marine Seismic Surveys - A Study of Environmental Implications. APPEA Journal, 40:692-708.
McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and Fin Whales Observed on a Seafloor Array in the Northeast Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 982, Pt. 1:712-721.
McLaren, P.L. 1982. Spring migration and habitat use by key seabirds in eastern Lancaster Sound and western Baffin Bay. Arctic. 35(1):88-111.
McLaren, P.L., R.E. Harris, and I.R. Kirkham. 1982. Distribution of marine mammals in the southern Labrador Sea, April 1981 – April 1982. Offshore Labrador Biological Studies (OLABS) Program. Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch.
Mitchell, E.D. 1974. Progress Report on Whale Research, May 1972 to May 1973. Report by the International Whaling Commission, 24:196-213.
MMS. 1998. MMS, Mineral Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998 Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 170, Final WIS, May, MMM 98-0007.
Moein S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M. Lenhardt, and R. George. 1994. Evaluation of seismic sources for repelling sea turtles from hopper dredges: final report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers waterways experiment station. Gloucester Point, VA: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary.
Møhl, B., M. Wahlberg, P.T. Madsen, A. Heerfordt, and A. Lund. 2003. The monopulsed nature of sperm whale clicks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114: 1,143-1,154.
Montevecchi, W.A. and I.J. Stenhouse. 2002. Dovekie (Alle alle). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds), The birds of North America No. 701. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, ennsylvania. 24p.
Mosbech, A. & D. Boertmann 1999. Distribution, abundance and reaction to aerial surveys of postbreeding king eiders (Somateria spectabilis) in western Greenland. – Arctic 52: 188-203.
Moulton, V.D. and W.J. Richardson. 2000. A review of sea turtles and seismic noise. LGL Report TA2525 for BP, Aberdeen, Scotland.
NAFO 2007 web site
Nain. 2007. Ministry Trip to Nain, Labrador – December 2-10, 2007.
NMFS (National Marine and Fisheries Service). 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic-reflection data collection in southern California/Notice of receipt of application. Federal Registry, 65: 16,374-16,379.
NRC (National Research Council). 2003b. Marine Mammals and Low-frequency Sound: Progress Since 1994. National Academy Press, Washington DC. 158 pp.
O’Boyle, R. 2001.Turtle By-Catch in Canadian Atlantic Fisheries. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Proceedings Series 2001/17.
O'Hara, J. and J.R. Wilcox. 1990. Avoidance response of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to low frequency sound. Copeia. 1990(2):564-567.
Olsen, K. 1969. A comparison of acoustic threshold in cod with recordings of shipnoise. Proceedings of the FAO Conference on Fish Behaviour in Relation to Fishing Techniques and Tactics. FAO Fisheries. 62(2):431-438.
Orr, C.D. and R.M.P. Ward. 1982. The autumn migration of thick-billed Murres near southern Baffin Island and Northern Labrador. Arctic 35(4):531-536.
Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, and others. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681–686.
OSPAR. 2009a. Assessment of the environmental impact of underwater noise. OSPAR Commission, Biodiversity Series. November 2009 45 p.
OSPAR. 2009b.Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment. OSPAR Commission, Biodiversity Series. November 2009 134. p.
Payne, J. 2004. Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on Fish Eggs, Larvae and Zooplankton. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Res.Doc. 2004/125.
Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, L. Fancy, D. White, and J. Christian. 2008. Potential effects of seismic energy on fish and shellfish: An update since 2003. Canadian Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2008/060.
Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski, and C.I. Malme. 1987. Effects of sounds from a geological device on fishing success. OCS Study MMS-87-0020. Prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute under Contract No. 14-12-0001-30273 to the Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region, Los Angeles, CA.
Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of Sounds from a Geophysical Survey Device on Behavior of Captive Rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 49:1343- 1356.
Pepin, P., G.L. Mallet, S. Fraser, and D. Lane. 2003. Biological and Chemical Oceanographic Conditions on the Newfoundland Shelf during 2002. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Res.Doc. 2003/019.
Read, A.J. 1999. Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (Linnaeus, 1758). Pages 323-355 in S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison, editors. Handbook of marine mammals. Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises. Academic Press, San Diego.
Reeves, R.R., B. S. Stewart, and S. Leatherwood. 1992. The Sierra Club Handbook of Seals and Sirenians. Hong Kong: Dai Nippon Printing Co. Ltd.
Rice, D.W. 1989. Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758. In: S.H. Ridgway and R.Harrison (eds), Handbook of Marine Mammals Volume 4: River Dolphins and the Large Toothed Whales. London, Academic Press. 177-233.
Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1986. Reactions of Bowhead Whales, Balaena mysticetes, to Seismic Exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of Acoustical Society of America: 1117-1128.
Richardson, W.J . and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-Made Noise and Behavioral Responses. In: The Bowhead Whale, J.J. Burns, J.J. Montague and C.J. Cowles, eds. Special Publication of The Society for Marine Mammalogy, 2. Lawrence, KS: The Society for Marine Mammalogy, pp. 631- 700.
Richardson, W. J. and C.I. Malme. 1995. Zones of noise influence. In: W. J. Richardson, C. R. Greene, C. I. Malme, & D. H. Thomson (eds.) Marine Mammals and Noise. pp. 325–386, Academic Press, New York.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106: 2,281.
Ridgway, S.H., D.A. Carder, R.R. Smith, T. Kamolnick, C.E. Schlundt, and W.R. Elseberry. 1969. Behavioral responses and temporary shift in masked hearing threshold of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to 1-second tones of 141 to 201 dB re 1 µPa. Tech. Rep. 1751, Rev 1. Tech. Rep. to Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT & E DIV D 3503, San Diego.
Sætre, R. and E. Ona. 1996. Seismike undersøkelser og på fiskeegg og -larver en vurdering av mulige effecter pa bestandsniva. [Seismic investigations and damages on fish eggs and larvae; an evaluation of possible effects on stock level] Fisken og Havet, 1996:1-17, 1-8. (in Norwegian, with an English summary - full translation not published).
Salomonsen, F. 1968. The moult migration. – Wildfowl, 19: 5-24.
Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary Shift in Masked Hearing Thresholds of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tusiops truncatus, and White Whale, Delphinapterus leucas, after Exposure to Intense Tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1076:3496- 3508.
Sears, R. and J. Calambokidis. 2002. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 32 pp.
Sergeant, D.E. and P.F. Brodie. 1969. Tagging white whales in the Canadian Arctic. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 26(8):2201-2205.
Sergeant, D.E. and K. Hay. 1978. Migratory sea mammal populations in Lancaster Sound. ESCOM Report No. AI-21. Environmental-Social Program for Northern Pipelines. Ottawa: Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. ix + 31 p.
Sergeant, D.E. 1974. A rediscovered whelping population of hooded seals, Cystophora cristata Erxleben, and its possible relationship to other populations. Polarforschung 44(1):1-7.
Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in the North Atlantic Ocean. Report of the International Whaling Commission. 35: 357-362.
Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Research on hooded seals in the western North Atlantic in 1977. - ICNAF Res. Doc. 77/XI/57. 8 pp.
Sikumuit. 2008. Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd. 175 Hamlyn Road St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, A1E 5Z5.
Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from geophysical survey device on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp.) Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1357 – 1365.
Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyak. 2007. Marine mammal moise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations Aquatic Mammals, 33(4) Special Issue.
Stafford, K.M., C.G. Fox and D.S. Clark. 1998. Long-range acoustic detection and localization of blue whale calls in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104: 3616-3625.
Stemp, R. 1985. Observations on the effects of seismic exploration on seabird. I G.D. Greene, F.R. Engelhardt, and R.J. Peterson (eds.), Proceedings of workshop on effects of explosives use in the marine environment, Canadian Oil and Gas administration. Environmental Protection Branch, Technical Report No. 5. Ottawa.
Stevick, P.T., B.J. McConnell, and P.S. Hammond. 2002. Patterns of movement. In Marine mammal biology; an evolutionary approach. Edited by A.R. Hoelzel. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Stewart, P.L., R. M. Branton, G.A. Black, H.A. Levy, and T.L. Robinson. 2003. An Electronic Atlas of Icthyoplankton on the Scotian Shelf of North America. Marine Fish Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Bedford Institute of Oceanography, P.O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, N.S, B2Y 4A2. Canada. November 2003.
Stonehouse, B. 1985. Sea Mammals of the World. Harmondsworth, England / New York, Penguin Books. 159 p.
TGSNOPEC. 2005. Environmental Assessment TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA Labrador Slope Seismic Survey Continuation.
Thomas, T.A. 1999. Behaviour and habitat selection of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in northern Foxe Basin, Nunavut. M.Sc. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 107 p.
Thomson, D.H., J.W. Lawson, and A. Muecke. 2001. Proceedings of a Workshop to Develop Methodologies for Conducting Research on the Effects of Seismic Exploration on the Canadian East Coast Fishery, Halifax, Nova Scotia, September 7th-8th, 2000. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 139.
Thompson, T.J., H.E. Winn, and P.J. Perkins. 1979. Mysticere sounds. Pages 403-431 in H.E. Winn and B.L. Olla (eds.). Behavior of Marine Animals, Curent Perspectives in Research, v. 3: Cetaceans. Plenum, New York, NY.
Turnpenny, A.W.H. and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. The Effects on Marine Fish, Diving Mammals and Birds of Underwater Sound Generated by Seismic Surveys. Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratories Ltd., for United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association Limited, London.
US National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; offshore seismic activities in southern California/Notice of issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization. Federal Register, 60(200, 17 October): 53753-53760.
US National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic-reflection data collection in southern California/Notice of receipt of application. Federal Register, 65(102, 25 May): 34014-34032.
Weinhold, R.J. and R.R. Weaver. 1972. An experiment to determine if pressure pulses radiated by seismic air guns adversely affect immature coho salmon. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.
Wever, E.G. 1978. The reptile ear: Its structure and function. Journal of Sound and Vibration. 64(4): 615-617.
Winn, H.E. and P.J. Perkins. 1976. Distribution and sounds of the minke whale, with a review of mysticete sounds. Cetology, 19: 1 – 12.
Worcester, T. 2006. Effects of Seismic Energy on Fish: A Literature Review. Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2006/092.