4.0 Exploration/Production Activities and Associated Environmental Effects

This section describes typical oil and gas industry offshore activities, and then discusses the potential effects of these routine activities on the various VECs. Offshore activities can be categorized for discussion purposes into three phases: (1) exploration, (2) production, and (3) decommissioning. This section first describes the main attributes of each phase and then describes some of the more detailed aspects, including those activities that are common to all phases (e.g., supply vessel traffic).

4.1 Exploration Phase

Offshore exploration activities that have been conducted in Newfoundland and Labrador waters include

 Towed seismic surveys (2-D and 3-D);  Controlled source electromagnetic surveys (CSEM; also known as resistivity mapping);  Geohazard surveys ;  Vertical seismic profiling (VSP); and  Exploration and delineation drilling.

In addition to the above, on-bottom-cable (OBC) seismic surveys which are used in very shallow water and aeromagnetic surveys by aircraft may be conducted during exploration.

4.1.1 Geophysical Surveys

The 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys are conducted from a specialized vessel using a towed array composed of compressed air-driven “guns” (the sound source) and towed steamers (up to 8+ km in length) which contain the hydrophones (the recorders) (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). Massive amounts of positional and signal return-time data are collected over a grid pattern and analyzed. From these, a “picture” is developed of the geological layering beneath the seabed with the goal of locating potential hydrocarbon “traps”. The 2-D surveys typically cover a larger area than the finer scale 3-D surveys. The 3-D survey vessels tow more streamers over a finer grid pattern than the 2-D ones.

Once potential targets are located, CSEM surveys might be conducted in attempts to further shed light on the nature of the contents (i.e., water or hydrocarbons). Using present technology these surveys would only be conducted in deep water (>500 m). The CSEM surveys consist of towing an electromagnetic source 20 to 50 m above the seabed in order to measure the resistivity of the seabed (Figure 4.3). Retrievable receivers are placed on the sea floor at intervals (Figure 4.4). From these data, the characteristics of the material below the trap may be extrapolated because water displays different resistivity than does petroleum hydrocarbons.

After the decision has been made to drill a well, the area is examined for geohazards such as shallow gas, unstable areas or boulder fields. The survey technology used may vary according to the potential hazards of a specific area but may consist of various echo-sounders, sonars (side scan or muti-beam), sparkers, small airgun arrays, and ROVs.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 234

Source: Sikumiut (2008).

Figure 4.1. Schematic of Seismic Survey Vessel.

Source: Western Geco (2001) in LGL (2003).

Figure 4.2. Typical Configuration of a Seismic Air Gun Array and Streamers.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 235

Source: Buchanan et al. (2006).

Figure 4.3. Typical CSEM Towed Gear.

Source: Buchanan et al. (2006).

Figure 4.4. Typical CSEM Dipole Antenna (Receiver) with Anchor.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 236

Vertical seismic profiling is conducted once some drilling has been completed. These programs use hydrophones suspended in the well at intervals (closer intervals than “checkshots”) which receive signals from external sound sources, usually airgun (s) suspended from the drill rig or a nearby supply vessel. Data are used to aid in determining the structure of a particular petroleum-bearing zone.

4.1.2 Exploratory Drilling

Exploration and delineation drilling may be conducted using several types of drilling platforms including anchored or dynamically-positioned (DP) semi-submersibles or drill ships, or jack-up platforms (Figures 4.5 to 4.7). The large anchors and associated heavy chain may extend out from the rig for some distance. It is also possible to drill from land using deviated drilling techniques if the target is not too far offshore. This approach has been used off the west coast of Newfoundland. The most likely rig types to be used in the SEA Area are the two types of semi-submersible: (1) anchored in water <500 m depth and (2) DP type in water >500 m depth. A deep water drill ship (DP) may also be used. The rigs are attended by one to three supply vessels, at least one with anchor handling capabilities, if required, and offshore helicopters.

Figure 4.5. Semi-submersible Drill Rig Glomar Grand Banks.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 237

Figure 4.6. Rowan Gorilla Jack-up Rig.

Figure 4.7. A Typical Drillship.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 238

4.1.2.1 Potential Issues

The primary potential issues related to routine exploration activities include

 Disturbance to marine animals (especially marine mammals) from underwater sound—airgun arrays create strongest sound levels associated with exploration;  Displacement of benthos by accumulation of drill mud and cuttings;  Conflicts with commercial fisheries (especially fixed gear fisheries) from exclusion zones (see below), vessel traffic and seismic survey gear; and  Seabird (especially Storm-Petrels) attraction and stranding on marine vessels.

A fisheries exclusion zone (FEZ) is a temporary exclusion zone typically established around a drilling platform for the duration of the 40 to 60 day drilling program; fishing is not permitted within a FEZ. Input into the development of the FEZ is solicited from stakeholders during public and fisheries consultation as part of the project-specific environmental assessment process. The FEZ around drilling operations is relatively small (0.5 km2). If the drilling platform is an anchored rig (such as a semi-submersible), then the FEZ typically extends 500 m beyond the anchor points (which can extend up to approximately 1,000 m from the centre of the drilling platform). If the drilling platform is not anchored, then the FEZ is established 500 m from the edge of the platform. Information on the FEZ is usually provided via the Fisheries Broadcast and through the Notice to Mariners.

Examples of some recent EAs conducted for exploration activities in the SEA Area include those conducted by ConocoPhillips for the Laurentian Sub-basin (Buchanan et al. 2004, 2006, 2007; Christian et al. 2005).

4.2 Production Phase

The routine production activities involve drilling and completion rigs, production platforms (bottom-founded or anchored), and the attendant vessels and helicopters. The oil or gas is processed to varying degrees on the platform and then piped to shore or offloaded to shuttle tankers. It is worthy of note that the Laurentian Sub- basin is considered a “gas play” compared to the Jeanne d’Arc Basin and vicinity projects which are primarily directed at oil.

In the Newfoundland offshore to date, the production scenarios of choice have been a gravity-based concrete structure such as Hibernia (Figure 4.8) or a floating production, storage and offloading vessel (FPSO) such as Terra Nova and White Rose (Figure 4.9). The production platforms contain processing, storage and offloading facilities, and accommodations. All of the existing platforms offload oil to tankers for transport to the oil transhipment terminal in Placentia Bay or to markets on the east coast. Production platforms are supported by a shore base and lay-down area, supply vessels, helicopters and shuttle tankers. It is anticipated that any production scenario for the SEA Area would not differ significantly from those currently used on the east coast of Canada.

Production alternatives could range from shallow water installations that pipe oil or gas ashore for processing and transportation to bottom-founded steel or concrete platforms to floating platforms that offload to tankers. There are a variety of floating production platforms including conventional semi-submersibles, FPSOs, or special deepwater platforms (e.g., spar platforms). Processing facilities can be on the platform or placed on the seabed.

Accidental events are probably of more concern during production than during the other phases because this phase is long term, petroleum hydrocarbons are present in large quantities, and the probability of an oil spill is greatest during loading and offloading. Accidental events are discussed in Subsection 4.6.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 239

Figure 4.8. Hibernia GBS.

Figure 4.9. Petro-Canada FPSO. Courtesy of Petro-Canada.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 240

The primary issues associated with routine production activities include

 Seabed disturbance during installation of templates, glory holes, pipelines, and other structures;  Effluents such as produced water that contain petroleum hydrocarbons (including PAHs) and are released in large quantities over a long period of time;  Conflicts with commercial fisheries (exclusion zones and continuous traffic); and  Seabird (especially Storm-Petrels) attraction and stranding on marine vessels.

These and other issues and potential mitigations are discussed in detail in subsequent sections.

Some local environmental assessments for offshore production include the Hibernia, Terra Nova, and White Rose EAs.

4.3 Decommissioning Phase

Decommissioning will be conducted according to regulations current at some unknown point in the future and thus cannot be discussed in detail.

Offshore exploratory wells are abandoned and decommissioned by removal of the wellhead and mechanical severance one metre or so below the mudline. If mechanical severance is not possible then a small shaped charge may be detonated below the mudline. Well termination programs require approval from the C-NLOPB and will include mitigations such as marine bird, turtle, and mammal monitoring to maintain a safe ‘stand-off’ distance. Also, careful attention should be paid to the shape and size of the charge.

In most cases, it can be assumed that all infrastructure installed for production will be removed. Exceptions may be made under special circumstances where environmental effects are minimized by leaving structures in place and/or when there is no chance of interfering with fisheries.

4.4 Potential Sources of Effects from Routine Activities

This section describes the sources of potential effects that are normally assessed in EAs conducted for Newfoundland Labrador offshore waters.

4.4.1 Underwater Sound

The audibility or apparent loudness of a sound source is determined by (1) the radiated acoustic power (source level), (2) the propagation efficiency, (3) the ambient sound, and (4) the hearing sensitivity of the subject species at relevant frequencies.

Most analyses of the effects of underwater sound are based on the Source → Path → Receiver concept. In this case, the acoustic energy originates with a “source” that generates underwater sound. Sound from the source radiates outward and travels through the water (“path”) as pressure waves. Water is an efficient medium through which sounds can travel long distances. The received level decreases with increasing distance from the source. The “receiver” of these sounds is a marine animal. Whether or not the sounds are received depends upon how much propagation loss occurs between the source and the receiver, the hearing abilities of the receiving animal, and the amount of natural ambient or background sound in the sea around the receiver.

Underwater ambient sound, if it is sufficiently strong, may prevent an animal from detecting another sound through a process known as masking. Masking can occur as a result 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.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 241

4.4.1.1 Source Levels

Animals, including humans, hear sounds with a complicated non-linear type of response. The ear responds logarithmically rather than linearly to received sound. Therefore, acousticians use a logarithmic scale for sound intensity and denote the scale in decibels (dB). In underwater acoustics, sound is usually expressed as a Sound Pressure Level (SPL):

Sound Pressure Level = 20 log (P/Po),

where Po is a reference level, usually 1 Pa (micro-pascal). The reference level should always be shown as part of the SPL unit. A sound pressure (P) of 1,000 Pascals (Pa) has an SPL of 180 dB re 1 Pa and a pressure of 500 Pa has an SPL of 174 dB. On this scale, a doubling of the sound pressure means an increase of 6 dB. In order to interpret quoted sound pressure levels one must also have some indication of where the measurement applies. SPLs are usually expressed either as a received sound level at the receiver location or the sound level “at the source.” A source level is usually expressed as the SPL at one meter (1 m) from the source. If the source is large (i.e., not a point source), as is true for many industrial sources, then the source level of the large source is usually considered to be the received level 1 m from a point source emitting the same total energy as the actual large or “distributed” source.

Sound impulses, such as those often created by the offshore oil and gas industry (e.g., seismic airgun or pile- driving pulses), are composed of a positive pressure pulse followed by a negative pressure pulse. The difference in pressure between the highest positive pressure and the lowest negative pressure is the peak-to-peak pressure (p–p; Figure 4.10). The peak positive pressure, usually called the peak or zero to peak pressure (0–p), is approxi- mately half the peak-to-peak pressure. Thus, the difference between the two is approximately 6 dB. The average pressure over the duration of the pressure pulse can be expressed as the root mean square (rms) or average pressure. The rms pressure is usually about 10 to 12 dB lower than the peak pressure and 16 to 18 dB lower than the peak-to-peak pressure for airgun arrays (Greene 1997). To compare pulses of various types, sound pressure can be integrated over a standard unit of time, usually one second (1 s), to obtain the Sound Exposure Level (SEL). The SEL is typically 20 to 25 dB lower than the zero to peak pressure and 10 to 15 dB lower than the rms pressure.

Sound measurements are often expressed on a broadband basis, meaning the overall level of the sound over a wide range or band of frequencies. When the sound includes components at a variety of frequencies, the level at a specific frequency will be lower than the broadband sound level for some band containing that frequency. Sound signatures from underwater sources consist of measurements of the sound level at each frequency (i.e., a sound spectrum). The sound level can also be measured at specific frequencies and then summed (integrated) over groups or bands of frequencies, such as octaves or third octaves (Richardson et al. 1995).

4.4.1.2 Path Component

The pressure of a sound pulse diminishes with increasing distance from the source. Most of the loss in pressure is due to spreading. The diminishing of pressure with increasing distance from the source is spherical to a distance that is approximately equivalent to the water depth (Figure 4.11). In shallow water at horizontal distances much greater than bottom depth, sound propagates through a channel bounded by the bottom and the surface. For hard-bottom regions spreading is approximately cylindrical.

A simple model of acoustic spreading would use spherical spreading to distances equal to that of the bottom and then cylindrical spreading. However, for typical shallow water propagation the effect of bottom absorption results in a spreading loss of intermediate between spherical and cylindrical spreading. Which model of spreading to choose is not a simple matter of knowing the water depth, the receiver and source depth, and receiver distance, as other factors such as bottom absorption and sound speed gradients (with depth) are impor- tant.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 242

Source: Lawson et al. (2000).

Figure 4.10. Terminology Used to Describe Sound Pressure Levels in an Acoustic Impulse (horizontal axis not drawn to scale).

Source: Lawson et al. (2000).

Figure 4.11. Schematic Representation of Acoustic Spreading Loss from a Sound Source as a Function of Distance and Interaction with the Seafloor.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 243

Sound speed varies with water temperature, salinity, and pressure, and thus there can be reflection and/or refraction at water mass discontinuities such as the seasonal thermocline. In deep (and in arctic) water, sound speed often varies with depth in a way that causes sound waves to be channeled within the water mass, resulting in low propagation loss and thus propagation over long distances. Sound propagation characteristics may change as sound travels from a source in shallow water (such as the Mississippi Delta) to a receiver in deeper water (e.g., deepwater Gulf of Mexico). Received levels are generally lower just below the surface than deeper in the water column, especially for the lower frequency components. This is a result of “pressure release at the surface” and interference effects associated with reflections of sound from the surface (Richardson et al. 1995). These and other factors complicate the estimation of transmission loss and necessitate the use of sophisticated models.

4.4.1.3 Receiver Component

The receiver component is the most complicated and least understood component of the Source → Path → Receiver concept. For a fish, marine mammal or sea turtle to hear an underwater sound, the received level of the sound within a particular bandwidth relevant to the animal’s hearing processes must be greater than the absolute hearing threshold of that animal at that frequency (Davis et al. 1998). A sound with a received level below this threshold is not detectable by the animal. The hearing threshold varies with frequency and the frequencies of greatest hearing sensitivity vary among different species. Hearing thresholds, usually presented as audiograms that plot sensitivity versus sound frequency, are known for some species of fish, marine mammals and sea turtles.

A marine animal’s ability to detect sounds produced by anthropogenic activities also depends on the amount of natural ambient or background sound in the waters in which it occurs. If background sound is high, then a source of anthropogenic sound will not be detectable as far away as would be possible under quieter conditions. Wind, thermal sound, precipitation, ship traffic and biological sources are all major contributors to ambient sound. However, ambient sound is highly variable on oceanic continental shelves and this probably results in significant variability in the range at which marine animals can detect anthropogenic sounds.

A hierarchy of criteria for establishing zones of influence can be derived based on ambient sound levels, absolute hearing thresholds of the species of interest, slight changes in behavior of the species of interest (including habituation), stronger disturbance effects (e.g., avoidance), temporary hearing impairment, and permanent hearing or other physical damage (Figure 4.12).

Underwater anthropogenic sound above a particular received level often disturbs some marine animals. However, the levels of such sound that elicit specific disturbance or other effects have not been studied in detail for many species. Generally, for man-made sounds, the levels, frequencies and types of sound that cause disturbance vary from species to species, and perhaps with area and season for a given species. Habituation (diminishing sensitivity during repeated exposures) and possibly sensitization (increasing sensitivity during repeated exposures) are additional sources of variability in responsiveness.

Disturbance is sometimes evident from changes in the behavioral patterns of the species in question. Behavioral changes can be subtle, such as a slight change in respiration rate, or conspicuous, such as movement out of an area to reduce exposure to sound. As compared with continued and undisturbed occupancy of a preferred area, displacement from a preferred area due to sound-related or visual disturbance can be considered potentially negative. However, displacement could be considered beneficial if the animal left the disturbed area before injury occurred but detrimental if it prevented the animal from performing an important life function.

Temporary threshold shift (TTS) is the lowest level of hearing effect. Brief exposures to loud sounds can temporarily increase the hearing threshold of an animal. This effect is temporary and reversible.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 244

Source: Lawson et al. (2000).

Figure 4.12. Schematic Representation of the Zones of Potential Influence of Anthropogenic Sounds on Marine Animals (vertical distances among the different effects are not drawn to scale).

4.4.2 In-Air Sound

In-air anthropogenic sound propagation has implications for marine mammals both underwater and, in the case of pinnipeds (e.g., seals), with their ears above the water surface, and in some cases, invertebrates, fish and sea turtles. The source frequencies and intensities of sounds from various oil and gas-related activities interact with the propagation characteristics between the source and receiver to cause variation in the quality and quantity of sound reaching a receiver. Sound traveling from a source in air to a marine animal receiver underwater propagates in four ways: (1) via a direct refracted path; (2) via direct refracted paths that are reflected by the bottom; (3) via a “lateral” (surface-traveling) wave; and (4) via scattering from a rough sea surface (Urick 1972). The types of propagation vary in importance depending on local conditions, water depth, and the depth of receiver. Under calm sea conditions, airborne sound is totally reflected at larger angles and does not enter the water. However, some airborne sound may penetrate water at angles >13 from the vertical when rough seas provide water surfaces at suitable angles (Lubard and Hurdle 1976).

4.4.3 Ambient Sound

The ocean is noisy and there are varying levels of background ambient sound from physical sources such as wind, rain, sleet, ice and icebergs, thermal sources, thunderstorms, surf, tidal currents, earthquakes, volcanoes, and distant shipping. Airborne sources such as aircraft may also add to ambient sound levels. Transient sound from biological sources can also be significant. For example, blue whale calls have been recorded as far distant as 600 km (Stafford et al. 1998). Source levels as high as 232 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (rms) have been recorded for male sperm whale (Physeter catodon) (Møhl et al. 2000). Some invertebrates and fish are also capable of producing sound energy, and peak source levels of 185-188 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m have been recorded for snapping shrimp (Au and Banks 1998).

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 245

4.4.4 Industrial Sounds

Sounds are generated by exploration, construction, production, and decommissioning phases of offshore oil and gas development.

4.4.4.1 Geophysical Surveys

Geophysical surveys include 2-D, 3-D, OBC, VSP, CSEM, geotechnical and geohazard surveys. Some of the main sound sources are described below.

Airguns--Most marine seismic surveys use airguns, singly or strung in array. Airguns create a sound wave through the rapid release of compressed high pressure air (typically 2,000 psi). Airgun arrays produce some of the strongest man-made sounds (typically short sharp pulses about 10 to 15 seconds apart) in the ocean; they produce a range of frequencies but for the most part frequencies emitted are low (below 120 Hz). One of the purposes of the array is to focus the sound energy toward the sea bed and thus sound energy below the array is greater than that measured horizontal to the array. Energy is often, but not always, less near the surface than at deeper depths (e.g., 3 m vs. 9 to 18 m) and less to the bow and stern of the seismic vessel (Richardson et al. 1995). Airgun arrays produce very high peak levels of sound but the energy often attenuates quickly subject to influences of bottom depth and slope, substrate characteristics, water density and other factors.

Water Guns--Water gun arrays may occasionally be used to conduct high resolution surveys. The guns create sound energy by inducing cavitation through shooting water from a cylinder. Compared to airguns of similar size, water guns produce more energy above 200 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995). To the best of our knowledge these types of arrays have not been used on the east coast.

Boomers--Boomers are used to profile the seafloor to depths below the floor of up to about 50 m and a resolution of about 0.5 to 1.0 m. Boomers are broadband energy sources operating between about 300 Hz and 10 kHz. Sound is produced by the cavitation resulting from the sudden repelling of electrically charged metal plates. A source level of 212 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m (peak) has been reported (Richardson et al. 1995).

Sparkers--Sparkers penetrate deeper into the substrate than boomers (about 200 m vs. 50 m) but at a lower resolution. Sparkers are broadband energy sources operating between 50 Hz and 4 kHz. Sparkers generate sound energy by vaporizing water using electrical power; the collapsing bubble produce omni-directional sound pulses. A source level of 221 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m peak has been reported (Richardson et al. 1995).

Vibrators--Vibrators are heavy, hydraulically-operated devices that have been used for many years for seismic surveys on land and for a few years on ice (vibroseis). Adaptations are being researched for use in the marine environment.

Sonars--Bottom-profiling and side-scan sonar surveys conducted by the offshore industry are designed to identify hazards on the seafloor. Echo sounders in use by the oil and gas industry include depth sounders, similar to those used by the fishing industry, which operate at high frequencies (12 or more kHz) and source levels of 180 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m (rms) or more (Richardson et al. 1995). Bottom profilers may operate at 0.4 to 30 kHz (source level of 200-230 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m, rms). Side-scan sonar pingers are mounted on “fish” that are towed behind the survey vessel. Side scans typically operate at 50-500 kHz with source levels around 220-230 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m (rms) (Richardson et al. 1995). Peak power levels for sonars can be quite high but pulse durations are usually very short (0.01 to 0.1 ms for side scan sonar) (Richardson et al. 1995). Military sonars are much more powerful and of longer pulse duration than the side scan sonars used by the oil and gas industry.

Transponders--Transponders may be used by the oil and gas industry to position drill rigs and other equipment although they are probably used less now than previously because of the availability of very precise GPS. Navigation transponders generally have frequencies about 7 to 60 kHz, source levels of 180-200 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m (rms) and durations of 3 to 40 ms (Richardson et al. 1995).

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 246

Explosives--Explosives provided the sound source for seismic surveys until the 1960s when they were replaced by the less environmentally intrusive airgun. Explosives have a much more rapid rise time than airguns and are the only underwater sound sources that have been clearly demonstrated to harm marine animals, particularly fish and marine mammals. At present, the use of survey explosives are very rare and may only be used in highly localized and/or specialized situations. They are discussed further under construction and decommissioning activities.

Vessel Traffic--Vessels are major contributors to background sound in the ocean. Sound levels generated by boats and ships are highly variable but generally related to type, age, size, power, load, and speed. The primary sources of sound are propeller cavitation and singing, and propulsion, pumping, compressor and generating systems, and so forth. A ship breaking ice creates additional sound from the ice but most of the increase in sound level is due to the increased load on the vessel and increased cavitation. It should be noted that vehicles such as snowmobiles and hovercraft traveling on ice may also transmit sound into the water but there are few data on these sources.

Aircraft--The offshore industry uses helicopters for crew changes and support and fixed wing aircraft for various surveys including ice reconnaissance. Propeller-driven aircraft produce sounds audible in water with most energy at frequencies below 500 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995). Sound does not transmit well from air to water and the level and characteristics received depend on the aircraft type, speed, altitude, angle, environmental conditions, and other factors. Most sound is greatest when the aircraft is directly overhead and therefore of short duration. Helicopters are noisier than fixed wing aircraft (Richardson et al. 1995).

4.4.4.2 Drilling Sounds

Drilling of underwater wells may be conducted from a variety of platforms including land (using directional drilling), artificial islands, concrete or steel caissons, barges, semi-submersibles, drill ships, or bottom-founded jack-ups. In addition, some production platforms, floating or gravity-based also have drilling capabilities. All of these rig types likely emit different sound levels and frequencies with drillships with hull mounted machinery potentially being the noisiest type (Richardson et al. 1995). Data on drilling sound are not extensive given the different types of rigs but in general the strongest tones appear to be at low frequencies.

4.4.4.3 Production Sounds

All other factors being equal, the amount of underwater sound an anchored production or drilling platform creates is related to the area of hull or structure that contacts the water. Production systems may be mounted on artificial islands, caissons, barges, semi-submersibles or other floating configurations, concrete gravity-based structures, steel pillar mounted jack-ups, or mounted on the sea floor (subsea). A typical FPSO constructed from a ship’s hull may be noisier than an anchored semi-submersible or jack-up; artificial islands would the quietest (see Richardson et al. 1995). However, in practice the amount of underwater noise created will also depend on the type and characteristics of onboard machinery such as generators, anchor tensioning devices, thrusters, and so forth.

4.4.5 Offshore Drilling

The primary effects associated with offshore drilling relate to drilling fluids or muds, and associated cuttings. These and other potential discharges and emissions are discussed below.

Drilling Muds and Cuttings--Drilling mud is needed to convey drill cuttings out of the hole and to keep formation fluids from entering the well. Hibernia re-injects some of their cuttings but this approach is not presently feasible for the single offshore exploratory wells using existing drilling units on the East Coast. The re- injection of cuttings is more feasible with fixed platforms than floating platforms, and is also dependent on the site-specific geography. All exploratory drilling on the East Coast is conducted using either water-based drilling muds (WBM) or synthetic-based muds (SBM). Drilling off the west coast of Newfoundland has used mostly

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 247

WBM although sections of the onshore to offshore directionally drilled wells have required the use of SBM. It is debatable which type is more or less ‘environmentally friendly.’ For example, it can be argued that WBM is better because it is mostly water and cannot form sheens on the surface whereas some types of SBM may form one under very calm conditions. On the other hand, SBM generally stays closer to the well site and does not disperse as widely as WBM. In the case of onshore to offshore operations, drilling fluids are stored in tanks at the rig site and eventually trucked to lined pits/containment areas for storage (D. Hawkins, C-NLOPB, pers. comm.; W. Foote, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, pers. comm.). All drilling fluids should be handled and treated in accordance with C-NLOPB policies, the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (OWTG), and any applicable provincial regulations.

After installation of the initial casing strings, the riser provides a conduit from the seabed to the rig that takes the drilling mud and cuttings back to the surface mud system. Once on board the rig, the drill cuttings are removed from the mud in successive separation stages and discharged. Drill mud is expensive and therefore as much mud is recovered as possible but some mud remains with the discharged cuttings. At several stages during drilling and at the end of the drilling process, some WBM is discharged. The main component of WBM is either fresh water or seawater. The primary WBM additives include bentonite (clay) and/or barite. Other chemicals such as potassium chloride, caustic soda, soda ash, viscosifiers, filtration-control additives and shale inhibitors are added to control mud properties. Low toxicity chemicals are used for the water-based drilling mud to reduce the effect on the environment.

From the top down, a typical exploratory hole involves a conductor, surface and progressively smaller casings, perhaps as many as five. Mud and cuttings cannot be returned to the rig until the surface casing is in place and thus mud and cuttings from the conductor and surface parts of the hole are initially discharged directly to the seabed. Once the surface casing is complete, the risers are installed, and the mud and cuttings are returned to the rig through a closed system for recycling and cleaning before cuttings and any residual mud are discharged. The discharge is treated and exits via shute below the water’s surface, subject to Board approval. The mud and cuttings are dispersed in the water column and settle on the sea floor with the heavier particles near the hole and the fines at increasing distances from the rig. The pattern of dispersal can be very irregular and in some cases it is difficult to find obvious signs of drilling after a year or so; in sheltered situations with little bottom circulation, cuttings piles may last for some years.

The conductor setting depth is site-specific and subject to Board approval but a typical depth on the Grand Banks might be about 250-m as measured from the rotary table (i.e., MD). The typical surface casing setting depths may be on the order of 1,200-m MD. Estimated volumes of water-based mud and cuttings discharges associated with initial casings for a typical Grand Banks (White Rose area) well are shown in Table 4.1. It should be noted that the mud/cuttings from the production casing phase are passed through the solids control system that consists of shale shakers and centrifuges.

Drilling muds and cuttings, and their potential effects were discussed in detail in the White Rose Comprehensive Study (Husky 2000) and Supplement (Husky 2001). Modeling of the fate of drill mud and cuttings discharges was conducted for the White Rose EA. The White Rose EA analyzed the effects of the discharge of drilling wastes from development drilling of 25 wells using SBM at multi-well drilling sites. As such, the White Rose scenario can be considered a ‘much worse case’ than the exploratory drilling of one individual well. The White Rose development drilling was deemed to create no significant effect on fish and fish habitat, the fishery, seabirds, marine mammals, or sea turtles. Additional relevant documents not available during the White Rose EA include MMS (2000); CAPP (2001a,b), NEB et al. (2002), the White Rose baseline studies (Husky 2001, 2003), and Husky exploratory drilling EAs (Husky 2002, 2003a; LGL 2005) all of which discuss the discharge of mud and cuttings and associated effects. These recent reports have further confirmed the conclusions of the White Rose work that routine drilling, particularly small scale drilling, has no significant effect on the marine environment of the Grand Banks. The salient points are briefly summarized in the two following sections.

In recent years, most shallow exploratory wells on the East Coast have been drilled with WBM unless unexpected, difficult or highly deviated conditions are encountered and then, with the approval of the Board, they

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 248

may use SBM (discussed in a following section). Composition of one typical WBM formulation for an exploratory program is shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Typical Mud Components and Cuttings Discharge Volume for a Grand Banks Exploration Well.

Casing Strings Unit Conductor Surface Main Hole Section inch 36 16 12 1/4 Notes: DF System Gel/SW Gel/SW WBM 1. Three scenarios were taken Depth (See Note 4) Meter (brt) 220 1200 3600 into account. The 12 ¼" hole Volume Usage bbl 897 4199 5246 section varies in depth with Wash Out % 50% 30% 10% each scenario. Products 2. 36" and 16" hole sections– Barite MT 58 115 Near seabed discharge. Bentonite MT 16 65 Calcium Carbonate kg 3. WBM used for complete Caustic kg 116 482 138 well. Fluid Loss Agent kg 2385 4. All depths are measured Inhibitor kg 4769 below rotary table (brt). The Fluid Loss Agent kg 9538 rotary table is 145-m above Potassium Chloride kg 100153 the seafloor. Lime kg 116 482 Glycol Inhibitor L 25024 Soda Ash kg 116 482 238 Viscosifier kg 3577 Biocide L 72 Drilled Cuttings kg 192032 429562 521786 Volume of Cuttings m3 74 165 201 Source: Husky (2003a).

The following points are relevant to the discharge of WBM and cuttings.

 WBMs are essentially non-toxic. The main component of WBMs is seawater and the primary additives are bentonite (clay), barite and potassium chloride.  Chemicals such as caustic soda, soda ash, viscosifiers, and shale inhibitors are added to control mud properties. All constituents are normally screened using the Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines (NEB et al. 1999).  Discharge of WBM and associated cuttings is regulated by the C-NLOPB. Spent and excess WBM and cuttings can be discharged without treatment (NEB et al. 2002).  The discharge of WBM may increase metals in sediments such as barium, arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc, generally within 250 to 500-m of the drill site but occasionally farther (usually zinc and sometimes chromium) depending upon mud volumes and environmental conditions. However, these metals are not in a bioavailable form and few if any biological effects have been associated with these increases in metals from drill rig discharges (CAPP 2001b).  The primary effect of WBM appears to be smothering of benthos in a small area near the hole. The exact area of effect cannot be predicted because of variable coverage and animals’ reactions range from simply avoiding the immediate area of deposition to direct mortality of sessile organisms. Nonetheless, the White Rose EA indicated a worst-case scenario of an area of less than 1-km2 around each well would have a depth sufficient to result in some smothering (Husky 2000, 2001). The exploratory drilling for one well would be well below the worst-case scenario used for the White Rose EA. The benthos can be expected to recover in anywhere from several months to several years (and most likely within one year) after the drilling ceased, based upon the published literature (reviewed in Husky 2000, 2001; MMS 2000; CAPP 2001b). Actual monitoring data from other operators indicate that the actual area of smothering appears to be much less than predicted (Fechhelm et al. 2001; JWEL 2001; 2002).

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 249

SBMs may be used in an exploratory program especially for long horizontal reach drilling (e.g., onshore to offshore) or in very deep water. Synthetic muds were developed to replace oil-based muds which were considered toxic to varying degrees and which appeared at least partially responsible for the longevity of cuttings piles. In general, SBM is essentially non-toxic, has the potential to biodegrade relatively rapidly (perhaps too rapidly under certain conditions creating some localized anoxic conditions), and less mud is required than for WBM for the same distance drilled. SBM tend to ‘clump’ cuttings together more than WBM thus SBM cuttings tend to disperse less and fall closer to the rig.

The following points concerning SBM are relevant to an exploratory drilling program EA on the south coast.

 For multiple wells, biological effects have been attributed to smothering under the patches of mud/cuttings from physical and/or chemical (i.e., anoxia caused by rapid biodegradation) conditions (e.g., EPA 2000).  SBMs have been handled in a number of ways including shipping to shore, injection, and discharge. The feasibility of injection depends upon type of rig (i.e., usually only with certain bottom-founded rigs) and local geology.  In the deepwater (500+-m), Gulf of Mexico, organic enrichment with attendant increases in biota, including fishes and crabs, has been reported after a two year multi-well drilling program (Fechhelm et al. 2001). No large cuttings piles were observed by ROV during that study.  Biological effects are not normally found beyond about 250-500-m from the drilling platform (Husky 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003a; MMS 2000; CAPP 2001b; Buchanan et al. 2003; Hurley and Ellis 2004; LGL 2005). The Husky EAs (White Rose, Jeanne d’Arc Basin, and South Whale Basin) concluded a total area of impact of less than 1-km2 from multi-well drilling based upon a modeling exercise and published literature. It can reasonably be expected that a single exploratory well would affect a much smaller area.  In the event that SBM must be used, the cuttings are treated prior to discharge in accordance with the OWTG (NEB et al. 2002). All discharges are subject to approval by the Boards and discharge of whole SBM is not permitted. The limit at present is 6.9% synthetic fluid on cuttings.

There are numerous synthetic fluid drilling systems. Petro-Canada has had good results with the very low toxicity, odour-free PureDrill IA-35 (Williams et al. 2002). Its formulation is contained in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Composition of the SBM PARADRIL-IA.

Component Purpose PureDrill IA-35 Base Fluid NOVAMULL L Primary Emulsifier NOVAMOD L Rheology Modifier NOVATHIN L Thinner MI-157 Wetting Agent HRP Rheology Modifier TRUVIS Viscosity VERSATROL Filtration Control ECOTROL Filtration Control (Alternative) LIME Alkalinity CALCIUM CHLORIDE Salinity WATER Internal Phase BARITE Density Source: Williams et al. (2002).

Discharge of Other Fluids and Solids--Other fluids associated with the drilling include cement slurry and blowout preventer (BOP) fluid. Mitigations include careful selection and use of chemicals in order to minimize any potential toxic effects. Readers are referred to the new Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines (NEB et al.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 250

2002) available on the C-NLOPB web site. Based on experience with previous exploratory wells, approximately 33-t (26.4-m3) of excess cement may be released to the marine environment per well (Husky 2000), and may smother or displace some benthos locally. If the cement remains in a pile, it will act as an artificial reef, be colonized by epifaunal animals and attract fish. The effects (either negative or positive) of the cement on benthos are likely negligible. BOP fluid is used in the blowout preventer stacks during drilling. The fluids are normally glycol-water mixes. Periodic testing of the blowout preventer is required by regulation. On semi-submersibles, approximately 1-m3 of the fluid is released per test; jack-up rigs do not release BOP fluid. In any event, periodic releases of this small amount of glycol likely have a negligible effect on marine biota. If produced water is encountered during flow testing, then it is either treated prior to discharge, atomized in the flare, or disposed of on shore. Other discharges and emissions of potential concern are galley and sanitary waste and air emissions.

Emissions and Effluents--All discharges produced by the offshore industry are regulated under OWTG (NEB et al. 2002) available on the C-NLOPB web site. [These guidelines are presently being revised.] Emissions and effluents possibly associated with exploration activities include:

 Atmospheric emissions  Domestic and sanitary waste  Cooling water  Sound  Light

Produced water may also be discharged during exploratory drilling, depending on the success of the well. Produced water is discussed in more detail in the subsection on production activities.

Atmospheric emissions during exploration originate from flaring, fugitive emissions from storage tanks, generator exhaust, support vessel exhausts, helicopter exhaust, and so forth. To date, atmospheric emissions from the East Coast offshore have not been of particular concern because of the distance from human settlement, the relatively small number of developments, the prevailing westerly winds, and generally strong mixing and dispersion in the windy offshore environment. However, with increasing societal focus on greenhouse gas, prevailing onshore winds, and potential proximity to land, atmospheric emissions may be a larger issue in the northwest part of the SEA Area than on the east coast of Newfoundland.

Domestic and sanitary waste originates from the personnel on a vessel or drilling rig. These discharges can be mitigated to a negligible effect level and thus should be of little concern in most situations.

Water is used to cool equipment and the cooling system may be closed (no discharge) or open (discharge), and may or may not contain biocides such as chlorine. Any concern is usually related to volume and temperature differentials between the effluent and the receiving water.

Broadband noise is generated by machinery, support vessels, and aircraft. Any concerns are related to the source levels of the noise, the frequencies, and the proximity to sensitive species such as certain species of marine mammals.

Marine vessel and rig lights may attract certain species of birds which may then become stranded on the structure. On the Grand Banks, storm petrels appear to be the most sensitive group in this regard because once grounded, they have difficulty becoming airborne again. Programs are presently undertaken by operators to gently capture, hold and release petrels that become stranded (Williams and Chardine nd).

4.4.6 Construction Activities

Construction activities related to the installation of production facilities may include the following:

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 251

Dredging--Dredging can produce significant sound in nearshore regions especially in the low frequencies but rapid attenuation occurs in the shallow water and dredging may not be detectable beyond about 25 km (Richardson et al. 1995). It also creates physical disturbance and sedimentation.

Pile-Driving--Individual pile-driving pulses have been measured in the Arctic during June and July. Underwater mean levels were 157 (flat-weighted peak) and 151 re 1 μPa at 1 m (rms) (Blackwell et al. 2003).

Many of the routine activities briefly discussed in the subsection on exploration activities also apply to this phase (e.g., vessel traffic, sound, domestic and sanitary waste, atmospheric emissions, light, etc.).

4.4.7 Production Effluents and Emissions

Effluents and emissions are regulated under the OWTG. During production petroleum must be separated from water which results in increasing amounts of produced water as the well ages. The composition of produced water varies greatly by well and age of well and may contain a wide variety of chemicals, including hydrocarbons, from the formation plus additives such as biocides. The discharge of produced water is regulated by the OWTG which specifies treatment to 30 mg/L oil. It may not be particularly toxic as determined by routine toxicity testing or through environmental monitoring (in fact it is often difficult to locate the plume). Nonetheless, there is concern because of the potential light hydrocarbon content and often (but not always) the sheer volume of discharge. It is difficult to “typify” produced water because it differs by well, region, age of well, and other factors. Some composition data from the North Sea is contained in Table 4.3 (from Røe and Johnsen 1996).

All of the routine activities briefly discussed in the subsection on exploration activities also apply to the production phase (e.g., vessel traffic, drilling muds and cuttings, atmospheric emissions, domestic and sanitary waste, light, sound, etc.)

Table 4.3. Chemical Composition of Produced Water from Norwegian North Sea Platforms.

Ekofisk Fields Unit Statfjord Gullfaks Ekofisk 2/4T Tor Ula 2/4B-K Compounds TOC mg/l 850 61 180 85.5 71 THC mg/l 15 35 50 Sum Aromatics mg/l 6.00 9.56 5.67 66.95 15 BTX mg/l 4 5 5.41 66.90 1.1 12 Naphthalenes mg/l 0.942 2.16 0.247 0.052 0.597 Naphthalene mg/l 0.261 0.398 0.157 0.038 0.073 C1-naph mg/l 0.35 0.629 0.062 0.012 0.17 C2-naph mg/l 0.199 0.584 0.018 0.002 0.204 C3-naph mg/l 0.132 0.55 0.010 0.0005 0.155 Phenanthrenes µg/l 45 90 6.26 0.28 135 Phenanthrene µg/l 2.09 0.08 C1-phenanthrene µg/l 2.43 0.12 C2-phenanthrene µg/l 1.74 0.08 C3-phenanthrene µg/l n.d. n.d. Dibenzothiophenes µg/l 8.6 22.7 1.39 0.15 10 Dibenzothiophene µg/l n.d. n.d. C1-dibenzothiophene µg/l 1.39 0.03 C2-dibenzothiophene µg/l n.d. 0.12 C3-dibenzothophene µg/l n.d. n.d. Sum NPD µg/l 1.00 2.27 0.254 0.055 0.74 Acenaphtylene µg/l 0.89 0.02

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 252

Ekofisk Fields Unit Statfjord Gullfaks Ekofisk 2/4T Tor Ula 2/4B-K Acenaphthene µg/l 0.001 0.001 n.d. 0.04 0 Fluorene µg/l 12 11.3 n.d. 0.33 8.1 Fluoranthene µg/l 0.0854 0.195 n.d. n.d. 0.24 Pyrene µg/l 0.0897 0.194 n.d. 0.08 0.42 Chrysene µg/l 0.226 0.398 0 Benz(a)anthracene µg/l 0.0193 0.311 n.d. n.d. 0.23 Benzo(a)pyrene µg/l 0.001 0.001 n.d. n.d. 0 Benzo(ghi)perylene µg/l 0.001 0.001 n.d. n.d. 1.35 Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/l 0.0197 0.0528 n.d. n.d. 0.016 Sum PAH 3-6 ring µg/l 66.04 125.15 0.89 0.47 155.36 Sum phenol mg/l 8.3 2.7 1.03 2.65 3.62 0.09 Phenol mg/l 5.1 0.8 0.61 0.97 2.19 0.033 C1-phenol mg/l 2.5 0.86 0.19 0.83 1.1 0.028 C2-phenol mg/l 0.4 0.6 0.14 0.57 0.254 0.02 C3-phenol mg/l 0.13. 0.18 0.06 0.26 0.0316 0.0006 C4-phenol mg/l 0.026 0.1 0.03 0.02 C5-phenol mg/l 0.016 0.065 n.d. n.d. C6-phenol mg/l 0.013 0.11 n.d. n.d. C7-phenol mg/l 0.005 0.012 n.d. n.d. Sum organic acids mg/l 895 55 323 577 234 Formic acid mg/l 148 275 Acetic acid mg/l 732 15.6 132 267 104 9.5 Propionic acid mg/l 106 8.9 35.2 27.4 10 1.2 Butylic acid mg/l 39 14.1 6.35 5.18 1.5 Valeric acid mg/l 18 8.2 1.61 2.17 0.6 Caprioic acid mg/l 9 8.2 n.d. 0.09 Organic acids > C6 mg/l n.d. n.d. Methanol mg/l 6.3 33.9 Salinity C1- mg/l 30400 90500 40440 Amonium mg/l 25.4 26.9 0.1 Lead µg/l 50 50 n.d. 80 270 Copper µg/l 2 2 20 600 20 Iron mg/l 4 8.9 23 Barium mg/l 28.2 42.1 12 Cr-VI µg/l 10 10 6 0.08 40 Mercury µg/l 1.9 1.9 n.d. 9 Zinc µg/l 6.8 13 13 200 0.26 Cadmium mg/l 10 10 n.d. 0.02 H2S mg/l 0.12 0.17 Total radioactivity Bql 40K Bql 226Ra Bql Source: Røe and Johnsen (1996).

4.4.8 Decommissioning Activities

Decommissioning of offshore infrastructure such as pipelines, caissons, wellheads, conductors and platforms, etc. entails a number of activities that generate sound. The removal of structures in the Gulf of Mexico has become an environmental issue because of the use of explosives and the large number that will have to be decommissioned in the near future. It has been estimated by API that 5,500 structures will have to be removed over the next 35 years (DOC 2002).

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 253

Of the various types of sound energy produced by offshore oil and gas activities, explosions are the only source for which damage to marine animals has been conclusively demonstrated. Explosives may be used during decommissioning. This is of concern for fish which are known to congregate around structures in the Gulf of Mexico, turtles (particularly loggerheads) which may at times use the structures for feeding and resting, and for marine mammals which are potentially sensitive to sound and whose ranks include endangered and threatened species (e.g., blue whale).

Many of the routine activities briefly discussed in the subsection on exploration activities also apply to this phase (e.g., vessel traffic, sound, domestic and sanitary waste, atmospheric emissions, light, etc.).

4.5 Interactions and Potential Effects of Routine Activities

Identification of the potential interactions between the routine activities associated with oil and gas exploration and production and the VECs described in Section 3.0, and brief discussion of the potential effects of these interactions on the VECs are included in this subsection. More detailed discussion of potential interactions, effects, and significance of post-mitigation residual effects would be provided in project-specific environmental assessments of proposed oil and gas projects. Possible mitigations to reduce residual effects of the routine activities are discussed in the subsection on `Planning Implications`.

Only those interactions of routine activities and VECs which have the highest likelihood of effect are indicated in Table 4.4. Each routine activity is then discussed within its own subsection with respect to the potential effects of its interactions with VECs.

Table 4.4. Potential Interactions of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Routine Activities and Valued Ecosystem Components. Valued Ecosystem Component Routine Marine- Potentially Fish Marine Sea Species- Activity Fish2 Fisheries associated Sensitive Habitat1 Mammals Turtles at-Risk Birds Areas Sound3 * * * * * * * * Drilling muds * * * * * * and cuttings Bottom * * * * * disturbance4 Produced * * * * * water Lights * * * * Flaring * * * Presence of * * * * * * * * structures5 Liquid and * * * * * * * * solid wastes Atmospheric * * * * * emissions6 Marine vessel * * * * * * presence 7 Notes: 1 Refers to habitat for macroinvertebrates and fishes, and includes bottom substrate, coastal algal communities, plankton and benthic invertebrates 2 Refers to macroinvertebrates and fishes 3 Sources include seismic airguns, rig operation, marine vessels, and helicopters 4 Refers to glory hole excavation, anchors, flowline berms, GBS, CSEM receivers 5 Includes artificial reef effect of rigs, safety zones around rigs, seismic streamers and airgun arrays 6 Includes both routine and well-testing emissions 7 Refers to physical presence of marine vessels, NOT sounds emitted by marine vessels

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 254

4.5.1 Effects of Sound

There are numerous sound sources associated with oil and gas exploration and production activities. The one which has the highest levels of energy is the seismic airgun array. Consequently, this subsection which discusses the potential effects of exposure to sound on the various VECs focuses on impulsive seismic sound. The other main sources of sound (i.e., rig operation, marine vessels, and helicopters) produce continuous sound.

4.5.1.1 Fish Habitat

The components of fish habitat that could potentially be affected by exposure to sound, particularly seismic sound are zooplankton and benthic invertebrates. Zooplankton are most vulnerable to seismic sound considering their usual position in the water column while benthic invertebrates, unless exposed to seismic sound in very shallow water areas, are usually a considerable distance from the airguns and thus receive lower energy levels. The limited available information on the effects of exposure to seismic sound on marine invertebrates is discussed in the next subsection on the Fish VEC and is relevant to the invertebrate components of the Fish Habitat VEC.

4.5.1.2 Fish and Invertebrates

This section provides an overview of information pertaining to the sound detection capabilities of marine invertebrates and fishes, and the potential effects of exposure to seismic sound on these animals, based on the results of scientific studies of varying degrees of rigor as well as anecdotal information.

Sound Detection and Production

Rather than being pressure sensitive, invertebrates seem to be most sensitive to particle displacement, the kinetic component of sound. While the sensitivity of some marine invertebrates to particle displacement and hydrodynamic stimulation appears to be less than that of fish (e.g., decapods crustaceans), cephalopod sensitivity to particle motion appears to be comparable to fish.

Decapods, for example, have an extensive array of hair-like receptors both within and upon the body surface that could potentially respond to water- or substrate-borne displacements. They are also equipped with an abundance of proprioceptive organs that could serve secondarily to perceive vibrations. Crustaceans appear to be most sensitive to sounds of low frequency (i.e., <1,000 Hz) (Budelmann 1992; Popper et al. 2001).

A New Zealand study investigated the responses of the planktonic stages of common coastal crabs to artificial sources of natural reef sound (Jeffs et al. 2003). The purpose of the study was to provide insight on the ability of larval and post-larval stages of coastal crustacean to find their way from the open ocean to the coast where they settle to the bottom. Results of the study provided some evidence for pelagic stages of common coastal crabs using underwater sound to aid in orientation to the coast.

Hanlon and Budelmann (1987) presented a review paper on underwater sound detection by cephalopods, a group of marine animals once considered ‘deaf’. Cephalopods, including octopuses, squids and cuttlefish, have external ciliated sensory cells which serve as mechanoreceptors of water-borne vibrations (Packard et al. 1990). They also have relatively sophisticated statocysts which contain calcareous statoliths and are suitable for the detection of both linear and angular acceleration. Kaifu et al. (2008) showed that the cephalopod Octopus ocellatus uses the statocyst to detect the particle motion component of underwater sound.

It is known that some marine invertebrates are capable of producing underwater sound. For example, snapping shrimp (e.g., Synalpheus paraneomeris, Alpheus heterochaelis) are among the major sources of biological noise in shallow bays, harbors, and inlets, in temperate and tropical waters (Au and Banks 1998; Versluis et al. 2000). The spectrum of a snapping shrimp click (rapid closure of front claw) is very broad with only a 20-dB difference between the peak and minimum amplitudes across 200 kHz. It is believed that the rapid closure of the front claw

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 255

is used to produce a high velocity water jet to stun prey. Latha et al. (2005) discuss the sounds produced by shallow- and deep-water spiny lobsters (Panulirus spp.). Both low and high frequency sounds are produced by these crustaceans, with peak levels appearing to be lower during molting times compared to non-molting tomes. The purposes of sound production by lobsters are not understood.

Hearing in fishes was first demonstrated in the early 1900s through studies involving cyprinids (Parker 1903 and Bigelow 1904 in Kenyon et al. 1998). Since that time, numerous methods have been used to test auditory sensitivity in fishes, resulting in audiograms of over 50 species. These data reveal great diversity in fish hearing ability, mostly due to various peripheral modes of coupling the ear to some internal structures, including the swim bladder. However, the general auditory capabilities of less than 0.2% of fish species are known so far.

For many years, studies of fish hearing have reported that the hearing bandwidth typically extends from below 100 Hz to approximately 1 kHz in fishes without specializations for sound detection, and up to about 7 kHz in fish with specializations that enhance bandwidth and sensitivity. A recent ESRF study on bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) concluded that this species probably cannot detect sound over 1000 Hz and that only very loud sounds have the potential to affect their hearing (Song et al. 2006). Recently there have been suggestions that certain fishes, including many clupeiforms (i.e., herring, shads, anchovies, etc.) may be capable of detecting ultrasonic signals with frequencies as high as 126 kHz (Dunning et al. 1992; Nestler et al. 1992). Studies on Atlantic cod, a non-clupeiform fish, suggested that this species could detect ultrasound at almost 40 kHz (Astrup and Møhl 1993). Mann et al. (2001) showed that the clupeiform fish, the American shad, is capable of detecting sounds up to 180 kHz. They also demonstrated that the gulf menhaden is also able to detect ultrasound while other species such as the bay anchovy, scaled sardine, and Spanish sardine only detect sounds with frequencies up to about 4 kHz. Nedwell et al. (2004) have recently compiled a summary of available fish audiograms.

Among fishes, at least two major pathways for sound to get to the ear have been identified. The first and most primitive is the conduction of sound directly from the water to tissue and bone. The fish’s body takes up the sound’s acoustic particle motion and subsequent hair cell stimulation occurs due to the difference in inertia between the hair cells and their overlying otoliths. The second sound pathway to the ears is indirect. The swim bladder or other gas bubble near the ears expands and contracts in volume in response to sound pressure fluctuations, and this motion is then transmitted to the otoliths. While present in most bony fishes, the swim bladder is absent or reduced in many other fish species. The species of fish with a swim bladder that appear to be sound pressure-sensitive via this indirect pathway to the ears are called ‘hearing specialists’. These hearing specialists have some sort of connection with the inner ear, either via bony structures known as Weberian ossicles, extensions of the swim bladder, or simply a swim bladder more proximate to the inner ear. Hearing specialists’ sound pressure sensitivity is high and their upper frequency range of detection is extended above those species that hear only by the previously described direct pathway. The species having only the direct pathway are known as ‘hearing generalists’ (Fay and Popper 1999). Typically, most fish detect sounds of frequencies up to 2,000 Hz but, as indicated, others have detection ranges that extend to much higher frequencies.

Fish also possess lateral lines that detect water movements. The essential stimulus for the lateral line consists of differential water movement between the body surface and the surrounding water. The lateral line is typically used in concert with other sensory information, including hearing (Sand 1981; Coombs and Montgomery 1999).

Elasmobranchs, including sharks and skates, lack any known pressure-to-displacement transducers such as swim bladders. Therefore, they presumably must rely on the displacement sensitivity of their mechanoreceptive cells. Unlike acoustic pressure, the kinetic stimulus is inherently directional but its magnitude rapidly decreases relative to the pressure component as it propagates outward from the sound source in the near field. It is believed that elasmobranches are most sensitive to low frequencies (i.e., <1 kHz) (Corwin 1981).

Many marine invertebrates and fish produce sounds. It is believed that some of these sounds are used for communication in a wide range of behavioural and environmental contexts. The behaviours most often associated with acoustic communication include territorial behaviour, mate finding, courtship and aggression. Sound production provides a means of long distance communication as well as communication when underwater visibility is poor (Zelick et al. 1999).

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 256

Potential Effects on Fish and Invertebrates

Potential effects of exposure to seismic sound on fish and invertebrates can be categorized as follows: (1) pathological, (2) physiological, and (3) behavioural. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-lethal damage, physiological effects include temporary primary and secondary stress responses, and behavioural effects are changes in exhibited behaviours. The three categories should not be considered independently of one another. They are likely interrelated in complex ways.

Pathological

In water, acute damage to organisms exposed to seismic sound is likely related primarily to two features of the sound: (1) received peak pressure, and (2) time required for the pressure to rise and decay (Hubbs and Rechnitzer 1952 in Wardle et al. 2001). Generally, the higher the received pressure and the less time it takes for the pressure to rise and decay, the greater the chance of acute pathological effects. Considering the peak pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays used today, the pathological zone for fish and invertebrates would be expected to be small ( i.e., within a few metres of the seismic source).

Very few investigations of pathological impacts of exposure to seismic sound on marine invertebrates have been conducted to date. There are not any properly documented cases of acute mortality of juvenile or adult marine invertebrates exposed to seismic sound characteristic of typical field seismic surveys. Sub-lethal injury or damage has been observed but as a result of repeated exposure to very high received levels of sound, a higher cumulative level than would be expected in the field under normal seismic operating conditions. Acute mortality of eggs and larvae have been demonstrated in experimental exposures but only when the eggs and larvae were exposed very close to the seismic sound sources and the received pressure levels were presumably very high.

In 2002, Christian et al. (2004) exposed adult male snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio), egg-bearing female snow crabs and fertilized snow crab eggs to sound from seismic air guns under controlled field conditions near St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. All exposure experiments consisted of 200 discharges over a 33 minute period. Male crabs were associated with numerous exposure experiments where the mean received SPL ranged from 197 to 221 dB re 1 µPa 0-P, and the maximum received energy density ranged from 130 to 187 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz. Maximum received energy densities occurred at frequencies < 260 Hz. The berried female crabs were associated with a single exposure experiment with a mean received SPL of 221 dB re 1 µPa 0-P, and a maximum received energy density of 183 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz at < 50 Hz. No differences in either acute or chronic (12 weeks and 30 weeks post-exposure) mortality were observed between the treated and control animals for both male and female crabs (Christian et al. 2004). The fertilized egg masses were used in a single exposure experiment with a mean received SPL of 221 dB re 1 µPa 0-P, and a maximum received energy density of 187 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz at < 50 Hz. There was a significant difference in development rate noted between the treated and control fertilized eggs. The egg mass exposed to seismic sound had a higher proportion of less-developed eggs than the control egg mass. It should be noted that both egg masses came from a single female and any measure of natural variability was unattainable (Christian et al. 2004). Caged egg-bearing female snow crabs were exposed to seismic sound associated with a commercial seismic survey conducted in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence off Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada in December 2003 (DFO 2004b). Crabs were exposed to seismic sound for 132 hours of survey time. The maximum SPLs measured by ocean bottom seismometers (OBS) at the survey site ranged from 152 to 192 dB re 1 µPa 0-P (140 to 178 dB re 1 µPa RMS). Definitive conclusions of this study were that exposure to the seismic sound did not cause any acute or chronic mortality of the crab, nor did it affect the survival of the embryos being carried by the females during the time of exposure. Locomotory ability of larvae that hatched after exposure did not appear to be affected either. There was some evidence of hepatopancreas and ovary bruising, detached outer membranes of oocytes, and acute soiling of gills, antennules and statocysts in the treatment crabs. However, no definitive link between these observations and exposure to seismic could be made (DFO 2004b,c). Pearson et al. (1994) exposed Stage II larvae of the Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) to four discharges from a seven-air gun seismic array under five different received SPL scenarios. The mean received SPLs ranged from approximately 221 to 231 dB re 1 µPa P-P. No

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 257

significant differences in survival rate between control and treatment Stage III and Stage IV larvae were noted under any of the five scenarios.

McCauley et al. (2000a,b) carried out three exposure trials with caged squid (Sepioteuthis australis) using a single 20 in3 air gun. During the first trial using a fixed air gun sound source, the received SPLs were at least 174 dB re 1 µPa RMS. Trials 2 and 3 used a mobile air gun sound source resulting in a minimum to maximum received SPL range of 35 to 45 dB re 1 µPa RMS (< 156 to > 174 dB re 1 µPa RMS). Statocysts were removed and preserved but at the time of the study report publication, results of the statocyst analyses were not available. No squid mortalities were reported as a result of the exposure trials. In 2001 and 2003, two incidents of multiple strandings of the giant squid (Architeuthis dux) on the north coast of Spain were reported (Guerra et al. 2004). The strandings occurred at about the same time as geophysical seismic surveys were being conducted in the Bay of Biscay. A total of nine giant squids, either stranded or moribund surface-floating, were collected at these times. Guerra et al. (2004) presented evidence of acute tissue damage in the stranded and surface-floating giant squids after conducting necropsies on seven (six females and one male) of the relatively fresh nine specimens. The authors speculated that one female with extensive tissue damage had been affected by the seismic sound. However, little is known about the impact of marine acoustic technology on cephalopods and, unfortunately, the authors did not describe the seismic sources, locations, and durations of the Bay of Biscay surveys. No evidence of relationships between the squid tissue damage and the seismic surveys was presented.

Pilot studies investigating the potential effects of exposure to seismic sound on various marine invertebrates have been conducted during recent years by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada (J. Payne, DFO, pers. comm.). The primary marine invertebrate species used in these pilot studies include snow crab and American lobster (Homarus americanus). The exposure experiments are typically characterized by 50 to 200 air gun discharges and an approximate received SPL of 197 db re 1 µPa 0-P. To date, neither mortality nor gross injury has been detected as a result of exposure to seismic sound. Other marine invertebrates that have been exposed to seismic sound at the St. John’s DFO laboratory include shrimp, ctenophores, blue mussels, sea anemones and sea cucumbers. No pathological effects on these invertebrates were observed.

Bivalves in the Adriatic Sea have also been exposed to seismic energy and subsequently assessed (LaBella et al. 1996). No effects of the exposure were noted. There are some examples of the occurrence of damage to fish ear structures as a result of exposure to seismic sound (Enger 1981; McCauley et al. 2000a,b, 2003). It must be noted that the experimental fish in these studies were caged and exposed to high cumulative levels of seismic energy, a scenario not likely to occur with noncaptive fish. Atlantic salmon were exposed within 1.5 m of underwater explosions (Sverdrup et al. 1994). Compared to airgun sources, explosive detonations are characterized by higher peak pressures and more rapid rise and decay times, and are considered to have greater potential to damage marine biota. In spite of this, no salmon mortality was observed immediately after exposure or during the seven-day monitoring period following exposure.

Studies have indicated that exposure to intense sound can affect the auditory thresholds of fish. Under certain conditions, fish have exhibited TTS), followed by complete recovery within 24 hours. Amoser and Ladich (2003) exposed two hearing specialist fish, the nonvocal goldfish (Carassius auratus) and the vocalizing catfish (Pimelodus pictus) to intense white noise (158 dB re 1 µPa; unspecified measure type) for periods of 12 and 24 hours and then tested their hearing sensitivities using auditory brainstem response (ABR) immediately following exposure and at 3, 7 and 14 days post-exposure. Hearing sensitivities were also measured prior to exposure to intense white noise. Both species exhibited loss of hearing sensitivity (maximum of 26 to 32 dB) immediately post-exposure, the greatest loss occurring at the most sensitive frequencies. The catfish exhibited the highest maximum loss of hearing sensitivity. While the goldfish hearing sensitivity returned to normal within three days of exposure, the catfish hearing sensitivity took 14 days to return to normal. Smith et al. (2004) found that goldfish had significant threshold shift after only 10 minutes of exposure to white noise (160-170 dB re 1 µPa; unspecified measure type) and that these shifts increased linearly up to approximately 28 dB after 24 hours of exposure to the noise. Threshold shifts did not increase beyond the 24-hour exposure time. After 21 days of exposure to the noise, the goldfish hearing sensitivity required 14 days to recover to normal levels. It should be

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 258

noted that TTS is less likely to occur in the wild unless fish are prevented from leaving the immediate area of the sound source. Also, the above experiments that demonstrated TTS in fish used a continuous sound source. Seismic sound is impulsive sound.

Popper et al. (2005) exposed three caged freshwater fish species to seismic sound and then tested each species’ hearing using the ABR method. Mean received peak SPLs ranged from 205 to 210 dB re 1 µPa 0-P. Each exposure consisted of either 5 or 20 discharges. Results indicated that adult northern pike and lake chub exposed to the seismic sound did exhibit temporary TTS with full recovery within 24 hours of exposure. Neither the broad whitefish nor the juvenile northern pike exhibited TTS. Popper et al. (2007) investigated the effects of exposure to high-intensity, low frequency sonar on rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). They found that certain groups of trout showed auditory threshold shifts at particular frequencies but that results varied with different groups, suggesting developmental and/or genetic impacts on how the fish are affected.

Some studies have also provided some information on the effects of exposure to seismic sound on fish eggs and larvae (Kostyuchenko 1973; Dalen and Knudsen 1987; Holliday et al. 1987; Matishov 1992; Booman et al. 1996; Dalen et al. 1996). Effects on the ichthyoplankton appeared to be minimal and any mortality effect was generally not significantly different from the experimental controls. Typically, any observed larval mortality occurred as a result of exposures within 0.5 to 3 m of the airgun source. Matishov (1992) reported some retinal tissue damage in cod larvae exposed within 1 m of the airgun source. Saetre and Ona (1996) applied a ‘worst-case scenario’ mathematical model to investigate the effects of seismic sound on fish eggs and larvae and concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic sound are so low compared to the natural mortality that the impact of seismic surveying on recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as very minimal. The ESRF funded a recent study of the effects of seismic on monkfish eggs but results were not available at time of writing this SEA.

Matishov (1992) reported cod and plaice mortality within 48 hours of their being exposed to sound within 2 m from a seismic source. No other details of the exposure (e.g., received SPL, number of discharges) were provided by the author, making the usefulness of this information questionable. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of exposure of fish to seismic sound without any indication of acute mortality (Falk and Lawrence 1973; Holliday et al. 1987; La Bella et al. 1996; Santulli et al. 1999; McCauley et al. 2000a,b; Thomsen 2002; IMG 2002; McCauley et al. 2003; Hassel et al. 2003).

Summary of Pathological Effects

To date, there are not any properly documented cases of acute mortality of juvenile or adult marine invertebrates or fish exposed to seismic sound characteristic of typical field seismic surveys. Sub-lethal injury or damage has been observed but as a result of repeated exposure to very high received levels of sound, a higher cumulative level than would be expected in the field under normal seismic operating conditions. Acute mortality of eggs and larvae have been demonstrated in experimental exposures but only when the eggs and larvae were exposed very close to the seismic sound sources and the received pressure levels were presumably very high. Limited information has not indicated any chronic mortality as a direct result of exposure to seismic.

Physiological

Biochemical responses of marine invertebrates and fishes to acoustic stress have also been studied, albeit in a limited way. Studying the variations in the biochemical parameters influenced by acoustic stress may give some indication of the degree of stress and perhaps provide insight into associated effects on the animal. For example, stress could potentially affect animal populations by negatively impacting reproductive capacity. All primary and secondary stress responses of marine invertebrates and fishes after exposure to seismic sound appear to be temporary in any studies done to date. The times necessary for these biochemical changes to return to normal are variable depending on numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus.

Sub-lethal physiological effects on American lobsters exposed to seismic energy were observed by Payne et al. (2007) during preliminary exploratory studies. The observed serum biochemical effects included reduced levels

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 259

of serum protein, specific serum enzymes, and serum calcium. In some cases, the reduced levels persisted for a period of weeks. Stress indicators in the haemolymph of adult male snow crabs were monitored immediately following exposure (acute effects) to seismic sound and at two different times long after exposure (chronic effects) (Christian et al. 2004). No significant differences in the stress indicators (e.g., proteins, enzymes, cell type count) were detected between treatment and control animals. Potential physiological effects were also investigated during the DFO snow crab study off Cape Breton (DFO 2004b,c). Levels of enzymes in the haemolymph were comparable between the treatment and control animals.

McCauley et al. (2000a,b) employed various measures to study the physiological effects of exposure to seismic sound on fish and cephalopods. No significant physiological stress increases attributable to seismic sound were detected. Caged European sea bass exposed to seismic sound exhibited numerous biochemical responses. All physiological parameters returned to normal levels within 72 hours of the exposure to seismic sound. Lagardère (1982) presented results from laboratory experimentation that suggested that physiological reactions of brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) were modified by exposure to increased background noise in tanks. Shrimp were kept in two environments for about three months, one noisier than the other. The mean difference in sound level in the 80 to 400 Hz range was 30 to 40 dB (unspecified measure type). There was a significant difference in growth rate and reproduction rate between the two groups. Those shrimp in the noisier environment had lower rates of each compared to those in the quieter environment. Increased noise levels also appeared to decrease food uptake. It is unclear how tank experiments with sound relate to conditions in the wild.

Summary of Physiological Effects

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

Behavioural

Because of the relative lack of indication of serious pathological and physiological effects of seismic energy on marine invertebrates and fishes, most concern now centers on the possible effects of exposure to seismic on the distribution, migration patterns and catchability of these animals (i.e., behavioural effects). Studies investigating the possible effects of seismic sound on marine invertebrate behaviour have been conducted on both confined and unconfined animals. Studies looking at change in catch rate regard potential effects of exposure to seismic sound on larger spatial and temporal scales than are typical for close range studies often involving confined animals (Hirst and Rodhouse 2000). Christian et al. (2004) conducted an experimental commercial fishery for snow crab before and after the area was exposed to seismic pulses. No significant decrease in catch rate was observed after the air guns were activated. Anecdotal information from Newfoundland, Canada indicated that snow crab catch rates showed a noticeable reduction immediately following a pass by a seismic survey vessel. Other anecdotal information from Newfoundland indicated that a school of shrimp showing on a fishing vessel sounder shifted downwards and away from a nearby seismic source. Effects were temporary in both cases.

Experiments conducted off the coast of Brazil did not detect a significant effect of seismic surveying on shrimp fishing yields (Andriguetto-Filho et al. 2005). Bottom trawl yields were measured before and after the use of an array of four synchronized airguns, each with a source peak SPL of 196 dB re 1 µPa @ 1-m. The study was unable to detect immediate effects of exposure to seismic sound on the shrimp since fishing was not conducted until 12 to 36 hours after airgun firing. However, if shrimp were immediately driven from the area, the effect was both temporally and spatially limited. An Australian study examined longterm variation (1978-2004) in CPUE data of rock lobster to determine whether changes were correlated with seismic surveying activity in different regions (Parry and Gason 2006). The study concluded that there was no evidence that catch rates declined in areas near surveys in the weeks or years following any of the 33 seismic surveys conducted in the region between 1978 and 2004. One inference from these results is that rock lobster behaviour was not affected to the point of changing catchability of the crustacean.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 260

Studies on the effects of sound on marine invertebrate behaviour have also been conducted using confined animals. Some were conducted in Australia using squid and cuttlefish as subjects (McCauley et al. (2000a,b). Squid exhibited strong startle responses to the onset of proximate airgun activation by releasing ink and/or jetting away from the source. The squid consistently made use of the ‘sound shadow’ at surface where the sound intensity was less than at 3-m depth. These Australian experiments provided more evidence that marine invertebrate behaviour will be modified at some received sound level, albeit temporarily. Another marine invertebrate behavioural investigation by Christian et al. (2004) involved caging snow crabs, positioning the cage 50 m below a seven-gun array, and observing the immediate responses of the crabs to the onset of seismic sound activity by remote underwater camera. No obvious startle behaviours were observed. Sub-lethal behavioural effects on lobsters exposed to seismic energy inside a tank were observed by Payne et al. (2007) during preliminary exploratory studies. Four of the five exposure trials resulted in observed increases in food consumption, and these feeding differences were often apparent several weeks post-exposure.

The full determination of behavioural effects of exposure to seismic sound on marine invertebrates is difficult. There have been well-documented observations of marine invertebrates exhibiting behaviours that appeared to be in response to exposure to seismic sound (i.e., startle response, change in swimming direction and speed, change in vertical distribution), but the ultimate importance of these behaviours is unclear. As is the case with pathological and physiological effects of exposure to seismic sound on marine invertebrates, available information is relatively scant and often contradictory. DFO has recently published two review papers relating to the potential effects of exposure to seismic sound on marine invertebrates (Moriyasu et al. 2004; Payne et al. 2008).

Studies investigating the possible effects of seismic on fishes have also been conducted on both confined and unconfined animals. Studies looking at change in catch rate regard potential effects of seismic on larger spatial and temporal scales than are typical for close range studies that often involving caged animals (Hirst and Rodhouse 2000). Hassel et al. (2003) investigated the behavioural effects of seismic on caged sand lance in Norwegian waters. The sand lance did exhibit responses to the seismic, including an increase in swimming rate, an upwards vertical shift in distribution and startle responses. Normal behaviours were resumed shortly after cessation of the seismic. None of the observed sand lance reacted to the seismic by burying into the sand.

Engås et al. (1996) assessed the effects of seismic surveying on cod and haddock behaviour using acoustic mapping and commercial fishing techniques. Results indicated that fish abundance decreased at the seismic survey area and the decline in abundance and catch rate lessened as one moved away from the survey area. Engås et al. (1996) found that fish abundance and catch rates had not returned to pre-shooting levels five days after cessation of shooting. Other studies that used fishing catch rate as an indicator of behavioural shift also showed reduced catch rates, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the seismic survey (Løkkeborg 1991; Skalski et al. 1992). Marine fish inhabiting an inshore reef off the coast of Scotland were monitored by telemetry and remote camera before, during and after airgun activation (Wardle et al. 2001). Although some startle responses were observed, the seismic airgun pulses had little overall effect on the day-to-day behaviour of the resident fish. Experiments using fishes were also conducted in Australia (McCauley et al. (2000a,b). Common observations of fish behaviour included startle response, faster swimming, movement to the part of the cage furthest from the seismic source (i.e., avoidance), and eventual habituation. Fish behaviour appeared to return pre-seismic state 15 to 30 minutes after cessation of seismic. These Australian experiments provided more evidence for modification of fish behaviour at some received sound level. Again, these behavioural changes seem to be temporary.

The influence of seismic sound on pelagic fish (i.e., herring, blue whiting and mesopelagic species) was investigated using acoustic mapping off western Norway in 1999 (Slotte et al. 2004). The distribution and abundance of pelagic fish within the survey area and in surrounding waters out to 50 km from the survey area were mapped three times and compared, and the abundance was recorded immediately prior to and after airgun activation along some of the survey transects. The inconclusive results indicated that the acoustic abundance of pelagic fish was higher outside than inside the survey area. At the same time, the abundance of pelagic fish prior to airgun activation was not significantly different than abundance immediately after shooting along some of the survey transects, indicating that no significant short-term horizontal movement occurred. However, there were

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 261

indications that some of the pelagics might have moved downwards in response to the seismic pulses. Other species involved in studies that have indicated fish behavioural responses to underwater sound include rockfish (Pearson et al. 1992), Pacific herring (Schwarz and Greer 1984), and Atlantic herring (Blaxter et al. 1981). Again, the responses observed in these studies were relatively temporary. However, what is not known is the effect of exposure to seismic on fish and invertebrate behaviours that are associated with reproduction and migration.

Using telemetry techniques, Shin et al. (2003) investigated changes in the swimming behaviour of caged Israeli carp (Cyprinus carpio) in response to underwater explosions. The received sound levels ranged from 140 to 156 dB re 1 µPa (unspecified type of measurement). Immediately after an explosion, the fish swimming area was reduced. After 1 hour, the area had returned to pre-explosion size. Other behavioural reactions included downward movement and increased swimming speed but these behavioural shifts also returned to normal shortly after cessation of explosions. Considering that underwater explosions are considered worst-case scenarios compared to airgun discharges and that these fish exhibited minor short-term behavioural changes in response to underwater explosions, reactions of these fish to airgun discharges should be minimal.

Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) behaviour in response to exposure to boat noise was recently studied in the Mediterranean Sea (Sarà et al. 2007). The investigation concluded that boat noise produced behavioural deviations in tuna schools that resulted in changes in swimming direction, increased vertical movement both downwards and upwards, and general disruption of the school structure and swimming behaviour. The authors suggested that alteration in schooling behaviour might affect the accuracy of tuna migration to spawning and feeding grounds.

As discussed above, a number of clupeid species can detect and respond to ultrasonic sounds of frequencies up to 180 kHz. Behavioural studies of responses of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) to ultrasound demonstrated that these fish show a graded series of responses depending on the received SPL, and to a lesser degree, the frequency of the source sound (Plachta and Popper 2002 in Popper et al. 2004). The American shad exhibited negligible response to sounds below 160 dB re 1 µPa at any frequency. Received SPLs of 175 dB re 1 µPa at 30 to 120 kHz with stimuli of at least one second duration, the shad showed mild reactions to the onset of the sound. Between 175 and 184 dB re 1 µPa at stimulus frequencies ranging between 70 and 110 kHz, the fish showed rapid and directional responses directly away from the sound source. At received SPLs above 185 dB re 1 µPa, the shad exhibited very rapid and random patterns of behaviours that resulted in some animals attempting to jump from the experimental tank. A field study by Wilson and Dill (2002) showed that Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) reacted in a manner similar to that of the shad in the tank experiment. There is speculation that these responses to ultrasound evolved to help these fish, particularly shallow-water species, detect and avoid echolating cetacean predators.

Summary of Behavioural Effects

It is difficult to fully determine the behavioural effects of exposure to seismic on marine invertebrates and fishes. There have been well-documented observations of fish and invertebrates exhibiting behaviours that appeared to be in response to exposure to seismic sound (i.e., startle response, change in swimming direction and speed, change in vertical distribution), but the ultimate importance of these behaviours is unclear. Some studies indicate that such behavioural changes are very short duration while others imply that marine animals might not resume pre-seismic behaviours/distributions for a number of days. As is the case with pathological and physiological effects of seismic on fish and invertebrates, available information is relatively scant (especially considering the large number of marine species) and often contradictory. There is also evidence that certain clupeids show a graded series of responses to exposure to ultrasound. The strongest responses involve rapid movement away from the sound source.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 262

4.5.1.3 Fisheries

The chief sources for potential effects of underwater sound, particularly seismic sound, on the fisheries are related to (1) changes in catch rates resulting from sound-induced behavioural changes (scaring) of fish, and (2) effects on stock assessments and DFO/industry research surveys, which are used, among other purposes, for setting fishing quotas or exploring new fisheries. The first issue has been raised during SEA consultations for other areas in Newfoundland (e.g., Western Newfoundland Offshore SEA (C-NLOPB 2005)). Impacts related to physical effects on fish and invertebrates have been discussed in the preceding section.

As discussed in Subsection 3.3 on the Fisheries VEC, commercial fisheries are prosecuted throughout the SEA Area. Fisheries industry representatives have registered concerns that seismic survey sound sources may scare finfish from their fishing locations, or discourage benthic species, such as snow crab, from entering fishing gear. The likelihood that finfish will move away as the air gun array approaches is considered a factor that helps prevent physical impacts on these species. The discussion of the behavioural effects on fish and invertebrates in the previous subsection presents the results of studies on the effects of seismic noise on catch rates. While some of these studies report some decrease in catch rates near seismic arrays, at least for finfish, reported effects have been variable.

Depending on the juxtaposition of the survey sound source, the species being harvested, and the gear type, the impact on fishing success could be either negative or positive. For example, the effect would be positive if fish were driven away from the sound source towards fishing gear (e.g., fixed gillnets). Macroinvertebrates such as snow crabs are less likely to disperse and, therefore, catch rates of these animals are not expected to be affected.

4.5.1.4 Marine-associated Birds

There are few data on the effects of underwater sound on birds. A study on the effects of underwater seismic surveys on moulting Long-tailed Ducks in the Beaufort Sea showed little correlation with the movement or diving behaviour (Lacroix et al. 2003). However, the study did not monitor the physical effects on the ducks. The authors suggested caution in interpretation of the data because the studies were limited to searching for correlations between behaviour and seismic emissions and they were limited in their ability to detect subtle disturbance effects. The authors recommended studies on other species to fully understand the potential effects of seismic testing.

Most species of seabirds that are expected to occur in the SEA Area feed at the surface or at less than one metre below the surface of the ocean. This includes Procellariidae (fulmars and shearwaters), Hydrobatidae (storm- petrels), Phalaropodinae (phalaropes), Laridae (gulls and terns), and Stercorariidae (skuas and jaegers). Northern Gannet plunge dive to a depth of 10 metres. These species are under the surface for a few seconds during each dive so would have minimal opportunity to receive underwater sound.

There is only one group of seabirds occurring regularly in the SEA Area that require considerable time under water to secure food. They are the Alcidae (murres, auks, and puffins). From a resting position on the water they dive under the surface in search of small fish and invertebrates. Alcids use their wings to propel their bodies rapidly through the water. All are capable of reaching great depths and spending considerable time under water (Gaston and Jones 1998). An average duration of dive times for the five species of Alcidae is 25-40 seconds reaching an average depth of 20-60 m, but murres are capable of diving to 120 m and have been recorded underwater for up to 202 seconds (Gaston and Jones 1998).

The sound created by airguns is focused downward below the surface of the water. Above the water the sound is reduced to a muffled shot that should have little or no effect on birds that have their heads above water or are in flight. It is possible birds on the water at close range would be startled by the sound, however, the presence of the ship and associated gear dragging in the water should have already warned the bird of unnatural visual and auditory stimuli.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 263

Only the Alcidae have some potential to be exposed to the sounds produced by the seismic and geohazard surveys. It is unknown what, if any, effects the high frequency sounds of the boomer, echo scanner and side scan sonar or the low frequency sound of the array would have on seabirds. The effects of underwater sound on Alcidae are not well known but sound is probably not important to Alcidae in securing food. On the other hand, all six species are quite vocal at breeding sites indicating auditory capabilities are important in that part of their life cycle. The ‘laughing call’ of the Thick-billed Murre is shown to cover a frequency range of 1.0-4.0 khz (Gaston and Jones 1998).

The more important scenario regarding the potential effects of exposure to sound on marine-associated birds involves airborne sound produced close to shore and its potential effects on nesting shorebirds, for example. Behavioural effects, especially during breeding season, could be an issue.

4.5.1.5 Marine Mammals

Marine mammals rely heavily on the use of underwater sounds to communicate and gain information about their environment. Four types of potential effects of exposure to sound related to oil and gas exploration and production are considered here: (1) hearing impairment (TTS) and permanent threshold shifts [PTS]), (2) non- auditory physiological effects (3) masking, and (4) behavioural. The reactions of marine mammals to noise can be variable and depend on the species involved, and the activity of the animal at the time of exposure to noise. Because underwater noise sometimes propagates for long distances, the radius of audibility can be large for strong noise. However, marine mammals usually do not respond overtly to audible, but weak, man-made sounds (Richardson et al. 1995). Thus, the zone of “responsiveness” is usually much smaller than the zone of audibility. There are several recent reviews of anthropogenic sound and marine mammals (i.e., Richardson et al. 1995; Gordon et al. 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007; Southall et al. 2007; Weilgart 2007), and a brief review will be provided here.

Offshore oil development and production activities produce sounds that can be classified into three broad categories. Sounds that are produced intermittently or at regular intervals, such as sounds from pile driving, underwater explosions, and seafloor pingers, are classed as "pulsed." Sounds produced for extended periods, such as sounds from power generation and drilling at exploration and production platforms, are classified as "continuous." Sounds from moving sources such as ships or aircraft can be continuous but, for a mammal at a given location, these sounds are "transient" (i.e., increasing in level as the ship or aircraft approaches, and then diminishing as it moves away). Studies indicate that marine mammals respond somewhat differently to the three categories of sound.

Hearing Impairment

Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds. The minimum sound level necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment is higher, by a variable and generally unknown amount, than the level that induces barely detectable temporary hearing loss or TTS. The level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level below which there is no danger of permanent damage. Current U.S. NMFS policy regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1 µPa (rms), respectively (NMFS 2000). Given a seismic source level of 234 dB re 1 µParms, and presuming spherical spreading of sound, received sound pressure levels of 180 and 190 dB re 1 µParms, would occur at approximate distances of 512 and 170 m, respectively, from the sound source. TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment. It is the process whereby exposure to a strong sound results in a non-permanent elevation in hearing sensitivity (Kryter 1985). TTS can last from minutes or hours to days. The magnitude of the TTS depends on the level and duration of sound exposure, among other considerations (Richardson et al. 1995). For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS level, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. TTS commonly occurs in mammals, including humans. Only a few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTSs have been obtained for marine mammals, and all of these data are quite recent. TTS studies in

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 264

humans and terrestrial mammals provide information helpful in understanding general principles of TTS, but it is unclear to what extent these data can be extrapolated to marine mammals.

There are no data on sound levels that might induce permanent hearing impairment in marine mammals. In theory, physical damage to a marine mammal’s hearing apparatus could occur immediately if it is exposed to sound impulses that have very high peak pressures, especially if they have very short rise times. Also, very prolonged exposure to a sound strong enough to elicit a TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels well above the TTS level, could cause hearing injury. Such damage can result in a permanent decrease in functional sensitivity of the hearing system at some or all frequencies. Richardson et al. (1995) hypothesized that permanent hearing impairment caused by prolonged exposure to continuous man-made sound is not likely to occur in marine mammals for sounds with source levels up to ~200 dB re 1 µPa-m. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS do not cause permanent auditory damage in humans or other terrestrial mammals, and presumably do not do so in marine mammals. Sound impulse duration, peak amplitude, and rise time are the main factors thought to determine the onset and extent of a PTS. Based on existing data, Ketten (1995) noted that the criteria for differentiating the sound pressure levels that result in a PTS (or TTS) are location and species specific. PTS effects may also be influenced strongly by the health of the receiver's ear.

For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS level, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. At least in terrestrial mammals, the received sound level from a single sound exposure must be far above the TTS level for there to be any risk of PTS (Kryter 1985, 1994; Richardson et al. 1995). Relationships between TTS and PTS levels have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. There are no data on the levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS in any baleen whale, as it is not possible to study hearing directly in large, free-living marine animals. Temporary threshold shift has been demonstrated and studied in certain captive odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et al. 2007). However, there are no known studies of TTS (or PTS) in any free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses during realistic field conditions.

Empirical data on sound exposures that elicit the onset of TTS involves captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales. In one study using single impulse watergun sound, the TTS threshold for odontocetes appeared to be somewhat lower than for exposure to non-impulse sound (Finneran et al. 2002). Recent work also emphasize noise level and duration significantly affect the magnitude of TTS (Mooney et al. 2009). Preliminary evidence from a harbour porpoise exposed to airgun sounds suggests that its TTS threshold may be lower than those of dolphins or belugas (Lucke et al. 2007). However, additional information is needed to determine the received sound levels at which small odontocetes would start to incur TTS upon exposure to repeated, low-frequency pulses of airgun sounds with variable received levels. A bottlenose dolphin developed TTS after exposure to a continuous tone (e.g., drilling) with maximum sound pressure levels at frequencies ranging from 4-11 kHz that was gradually increased in intensity to 179 dB and in duration to 55 min (Natchigall et al. 2003).

The frequencies to which mysticetes are most sensitive are assumed to be lower than those to which odontocetes are most sensitive, and natural background noise levels at those low frequencies tend to be higher. Thus, auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their frequency band of best hearing are believed to be less sensitive than those of odontocetes at their best frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004).

For pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses of underwater sound have not been measured. It is expected that the onset of TTS would occur at lower cumulative sound exposure levels given the assumed greater auditory effect of broadband impulses with rapid rise times. Captive bottlenose dolphins and a beluga whale exposed to single underwater pulses designed to imitate underwater explosions apparently experience no more than slight and temporary hearing loss (Finneran et al. 2000). It is unknown whether pinnipeds incur any hearing damage or other injuries when exposed to sound pulses from underwater explosions

Kastack et al. (1999) reported that they could induce mild TTS in California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), harbour seals, and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) by exposing them to underwater octave- band sound (e.g., drilling) at frequencies in the 100-2000 Hz range from 20-22 min. However, Schusterman et al.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 265

(2000) showed that TTS of these seals were somewhat lower when the animals were exposed to the sound for 40 min than for 20-22 min.

Non-Auditory Physiological Effects

Non-auditory physiological effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that, in theory, might occur, include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strongly pulsed sounds, particularly at higher frequencies (e.g., sonar).

Very little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds to cause non-auditory physiological effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would be limited to short distances from the sound source (Southall et al. 2007). However, the available data do not allow for meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be affected in these ways. Marine mammals that show behavioural avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some odontocetes, and some pinnipeds, are unlikely to incur auditory impairment or other physical effects.

Sound may be a potential source of stress in marine mammals, but almost no information is available on sound- induced stress or potential long-term effects (Wright et al. 2007a,b). Such long-term effects, if they occur at all, would be mainly associated with chronic noise exposure not characteristic of seismic surveys. One study found that there were minimal neural-immune changes following watergun impulse sound exposure of a beluga and bottlenose dolphin (Romano et al. 2004).

Masking Effects

Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other sounds, often at similar frequencies. Marine mammals are highly dependent on sound and their ability to recognize sound signals amidst noise is important in communication, predator and prey detection, and in the case of toothed whales, echolocation. The ocean is usually “noisy”, even in the absence of man-made sounds and marine mammals are adapted to cope with momentary ‘masking’ by natural sounds such as surf noise (see Richardson et al. 1995). Although some degree of masking is inevitable when high levels of man-made broadband sounds are introduced into the ocean, marine mammals have evolved systems and behaviours that function to reduce the impacts of masking. It is primarily the components of background sound that are similar in frequency to the sound signal in question that determine the degree of masking. Low-frequency industrial sound has little or no masking effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds of toothed whales. Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in the presence of natural or man-made sound. Most masking studies in marine mammals present the test signal and the masking sound from the same direction. The sound localisation abilities of marine mammals suggest that, if signal and sound come from different directions, masking would not be as severe as the usual types of masking studies might suggest (Richardson et al. 1995). The dominant background sound may be highly directional if it comes from a particular anthropogenic source such as a ship or industrial site. Directional hearing may significantly reduce the masking effects of these sounds by improving the effective signal-to-sound ratio.

Toothed whales and probably other marine mammals as well, have additional capabilities besides directional hearing that can facilitate detection of sounds in the presence of background sound. There is evidence that some toothed whales can shift the dominant frequencies of their echolocation signals from a frequency range with much ambient sound toward frequencies with less sound (e.g., Romanenko and Kitain 1992; Lesage et al. 1999). A few marine mammal species are known to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of elevated sound levels (e.g., Lesage et al. 1999; Terhune 1999). These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain mainly to the very high-frequency echolocation signals of toothed whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies, or in other types of marine

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 266

mammals. Directional hearing has been demonstrated at frequencies as low as 0.5-2 kHz in several marine mammals (see Richardson et al. 1995). This ability may be useful in reducing masking at these frequencies.

Masking effects of seismic noise on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are believed to be limited. Some whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses which are typically 20-ms in duration and occur every 11-sec. In some cases, baleen and large toothed whale calls can be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986; Greene et al. 2000; Madsen et al. 2002; Jochens et al. 2006; 2008). However, animals have also ceased calling for an extended period starting soon after the beginning of a seismic survey in the area (e.g., Bowles et al. 1994; Clark and Gagnon 2006). However, it is unclear whether whales would cease calling due to masking effects, whether this was a behavioural response not directly involving masking, or an unrelated behavioural response. Dolphins and porpoises are also commonly heard calling during seismic operations (Potter et al. 2007). Airgun pulses may not be expected to mask sperm whale calls given the intermittent nature of seismic sounds (Madsen et al. 2006). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the smaller odontocete cetaceans, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses and the fact that sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies than airgun sounds.

Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by airgun arrays is at low frequencies, with strongest spectrum levels below 200 Hz and considerably lower spectrum levels above 1000 Hz. These frequencies are mainly used by baleen whales, but not by toothed whales or true seals. Furthermore, the discontinuous nature of seismic pulses makes significant masking effects unlikely for all marine mammals.

In summary, high levels of sound generated by anthropogenic activities may act to mask the detection of weaker biologically important sounds by some marine mammals. This masking may be more prominent for lower frequencies. For higher frequencies, such as used in echolocation by toothed whales, several mechanisms are available that may allow them to reduce the effects of such masking.

Behavioural Effects

Disturbance includes a variety of effects, such as subtle changes in behaviour, more conspicuous dramatic changes in activities, and displacement. Disturbance is one of the main concerns of the potential impacts of man- made sound on marine mammals. For many species and situations, there is no detailed information about reactions to sound. Behavioural reactions of marine mammals to sound are difficult to predict. Marine mammal reactions to sound are dependent on numerous factors including species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and weather state. If a marine mammal does react to an underwater sound by changing its behaviour or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change may not be important to the individual, the stock, or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on the animals could be important.

Based on the literature reviewed in Richardson et al. (1995), it is apparent that most small and medium-sized toothed whales exposed to prolonged or repeated underwater sounds are unlikely to be displaced unless the overall received level is at least 140 dB re 1 µPa. Baleen whales probably have better hearing sensitivities at lower sound frequencies, and in several studies have been shown to react at received sound levels of approximately 120 dB. In general, baleen whales tend to react to lower received levels of continuous sound than of pulsed sound. Toothed whales (odonocetes) appear to exhibit a greater variety of reactions to man-made underwater sound than do baleen whales (mysticetes). Toothed whale reactions can vary from approaching vessels (e.g., to bow ride) to strong avoidance, while baleen whale reactions range from neutral (little or no change in behaviour) to strong avoidance. In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than whales.

There have been studies of the behavioural responses of several types of marine mammals to airgun discharges. Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable. Whales have often been reported as showing no overt reactions to airgun pulses at distances beyond a few kilometres (e.g., Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 2008). However, some studies of humpback and bowhead whales indicate that

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 267

reactions, including avoidance, sometimes occur at greater distances from the seismic source than previously documented (e.g., Malme et al. 1984; Richardson et al. 1986; McCauley et al. 1998; 2000a,b). Avoidance distances often exceed the distances at which boat-based observers can see whales.

Studies of several species have determined that received levels of pulses in the 160-170 dB re 1 μPa rms range seem to cause obvious avoidance behaviour in a substantial fraction of the baleen whales exposed (Richardson et al. 1995). In some areas, seismic pulses will have diminished to these levels at distances of 4.5 to 14.5 km from the source. Thus, a substantial proportion of the baleen whales within this distance range may show avoidance or other strong disturbance reactions to the seismic array. On the other hand, some baleen whales show considerable tolerance of seismic pulses. However, when the pulses are strong enough, avoidance or other behavioural changes become evident. Because the responses become less obvious with diminishing received sound level, it has been difficult to determine the maximum distance (or minimum received sound level) at which marine mammal reactions to seismic occur.

Little systematic information is available on the reactions of toothed whales to seismic pulses. Toothed whales reactions to seismic surveying are variable and not well characterized. Dolphins and porpoises are often seen by observers on active seismic vessels, occasionally at close distances (e.g., bow riding). However, some studies have shown localized (~one kilometre) avoidance (e.g., Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 2008). Recent studies show little evidence of reactions by sperm whales to airgun pulses, contrary to earlier indications (Jochens et al. 2006, 2008; Miller et al. 2006). Small toothed whales have also been reported close to operating airguns (e.g., Stone 2003). There are no specific data on responses of beaked whales to seismic surveys. There is increasing evidence that some beaked whales may strand after exposure to strong sound from mid-frequency sonars. Whether they ever do so in response to low frequency seismic survey sound is unknown.

Few studies on the reactions of pinnipeds to sound from open-water seismic exploration have been published (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995). Monitoring results indicate that some species may be quite tolerant of strong pulsed sounds. During seismic exploration off Nova Scotia, grey seals exposed to noise from airguns and linear explosive charges reportedly did not react strongly (J. Parsons in Greene et al. 1985). However, some seals also show localized and short-term avoidance of areas with operating airguns. Radio-telemetry results demonstrated short-term changes in the behaviour of harbour and grey seals exposed to airgun pulses (Thompson et al. 1998), and harbour seals have also been described as orienting and/or moving away upon exposure to sounds from a large airgun array (Bain and Williams 2006).

Reactions of baleen whales to pulsed sounds varies depending on the sound source level, species of whale, and activity state at the time of the sound (described above), but most baleen whales exhibit some displacement from strong pulsed sounds (reviewed in Malme 1993). In most cases, displacement is temporary and/or of limited extent. Under some circumstances, some species avoid such sounds when source levels are 115 dB (e.g., continuous sounds), whereas at other times, avoidance or disturbance occurs only when received levels exceed 140 dB (e.g., impulsive sounds).

Experimental results suggest that responses to impulsive sound sources are highly variable among toothed whales (e.g., Würsig et al. 2000; Akamatsu et al. 1993). Under some circumstances, some species will avoid such sounds when received levels exceed 180 dB (e.g., impulsive sounds). The variability is presumably related to the fact that the observations and experiments on toothed whales involved a variety of situations, and involved sources that emitted sounds at widely varying source levels and at differing frequencies, pulse lengths, and inter- pulse intervals.

Data on the reactions of seals to pulsed sounds are limited, but the few available reports suggest that they would exhibit either no, or short-term, behavioural responses (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Yurk and Trites 2000). Some seals exhibited limited displacement from strong-pulsed sounds and others showed high tolerance for strong underwater sound pulses. Seal reactions varied depending on sound source level, seal species, and activity state at the time of sound exposure. In most cases, displacement was temporary and/or of limited extent, with some species showing high tolerance for strong underwater sound pulses.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 268

There is only one known study of the effect of underwater explosions on baleen whales. Humpback whales in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland apparently showed no changes in behaviour, distribution, or residency times in response to underwater explosions related to industrial activity (Todd et al. 1996). Charges were generally 1000- 2000 kg, with peak source levels typically 140 dB.

There have been a few observations of odontocetes to sound pulses from underwater explosions, but it appears that responses are generally minor. Some species have shown limited, if any, response to small explosive charges (Frost et al. 1984; Klima et al. 1988; Akamatsu et al. 1993). Odontocetes may even be attracted to fish killed by explosions. Sperm whales showed no change in click rates in response to detonations used to calibrate a hydrophone array (Madsen and Mohl 2000).

The available evidence suggests that pinnipeds are quite tolerant of sound pulses from underwater explosions, with little reaction to blasting sounds and only temporary reactions to firecracker-like explosives designed to deter them from feeding around fishing gear (Richardson et al. 1995).

Broadband source levels produced by a working semi-submersible drilling rig may be about 154 dB re 1 µPa-m (Greene 1986)—quite a low source level. Assuming spherical spreading close to the source, received levels would diminish to about 114 dB within 100 m. A semi-submersible drilling rig has large underwater hulls, which act to radiate sound efficiently into the water. In contrast, a drilling rig that is standing on steel legs would likely radiate much less sound into the water during operations (Gales 1982). Based on the documented reactions by cetaceans to floating drillships with large areas of hull in contact with the water, and the lower sound output from a bottom-founded platform, behavioural reactions to a bottom-founded platform could be limited to a very small area.

Baleen whales have sometimes shown behavioural changes in response to received broadband drillship sounds of 120 dB or greater (e.g., Malme et al. 1984, 1985; Richardson et al. 1995; Schick and Urban 2000). Dolphins and other toothed whales may show considerable tolerance of floating and bottom-founded drillrigs and their support vessels. In different studies, individuals of the same species have shown localized disturbance to playbacks of drilling sounds (e.g., Stewart et al. 1982), while others seem quite tolerant (Thomas et al. 1990). Responses of pinnipeds to drilling sounds have not been well studied. Ringed and bearded seals (Phoca groenlandica and Erignathus barbatus, respectively) in the Arctic appear to be rather tolerant of drilling sound (Richardson et al. 1995).

Sound from an elevated source in the air is refracted upon transmission into water because of the difference in sound speeds in the two media (a ratio of about 0.23). The direct sound path is totally reflected if the sound reaches the surface at an angle more than 13 degrees from vertical. Because of the large difference in the acoustic properties of water and air, the pressure field is doubled at the surface of the water, resulting in a 6-dB increase in pressure level at the surface. In the case of passing airborne sources, the peak received level at and below the water surface diminishes with increasing source altitude. With increasing horizontal distance from the airborne source, underwater sound diminishes more rapidly than does the airborne sound.

There are published observations of marine mammal reactions to aircraft (for a review, see Richardson et al. 1995). In most cases, airborne or waterborne sound from the aircraft was the apparent stimulus, although vision was probably involved in some cases. Responses to aircraft were variable, partly because of differences in aircraft type, altitude, and flight pattern (e.g., straight-line overflight, circling, or hovering). Such factors can affect the spectral properties, temporal properties, and level of sound received by animals.

In general, baleen whales are more likely to react to an aircraft at low than at high altitude that passes directly overhead rather than well to the side, and that circles or hovers rather than simply flying over (Richardson et al. 1985a,b). Most species of toothed whales do not appear to react overtly to aircraft overflights, except when the aircraft fly at low altitudes. Whales that do react appear to dive hastily, turn, or swim away from the flight path. Seals hauled out for pupping or moulting have variable sensitivities to aircraft disturbance, but react strongly at times, generally by moving abruptly into the water (Richardson et al. 1995). There are few observations of the

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 269

reactions of seals in the water to aircraft, but overflights at low altitudes cause some animals to dive (Richardson et al. 1995).

4.5.1.6 Sea Turtles

Although there have been a limited number of studies on sea turtle hearing, the available data demonstrate that sea turtles appear to be low-frequency specialists. Information on the potential effects of industrial noise is most directly relevant to seismic exploration. Most studies have focused on short-term behavioural responses of sea turtles in enclosures to single airguns, and little information is available describing exposures of free-ranging turtles. Comparisons of results among studies are difficult, because experimental designs and reporting procedures have varied greatly. However, there is a consistent trend suggesting that sea turtles show avoidance of an operating airgun (e.g., McCauley et al. 2000a,b; Moein et al. 1994; Weir 2007). Only in one case were sea turtles observed during a seismic survey showing no evidence of adverse impacts (Parente et al. 2006).

Physical Effects

There have been few studies that have directly investigated hearing or sound-induced hearing loss in sea turtles. Moein et al. (1994) concluded that five loggerhead turtles (of ~11 tested) exhibited some change in their hearing sensitivity when tested within 24 h after exposure to airgun sound relative to pre-exposure sensitivity, and that hearing had reverted to normal when tested two weeks after exposure. These results are consistent with the occurrence of TTS upon exposure of the turtles to airgun pulses. The report did not state the size of the airgun used, or the received sound levels at various distances. The distances of the turtles from the airgun were also variable during the tests. Thus, the levels of airgun sounds that apparently elicited TTS are not known. None- theless, it is noteworthy that there was evidence of TTS from exposure to pulses from a single airgun. However, it may be relevant that these turtles were confined and unable to move more than about 65 m away. Turtles in the open sea might move away, and even if they did not move away, turtles near the seismic line would receive only a few pulses at near-maximum level as the seismic vessel went by.

In theory, a reduction in hearing sensitivity, either temporary or permanent, may be harmful for sea turtles. However, very little is known about the role of sound perception in the sea turtle’s normal activities. Hence, it is not possible to estimate how much of a problem it would be for a turtle to have either temporary or permanent hearing impairment. Hearing is also unlikely to play a major role in their navigation. However, hearing impairment, either temporary or permanent, might inhibit a turtle’s ability to avoid injury from vessels, because they may not hear them in time to move out of their way. In any event, sea turtles are unlikely to be at great risk of hearing impairment.

Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might occur in sea turtles exposed to strong underwater sound might, in theory, include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. There is no proof that any of these effects occur in sea turtles exposed to sound from airgun arrays. If any non-auditory physiological effects do occur, they would probably be limited to unusual situations when animals might be exposed at close range for unusually long periods.

Behavioural Effects

The paucity of data precludes specific predictions as to how free-ranging sea turtles respond to seismic sounds. The possible responses could include one or more of the following: (1) avoid the entire seismic survey area to the extent that the turtles move to less preferred habitat; (2) avoid only the immediate area around the active seismic vessel, i.e., local avoidance of the source vessel but remain in the general area; and/or (3) exhibit no appreciable avoidance, although short-term behavioural reactions are likely. The potential alteration of a migration route might have negative impacts. However, it is not known whether the alteration would ever be on a sufficient geographic scale, or be sufficiently prolonged, to prevent turtles from reaching an important destination.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 270

Avoidance of a preferred foraging area because of seismic survey sound may prevent sea turtles from obtaining preferred prey species and hence could impact their nutritional status. However, it is highly unlikely that sea turtles would completely avoid a large area along a migration route. Available evidence suggests that the zone of avoidance around seismic sources is not likely to exceed a few kilometres (McCauley et al. 2000b). Avoidance reactions on that scale could prevent sea turtles from using an important coastal area or bay if there was a prolonged seismic operation in the area. Sea turtles might be excluded from the area for the duration of the seismic operation, or they might remain but exhibit abnormal behavioural patterns (e.g., lingering at the surface where received sound levels are lower). Whether those that were displaced would return quickly after the seismic operation ended is generally unknown.

The results of experiments and monitoring studies on responses of marine mammals and fish to seismic surveys show that behavioural responses are possible, depending on species, time of year, activity of the animal, and other unknown factors. The same species may show different kinds of responses at different times of year or even on different days (Richardson et al. 1995). It is reasonable to expect similar variability in the case of sea turtles exposed to airgun sounds. For example, sea turtles of different ages have very different sizes, behaviour, feeding habits, and preferred water depths. Nothing specific is known about the ways in which these factors may be related to airgun sound effects on sea turtles. However, it is reasonable to expect lesser effects in young turtles concentrated near the surface (where levels of airgun sounds are attenuated) as compared with older turtles that spend more time at depth where airgun sounds are generally stronger.

To the best of our knowledge, there are no systematic data on sea turtle reactions to helicopter overflights. Given the hearing sensitivities of sea turtles, they can likely hear helicopters, at least when the helicopters are at lower altitudes and the turtles are in relatively shallow waters. It is unknown how sea turtles would respond, but single or occasional overflights by helicopters would likely only elicit a brief behavioural response. As with respect to helicopter overflights, there are no systematic data on sea turtle reactions to ships and boats but it is thought that response would be minimal relative to responses to seismic sound.

4.5.1.7 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

The potential effects of sound produced by oil and gas exploration and production activities, particularly seismic air gun sound, on those animal species identified as Species at Risk in Subsection 3.7, have been addressed in the preceding subsections on fish habitat, fish, marine-associated birds, marine mammals and sea turtles. Mitigations presented in Subsection 4.6.1.8 would minimize impacts on these animals.

The potential effects of sound produced by oil and gas exploration and production activities, particularly seismic air gun sound, on potentially sensitive areas identified in Subsection 3.8 have been addressed in the preceding subsections on fish habitat, fish, marine-associated birds, marine mammals and sea turtles. Mitigations presented in Subsection 4.6.1.8 would minimize impacts on these sensitive areas.

4.5.1.8 Planning Implications

There are numerous mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of exposure to sound, especially seismic air gun sound, on the various VECs. They are as follow:

1. Spatial and temporal avoidance – avoidance of specific areas at specific times in order to not expose biota to the seismic sound. This mitigation applies to such things as sensitive fish spawning locations/times, commercial fishery and research survey areas, important cetacean feeding areas, shorebird breeding areas, etc. For example, DFO recommends a 7 to 10 day temporal buffer and a 30 to 40 km spatial buffer between the seismic surveys and DFO surveys in order to reduce the potential for disruption of fish distribution patterns. It will be necessary for operators to develop mitigative protocols in collaboration with fishers and DFO prior to the commencement of seismic operations.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 271

2. Ramping-up or ‘soft starting’ the air gun array – the gradual start-up of a seismic air gun array over a period of 20 to 30 minutes provides time for nearby fish, mobile invertebrates, marine mammals, sea turtles and sea birds to leave the immediate area before the seismic sounds become sufficiently strong to have any potential of causing physical effects. This is a standard mitigation used in the East Coast offshore. 3. FLOs – personnel on marine vessels used to communicate and mitigate potential conflicts with fishing vessels. 4. Communications - operators should implement operational arrangements to ensure that the operator/survey contractor and the local fishing interests are informed of each other’s planned activities (i.e., FLOs and guard vessels). Where more than one survey operation is active in a region, the operator(s) should arrange for a ‘Single Point of Contact’ for marine users to facilitate communication. The operator should publish a Canadian Coast Guard ‘Notice to Mariners’ and a ‘Notice to Fishers’ via the CBC Radio program Fisheries Broadcast. 5. Power-down – operators are required to power-down or completely shut-down the air gun array during line changes. If at least a single airgun remains activated, no ramp-up procedures are required to return to full volume. 6. Shut-down - operators are required to shut-down the airgun array if a SARA-listed species or other species of concern is detected within a set distance of the array. 7. Observers - placement of trained observers aboard the seismic vessel to monitor the immediate area from presence of marine mammals and sea turtles is a typical practice during seismic operations. Shutdown “triggers” may vary by location and species. 8. Minimization of air gun source level - minimization of the airgun source level to one practical for the survey will also help limit potential impacts to marine animals. For example, seismic surveying in shallow water areas would have greater potential to impact benthic animals if air gun source levels are as high as those used in deeper water areas. 9. Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines (C-NLOPB 2008) and the Statement of Canadian Practice with Respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment (DFO 2009c; also in Appendix 2 of C-NLOPB 2008) – recommended mitigation measures for seismic sound.

4.5.1.9 Data Gaps

Although the amount of study of the potential effects of exposure to sound, particularly seismic sound, on marine animals has increased substantially during recent years, knowledge on this subject is severely lacking. Marine mammals have received most of the attention in these types of studies, followed by fishes and invertebrates. Much of the attention is now focused on potential behavioural effects of exposure to sound, the thought being that most marine animals have the capability of moving away from strong sound sources so as to minimize any potential physical effects. However, certain marine invertebrate species are not able to move away from a strong sound source so investigations of potential physical effects are still required. Other data gaps relating to the potential effects of exposure to sound produced by oil and gas exploration and production activities pertain to on how underwater sound level attenuation varies by location, chronic effects of prolonged exposure to relatively low level sound, and difference in potential effects of exposure to various sound types (e.g., pulsed versus continuous). Probably the biggest data gap related to the effects of exposure to sound on marine biota is life history and biological knowledge of the animals.

4.5.2 Effects of Drilling Muds and Cuttings

The primary effects of routine offshore drilling on the marine environment, especially the benthic environment, are related to discharge of drilling mud and cuttings. Effects on benthos is described in Subsection 4.5.2.1.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 272

4.5.2.1 Fish, Fish Habitat and Fisheries

As discussed previously, drill muds and cuttings have the most potential to affect the sediment and benthos components of the fish habitat VEC but could also affect water quality and plankton for brief periods when the fine components are in suspension. However, the primary potential effects of drill muds and cuttings on fish habitat relate to smothering and contamination of benthic communities near the drill rig, especially sedentary species (Buchanan et al. 2003; Hurley and Ellis 2004). However, the deposition of drilling muds and cuttings is limited both spatially and temporally and would likely have little effect on the Fish Habitat VEC beyond a few hundred metres of the exploratory well.

Drill muds and cuttings have the potential to affect those fish VEC components occurring in the lowest part of the water column (i.e., eggs of some species, juveniles, adult groundfish) but this potential is much lower than for benthos. Again, the deposition of drilling muds and cuttings is limited both spatially and temporally and would likely have minimal effect on the Fish VEC.

The potential effects of drilling muds and cuttings on fisheries are indirect in that the target species could potentially be affected by effects on benthic species, some of which are either commercial species or provide forage for fisheries species. In general, drilling muds and cuttings have minimal potential to affect populations of marine invertebrates and fishes because effects for the most part are confined to a limited area of the seabed; in addition, disturbed areas will eventually re-colonize. Therefore, the regulated discharge of muds and cuttings has little potential to affect fish at the population level and hence little potential to affect fisheries.

4.5.2.2 Marine-associated Birds

Concerns have been expressed by regulators and interest groups during the White Rose Hearings and some subsequent site-specific EAs that SBMs could create sheens on the water surface that could affect seabirds in much the same way as an oil spill. There have been several SBM spills in the Newfoundland offshore but we are not aware of any reported sheens or associated bird mortalities. The potential effects of hydrocarbons on marine-associated birds are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.6.4.4 on accidental hydrocarbon releases.

4.5.2.3 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

No interaction of these VECs with drilling muds and cuttings has been identified and thus potential effects on these VECs are not discussed further.

4.5.2.4 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

The only SAR species that have any potential of being directly affected by drilling muds and cuttings are the fishes. However, the deposition of drilling muds and cuttings is limited both spatially and temporally and would likely have minimal effect on fishes including SAR.

The potential effects of drilling muds and cuttings produced by oil and gas drilling activities on potentially sensitive areas identified in Subsection 3.8 have been addressed in the preceding subsections on fish habitat, fish, and fisheries. Mitigations described in Subsection 4.5.2.5 would minimize impacts on these sensitive areas.

4.5.2.5 Planning Implications

There are mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of drilling muds and cuttings on particular VECs. They are as follow:

1. Bottom substrate survey – Operators can survey areas targeted for drilling through the use of ROVs, for example. The surveys would provide information on epibenthic communities and

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 273

determine the occurrence of any sensitive species, such as deep-sea corals. Smothering of sensitive communities can be avoided using this mitigation. 2. Minimization of drilling mud toxicity – Both WBMs and SBMs may be used during the drilling of an offshore well. More specifics on mud formulations per specific hole sections and their respective toxicities would be provided in the applications for approval to drill a well (ADW) that must be approved by C-NLOPB for each well. In addition, each generic mud formulation must be toxicity tested and the results presented to the C-NLOPB as per the OWTG (NEB et al. 2002). 3. Modeling –modeling of cuttings is often conducted during the EA process to determine the extent of cuttings deposition on the sea bottom, both in terms of distance and direction from the well and thickness of the deposited layer. The extent of cuttings deposition is primarily dependant on ocean currents and mud particle sizes. Quality of modeling results is in turn dependant on the quality of data being used in the modeling exercise. 4. Sheen prevention - During SBM use, subject to C-NLOPB conditions and approval, mitigation (discharge below surface) is employed to minimize the potential for visible sheens on the water. If conditions are flat calm and sheen appears, it can be dispersed using prop wash from support vessels.

4.5.2.6 Data Gaps

A method should be developed for more rapid screening of cytotoxicity for chemicals discharged offshore (e.g., drill muds), preferably a cellular bioassay approach to replace tests currently being used (e.g., microtox, amphipod toxicity testing). This approach would likely require the establishment of tissue cultures for representative marine invertebrates and fish. Studies specific to the Newfoundland offshore environment concerning the impacts of smothering on both benthic infauna and epifauna are needed to establish resettlement times and changes in community structure. There are few available data which can be used to estimate benthic recovery rates in the Newfoundland offshore.

4.5.3 Effects of Bottom Disturbance

In addition to the deposition of drill mud and cuttings, bottom disturbance can occur from a variety of exploration and production activities including sediment excavation during glory hole construction, anchor placement, rock berms to protect flowlines, GBS presence, and deployment of various anchors

4.5.3.1 Fish Habitat, Fish and Fisheries

The potential effects of the various activities that could cause bottom disturbance apply to all components of the fish habitat VEC. Sediment and benthos would be most affected by these activities although water and plankton would also be potentially affected by the re-suspension of sediment in the water column. Potential negative effects of bottom disturbance include disruption of substrate, smothering of benthos and suspension of sediments in the water column, resulting in changes to habitat. On the other hand, construction of rock berms could potentially create an increase in habitat diversity and complexity, resulting in a positive effect on the Fish Habitat VEC. In fact, rock placement is an accepted habitat compensation approach in Newfoundland and Labrador waters.

Bottom disturbance could potentially affect both macroinvertebrate and fish components of the Fish VEC but only minimally. While some mortality could occur, the primary effect would be dislocation of individual animals from a relatively small area. Construction of rock berms could potentially create an increase in habitat diversity and complexity, resulting in a positive effect on the Fish VEC by increasing available food and shelter.

As with drilling muds and cuttings, the potential effects of bottom disturbance on fisheries are indirect in that the target species could potentially be affected. Generally, bottom disturbance has minimal potential to affect populations of marine invertebrates and fishes, and therefore have minimal potential to affect fisheries.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 274

4.5.3.2 Marine-associated Birds, Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals

No interaction of these VECs with bottom disturbance has been identified.

4.5.3.3 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

The only SAR species that have any reasonable potential of being directly affected by bottom disturbance are the fishes. These effects are briefly discussed in Subsection 4.5.2.1, and are likely to be minimal.

The potential effects of bottom disturbance caused by oil and gas exploration and production activities on potentially sensitive areas identified in Subsection 3.8 have been addressed in the preceding subsections on fish habitat, fish, and fisheries. Mitigations described in Subsection 4.5.3.4 would minimize impacts on these sensitive areas.

4.5.3.4 Planning Implications

There are a number of mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of bottom disturbance on particular VECs. They are as follow:

1. Bottom substrate survey – Operators can survey areas that would be disturbed through the use of ROVs, for example. The surveys would provide information on epibenthic communities and determine the occurrence of any sensitive species, such as deep-sea corals. Damage to sensitive communities can be avoided using this mitigation. 2. Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) – Operators may be required to provide some form of compensation for fish habitat lost during ‘bottom disturbance’ activities. 3. Minimize Placement Time – Minimize the time that temporarily-placed objects, such as anchors and CSEM receivers, are in contact with the substrate.

4.5.3.5 Data Gaps

A practical method to estimate both offshore and inshore fish/fish habitat productivity to support the fish habitat compensation process is required. Some types of bottom disturbance by oil and gas activities have resulted in HADD and habitat compensation has been required by the regulators. However, the process contains inconsistencies, uncertainties, is not transparent, and does not appear well based in current science. A better method of determining productivity losses and methods for offsetting those losses is necessary.

4.5.4 Effects of Produced Water

Produced water only occurs during exploration drilling if petroleum hydrocarbons are found and subsequent testing occurs. Most interactions would occur with fish and fish habitat. The hydrocarbon components of produced water could potentially affect the water and plankton components of the Fish Habitat VEC in the SEA Area. However, the risks from regulated discharges of produced water to ecologically or commercially important marine populations do not appear to be great based on modelling and field sampling studies. This is especially true of the small amounts that may be discharged during exploratory drilling. The hydrocarbons in produced water could potentially affect the ichthyoplankton component of the Fish VEC. If affected by exposure to the produced water, the number impacted would likely be negligible compared to the number of ichthyoplankton succumbing to natural mortality. The risk from produced water to ecologically or commercially important marine populations in the SEA Area has not been reported to be high. As with previous sources of effects, the potential effects of produced water on fisheries are indirect in that the target species could potentially be affected.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 275

4.5.4.1 Marine-associated Birds, Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals

No interaction of these VECs with produced water has been identified.

4.5.4.2 Species-at-Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

The ichthyoplankton of Species-at-Risk fish species in the SEA Area could potentially be affected by produced water, but the number impacted would likely be negligible compared to the number of ichthyoplankton succumbing to natural mortality. There is some potential for produced water to affect water quality and plankton but it is unlikely that these effects would be significant to the populations of marine animals that characterize the potentially sensitive areas in the SEA Area.

4.5.4.3 Planning Implications

There are mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of produced water on particular VECs. They are as follow:

1. OWTG (NEB et al. 2002) - Discharge of produced water is regulated by these guidelines. 2. Routine toxicity testing.

4.5.4.4 Data Gaps

Previous modeling and field studies in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea have found few effects (lethal or sublethal) on biota from produced water. Nonetheless, produced water is normally discharged in relatively large volume during production and contains petroleum hydrocarbons including some of the more toxic ones (e.g., PAHs). More in situ study of the potential effects of produced water on plankton, zooplankton and ichthyoplankton in the NW Atlantic should be conducted to verify results of laboratory studies and field studies in other regions.

4.5.5 Effects of Lights and Flaring

Seismic vessels, drill rigs, FPSOs, and supply and standby vessels will all be equipped with navigation and warning lights. Working areas will be illuminated with floodlights. Drill rigs and production platforms conduct flaring from time to time for safety reasons; flaring produces large amounts of light and heat. The Grand Banks FPSOs flare continuously.

4.5.5.1 Fish Habitat, Fish and Fisheries

Some plankton may be attracted to illuminated surface waters near the vessels but the potential effects of this attraction are likely quite benign. No interactions of the fish and fisheries VECs with lights have been identified.

4.5.5.2 Marine-associated Birds

Seabirds, particularly storm-petrels (Hydrobatidae), are known to be attracted to offshore rigs on the East Coast, presumably due to attraction by light (Montevecchi 2006; U. Williams, Petro-Canada, pers. comm.; D. Taylor, Husky, pers. comm.). Concern has been expressed during both Terra Nova and White Rose public hearings that this attraction could lead to mortalities if the birds collided with the rig or the flare. Dovekies have also been mentioned as a potential concern.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 276

4.5.5.3 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

No interaction of these VECs with lights and flaring has been identified.

4.5.5.4 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

Only the marine-associated birds considered to be Species-at-Risk are considered to potentially interact with lights and flaring. The information provided in Subsection 4.5.5.2 is relevant to these birds. Only the potentially sensitive areas that are characterized in some way by marine-associated birds are considered to potentially interact with lights and flaring.

4.5.5.5 Planning Implications

There are mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of lights on marine-associated birds. They are as follow:

1. Seabird monitoring program - Production and drilling installations in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area are involved in seabird monitoring programs. 2. Seabird monitoring protocols - ESRF study on seabird monitoring protocols (Moulton et al. 2004). 3. Bird release programs - Programs undertaken by operators to gently capture, hold and release petrels that become stranded on offshore vessels or rigs (Williams and Chardine nd). 4. Minimization of deck lighting – Use the minimal amount of lighting required for safe deck operations.

4.5.6 Effects of Presence of Structures

Surface structures could include drill rigs, FPSOs, dredges, and seismic streamers and air gun arrays. Subsurface structures would include all of the above as well as flowlines, rock berms to protect flowlines, anchors, and wellhead and riser.

4.5.6.1 Fish Habitat, Fish and Fisheries

Presence of structures results in various effects on fish habitat including those related to the establishment of safety zones and artificial reef effect. The safety zone would have a potential positive effect on all fish habitat components by excluding other users from the area, including commercial fishers. The safety zone would provide some protection against damage to the seabed by trawlers and shellfish dredges. Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose currently have safety zones associated with their production areas.

The artificial reef effect would also have a potential positive effect on all fish habitat components by increasing habitat complexity and, thereby providing increased food and shelter for a more diverse assemblage of marine organisms. Structures will create habitat for biofouling organisms (benthic epiflora and fauna). In the North Sea, most of the fouling biomass in the upper 50 m is composed of seaweeds, hydroids, mussels, soft corals and anemones. Below that depth, hydroids, soft corals, anemones and tubeworms are the most common animals (Welaptega 1993). Colonization of subsea structures by fouling epifaunal animals and plants might be considered a nuisance and eventually a hazard (i.e., an effect of the environment on the project). If necessary, fouling organisms may be periodically removed using diver- or ROV-deployed brushes or high-pressure water jets (Welaptega 1993). The accumulation of removed fouling organisms on the bottom may further attract invertebrate and fish predators (Dicks 1982).

Presence of structures results in various effects on fish including those related to the establishment of safety zones and artificial reef effect. The safety zone would have a potential positive effect on the Fish VEC by excluding other users from the area, including commercial fishers. The safety zone could lower fish mortality

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 277

from commercial fisheries. Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose currently have safety zones associated with their production areas. The artificial reef effect could provide increased food and shelter for a more diverse assemblage of macroinvertebrates and fishes.

Safety zones around offshore drilling structures effectively restrict fishers from fishing grounds. However, the areal extent of these safety zones is relatively small compared to all fishing ground available to fishers.

The artificial reef effect may actually have long-term benefit to the fisheries in that invertebrates and fishes within the safety zone are not being subjected to commercial fishery pressure but may eventually provide recruitment to the fished animals occurring outside of the safety zone.

Seismic streamers and air gun arrays have the potential to entangle with fixed fishing gear, subsequently causing damage to the gear.

4.5.6.2 Marine-associated Birds

Presence of structures could potentially affect marine-associated birds by attracting them.

4.5.6.3 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Direct physical effects to marine mammals during seismic operations include entanglement with seismic gear. There are no documented cases of marine mammal entanglement, and it is assumed to be a very remote possibility. Towing of hydrophone streamers or other equipment is not expected to significantly interfere with marine mammal movements, including migration, unless they were to become entrapped as indicated above. It is possible that permanent structures will attract marine mammals due to an artificial reef effect, effectively concentrating fish prey resources. For example, harbour porpoise echolocation clicks, indicating foraging activity, were detected around offshore gas installations in the North Sea (Todd et al. 2009). Increased clicks (and presumed foraging) during darkness hours likely reflected the diel vertical movements of their prey species. The authors suggest that these installations may be important foraging areas, particularly at night.

Direct physical effects to sea turtles during seismic operations include entanglement with seismic gear. Entanglement of sea turtles with marine debris is a documented occurrence, and of elevated concern for sea turtles. Seismic personnel reported that sea turtles (number unspecified) have became fatally entrapped between gaps in tail-buoys associated with seismic vessel gear deployed off West Africa (Weir 2007). Towing of hydrophone streamers or other equipment is not expected to significantly interfere with sea turtle movements, including migration, unless they were to become entrapped as indicated above. It is possible that permanent structures will attract sea turtles due to an artificial reef effect, effectively concentrating prey resources.

4.5.6.4 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

All fish, seabird, marine mammal and sea turtle Species-at-Risk could potentially be affected by the presence of structures associated with oil and gas exploration and production, as indicated in Subsections 4.5.6.1, 4.5.6.2, and 4.5.6.3.

All offshore potentially sensitive areas could potentially be affected by the presence of structures associated with oil and gas exploration and production.

4.5.6.5 Planning Implications

There are mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of presence of structures on all VECs. They are as follow:

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 278

1. FLOs – Personnel on marine vessels used to communicate and mitigate potential conflicts with fixed fishing gear and fishing vessels. 2. Communications - Operators should implement operational arrangements to ensure that the operator/survey contractor and the local fishing interests are informed of each other’s planned activities (i.e., FLOs and guard vessels). Where more than one survey operation is active in a region, the operator(s) should arrange for a ‘Single Point of Contact’ for marine users to facilitate communication. The operator should publish a Canadian Coast Guard ‘Notice to Mariners’ and a ‘Notice to Fishers’ via the CBC Radio program Fisheries Broadcast. As discussed, fishing (and other) vessels will not be able to enter a safety zone around the drill rig, and this information and the rig’s location will be publicized and communicated to the fishing industry. The typical safety zone for a semi-submersible is the anchor pattern plus 50 m. The typical safety zone for a jack-up rig is 500 m from the at-surface structure. Thus there should be no opportunity for conflict with fishing gear. Operators are required to check regulations regarding wellhead removal. 3. Gear compensation program –In case of accidental damage to fishing gear or vessels, the operator will implement damage compensation plans to provide appropriate and timely compensation to any affected fisheries participants. The operator will follow the procedures employed successfully in the past for documenting any incidents. Procedures must be in place on the survey vessels to ensure that any incidents of contact with fishing gear are clearly detected and documented.

4.5.6.6 Data Gaps

Further study of the ‘artificial reef effect’ in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area where animals are attracted to artificial structures (e.g., rock berms) which are a normal part of oil and gas activities as well as a method (e.g., boulder reefs) for compensating for lost habitat. Results would facilitate science-based discussion in both EA and for HADD compensation programs.

4.5.7 Effects of Liquid and Solid Wastes

Other liquid and solid wastes typically produced during oil and gas industry exploration and production activities include sanitary/domestic waste water, BOP fluid, cooling water, bilge water, ballast water, garbage, and cement. Drill muds and cuttings and produced water are considered in Subsections 4.5.2 and 4.5.4, respectively. Accidental hydrocarbon releases are considered in Subsection 4.6.

4.5.7.1 Fish Habitat, Fish and Fisheries

Liquid and solid wastes released to the marine environment have potential to interact with the Fish Habitat VEC, particularly the water quality and plankton components. However, the mitigations indicated in Subsection 4.5.7.5 should minimize effects on the Fish Habitat VEC.

Liquid and solid wastes released to the marine environment water could potentially affect the ichthyoplankton component of the Fish VEC. If affected by exposure to wastes, the number impacted would likely be negligible compared to the number of ichthyoplankters succumbing to natural mortality. However, the mitigations indicated in Subsection 4.5.7.5 should minimize effects on the Fish VEC.

The potential effects of liquid and solid wastes on fisheries are indirect in that the target species could potentially be affected. Generally, liquid and solid wastes have minimal potential to affect populations of marine invertebrates and fishes, and therefore have minimal potential to affect fisheries in the SEA Area.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 279

4.5.7.2 Marine-associated Birds

Waste fluids containing treated oily water, like machinery deck drainage and bilge water, may have the potential to affect the health of seabirds. However, because these substances are treated (or diluted), recycled, or discharged below the water surface, effects on seabirds are likely minimal in the absence of upsets. Effects of hydrocarbons on marine-associated birds are discussed in Subsection 4.6 on accidental hydrocarbon releases.

4.5.7.3 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

No interaction of these VECs with liquid and solid wastes has been identified.

4.5.7.4 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

The ichthyoplankton of SAR fish species in the SEA Area could potentially be affected by liquid solids and wastes, but as indicated in Subsection 4.5.7.1, the number impacted would likely be negligible compared to the number of ichthyoplankton succumbing to natural mortality.

As indicated in Subsection 4.5.7.1 on fish habitat, there is some potential for liquid and solid wastes to affect water quality and plankton but it is unlikely that these effects would be significant to the populations of marine animals that characterize the potentially sensitive areas in the SEA Area.

4.5.7.5 Planning Implications

There are mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of liquid and solid wastes on particular VECs. The primary mitigations are contained in the OWTG (NEB et al. 2002). Discharge of liquid and solid wastes is regulated by these guidelines. [Note that these guidelines are presently being revised.]

4.5.7.6 Data Gaps

The potential effects of exposure to various liquid and solid wastes on plankton, zooplankton and ichthyoplankton should be studied further.

4.5.8 Effects of Atmospheric Emissions

Atmospheric emissions from aircraft, vessels, flaring, fugitive emissions, and generators will occur during all types of oil and gas industry exploration and production activities.

4.5.8.1 Fish, Fish Habitat and Fisheries

No interaction of these VECs with atmospheric emissions has been identified.

4.5.8.2 Marine-associated Birds, Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals

Although atmospheric emissions could, in theory, affect the health of some air-breathing animals (Table 7.14), the effects would likely be minimal because emissions of potentially harmful materials will rapidly disperse to undetectable levels in the often windy offshore environment. In addition, exposure times of these highly mobile animals would be very brief.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 280

4.5.8.3 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

Considering the rapid dispersion of atmospheric emissions offshore direct effects of atmospheric emissions on Species-at-Risk would be minimal. Considering the rapid dispersion of atmospheric emissions (see Subsection 4.5.8.2), direct effects of atmospheric emissions on potentially sensitive areas would be minimal.

4.5.8.4 Planning Implications

There are mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of atmospheric emissions on particular VECs. They include careful selection of fuels and new equipment and regular maintenance to maintain engine efficiency. Operators are required to provide quality and quantity of emissions to the regulators.

4.5.8.5 Data Gaps

Further R&D could be done to lessen atmospheric emissions from the perspective of more efficient fuel burning equipment and cleaner burning fuels. Although no effects are expected, there are few if any data of the effects of air emissions on marine animals.

4.5.9 Effects of Marine Vessel Presence (non-acoustic effects)

4.5.9.1 Fish Habitat, Fish and Fisheries

There is no interaction between presence of marine vessels and the Fish Habitat VEC, unless the marine vessel occurs in very shallow water and actually contacts any of the components of this VEC. However, even such contact would likely result in negligible effect. There is no interaction between presence of marine vessels and the Fish VEC. The primary concern of the physical presence of marine vessels with respect to the Fisheries VEC is conflict with fixed gear. Contact between marine vessels associated with oil and gas exploration and production activities and fixed fishing gear would likely result in gear damage and/or loss.

4.5.9.2 Marine-associated Birds

Marine vessel presence could potentially affect marine-associated birds by attracting them. This is discussed further in Subsection 4.5.5 on potential effects of lights on birds.

4.5.9.3 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Marine mammals may respond to the physical presence of vessels and/or to the production of underwater sound by the engine and propellers. Baleen whales may also be at risk of serious injury or mortality due to ship strikes. Sea turtle injury or mortality may also occur due to collisions with vessels, particularly with vessels traveling at speeds >4 km/h (Hazel et al. 2007). Large species such as leatherback sea turtles that spend extended periods near the surface would be more susceptible to ship strikes.

Reactions of baleen whales to vessels are variable, ranging from approach to avoidance (Richardson et al. 1995). Several species show localized avoidance of areas with high vessel traffic or move away when vessels are within several kilometres (e.g., Baker and Herman 1989). In other cases, baleen whales exhibit little or no reaction to boats (e.g., Watkins 1986). Abrupt changes in vessel speed or course appear to elicit the strongest responses. Many odontocetes also show considerable tolerance of vessel traffic, although they sometimes react at long distances if confined by ice or shallow water, or if previously harassed by vessels (Richardson et al. 1995). Dolphins of many species approach vessels to ride bow or stern waves (Shane et al. 1986). Other studies have shown, however, that dolphin behaviour becomes more erratic, avoid areas and times characterised by high vessel traffic, decrease foraging, or increase swimming speed as a response to vessels (e.g., Williams et al. 2002; Lusseau 2005; Bejder et

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 281

al. 2006). Pinnipeds also display a range of behavioural responses to vessels. Seals often approach and follow nearshore fishing vessels, but hauled out seals may flee approaching boats (Suryan and Harvey 1999).

For fast-moving and large ships, there is also the possibility of cetacean mortality or injury due to ship strikes. As the speed and numbers of ships transiting marine waters has increased through time, so have the instances of collision between ships and cetaceans; 11 species are known to be struck by ships, with fin whales being most frequently struck, but right, humpback, sperm, and gray whales are also regularly hit (Laist et al. 2001). There are less frequent records of collisions with blue, sei, and minke whales (Laist et al. 2001). Collisions with ships travelling at speeds above 14 kts are expected to result in critical injury for large baleen whales (Laist et al. 2001). Any large whale, particularly the baleen whales, would be susceptible to ship strikes, but vessel collisions are of particular concern for slow-moving, surface-oriented right whales. Mortality induced by ship strikes is recognized as a primary factor limiting the recovery of North Atlantic right whales.

4.5.9.4 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

The primary concern of the physical presence of marine vessels with respect to the Species-at-Risk VEC is ship strikes. Marine mammals and sea turtles are vulnerable to being struck and injured by moving marine vessels (Subsection 4.5.9.3).

Potentially sensitive areas that are at least partly defined by the presence of marine mammals and sea turtles are most susceptible to effect by marine vessel presence due to the possibility of ship strikes involving these two animal groups (Subsection 4.5.9.3).

4.5.9.5 Planning Implications

There are a number of mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of marine vessel presence on fisheries, marine mammals and sea turtles:

1. FLOs – Personnel on marine vessels used to communicate and mitigate potential conflicts with fixed gear and vessels. 2. Communications - Operators should implement operational arrangements to ensure that the operator/survey contractor and the local fishing interests are informed of each other’s planned activities (i.e., FLOs and guard vessels). Where more than one survey operation is active in a region, the operator(s) should arrange for a ‘Single Point of Contact’ for marine users to facilitate communication. The operator should publish a Canadian Coast Guard ‘Notice to Mariners’ and a ‘Notice to Fishers’ via the CBC Radio program Fisheries Broadcast. 3. Gear compensation program –In case of accidental damage to fishing gear or vessels, the operator will implement damage compensation plans to provide appropriate and timely compensation to any affected fisheries participants. The operator will follow the procedures employed successfully in the past for documenting any incidents. Procedures must be in place on the marine vessels to ensure that any incidents of contact with fishing gear are clearly detected and documented. 4. Constant speed and course - Vessels should maintain a constant speed and course when in the presence of marine mammals, as much as possible. If feasible, vessel operators should take evasive action if large whales or sea turtles are detected within the vessel’s path and the vessel is traveling at high speeds. 5. Marine mammal/sea turtle observers - Placement of trained observers aboard geophysical survey vessels to monitor the immediate area from presence of marine mammals and sea turtles is a typical practice during seismic operations.

4.5.9.6 Data Gaps

Additional and more precise data are needed on the distribution in time and space of marine mammals, sea turtles and fishing activities.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 282

4.6 Accidental Hydrocarbon Releases

This section discusses the various types of accidental hydrocarbon releases that could occur during oil and gas exploration and production activities, specifically blowouts and batch spills. Blowouts and batch spills are briefly described, followed by discussions of probability of occurrence of each type of accidental release, the fate and behaviour of different types of released hydrocarbons, the potential effects of released hydrocarbons on the various VECs, and the mitigations that would be used to minimize the effects of released hydrocarbons. Mitigations will be discussed in the subsection on planning implications. Data gaps related to accidental hydrocarbon releases and their effects will also be identified.

More details on accidental hydrocarbon releases would be provided in a project-specific environmental assessment that will be done for any proposed oil and gas exploration and production program within the SEA Area.

4.6.1 Blowouts and Spills

Blowouts are continuous releases lasting hours, days or weeks that could involve the discharge of petroleum gas into the air and crude oil into surrounding waters. Batch spills are short-duration releases of oil that could occur from accidents on the drilling platforms or support vessels where fuel oil and other petroleum products are stored and handled.

The international oil and gas industry primarily works with the oil volume unit of petroleum barrel (which is different than a US barrel and a British barrel). There are 6.29 petroleum barrels in one m3 (1,000 litres/ m3; 159 litres/bbl).

A study by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS 2003) indicated that the oil extraction industry worldwide contributes <3% of the total petroleum input to the environment. In the US Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) where 28,000 wells were drilled and over 10 billion (109) barrels (bbl) of oil and condensate were produced from 1972 to 2000, only ten blowouts occurred that involved release of oil or condensate. The total oil released in the ten events was 751 bbl.

The practices and technologies that will be used during any drilling in the SEA Area will be in accordance with the accepted practices of the international petroleum industry.

4.6.2 Accidental Hydrocarbon Release Sizes

Five hydrocarbon release size categories are typically used for detailed analyses (Table 4.5). Note that the top three categories are cumulative (i.e., the large-spill category (>1,000 bbl) includes the very large and extremely large spills, and the very large category includes extremely large spills).

Table 4.5. Accidental Hydrocarbon Release Size Categories.

Volume of Release Size Release Size Category Barrels (bbl) Litres (l) Cubic Metres (m3) Extremely large >150,000 >23.85 million >23,850 Very large >10,000 >1.59 million >1,590 Large >1,000 >159,000 >159 Medium 50 – 1,000 7,950 – 159,000 7.95 - 159 Small 1 - 49.9 159 – 7,949 0.159 - 7.949

The main concern from a safety, environmental, and economic perspective is a well blowout that releases large quantities of oil into the marine environment. In the US, only two moderate-size oil-well blowouts involving oil releases >50,000 bbl have occurred since offshore drilling began in the 1950s. Worldwide, there have been five

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 283

‘extremely large’ accidental hydrocarbon releases in the history of offshore drilling, two of which occurred during development drilling, two during production or work-over activities, and the fifth, the largest, during exploration drilling. This largest oil release in history was caused by drilling procedures (used by Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX, Mexico’s national oil company) that are not practiced in US or Canadian waters. These drilling procedures are contrary to US and Canadian regulations and to the accepted practices within the international oil and gas industry.

Almost no historical information is available on ‘large’ accidental hydrocarbon releases (>1,000 to 10,000 bbl). These likely have occurred with greater regularity than ‘very large’ releases (>10,000 bbl). While no ‘large’ releases from blowouts have occurred in US Gulf of Mexico (GOM) OCS operations since 1972, it seems likely that several have occurred elsewhere.

The lone recorded ‘large’ accidental hydrocarbon release in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area (NLOA) occurred in November 2004 at Petro-Canada’s Terra Nova production site. The spill involved ~ 1,038 bbl (~165,000 l) of crude oil (Table 4.6). The spill was associated with the FPSO’s produced water separation process.

Table 4.6 presents information on oil and gas industry-related hydrocarbon spills ≥1 litre on the NLOA from 1997 to present. Other than the one large crude release in 2004, the summary data represent five medium category releases of SBM, 39 small category releases of various hydrocarbon types, and 145 accidental hydrocarbon releases with volumes <159 l (i.e., 1 bbl). Almost 64% of the total volume of hydrocarbons accidentally released on the NLOA since 1997 occurred in 2004. Releases in 2007 and 2003 accounted for almost 25% of the 1997-2009 total volume. Since 1997, 200 exploration and production wells have been drilled in the NLOA. No blowouts have occurred during that time.

Probabilities of occurrence of various sized accidental hydrocarbon releases can be calculated for the NLOA although the data time series is relatively short compared to the database for the US GOM OCS. Comparison between the two offshore areas in terms of accidental release probability must consider the caveat that statistics for the NLOA include more spill types and sizes than do those for the US GOM OCS.

4.6.3 Fate and Behaviour

Oil spill fate/behaviour and trajectory modeling has been conducted in association with numerous drilling programs proposed for the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area in recent years.

Typical input data required for fate/behavior and trajectory modeling include the following:

 Crude oil and diesel properties;  Volumes of crude and diesel released to the marine environment;  Surface water current data;  Air and water temperature data; and  Wind and wave data.

The modeling provides some idea of the persistence and direction of movement of crude and diesel oil in specific geographic/environmental scenarios. The higher the quality of data entered into the model, the more realistic the modeling results.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 284

Table 4.6. Oil Spill (≥ 1 Litre) Data Pertaining to the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, 1997-2009.

Number of Spills by Oil Type Volume of Spills by Oil Type (l)

Year Synthetic Synthetic Crude Diesel Hydraulic Based Others2 TOTAL Crude Diesel Hydraulic Based Others2 TOTAL Mud/Fluid1 Mud/Fluid1 2009 3 0 1 0 4 8 181 0 2 0 11 194 2008 6 0 0 1 7 14 4,629 0 0 100 178 4,907 2007 0 0 0 2/0 3 5 0 0 0 75,089/0 93 75,182 2006 3 0 4 4/0 0 11 605 0 18 3,630/0 0 4,253 2005 4 0 6 1/0 1 12 17 0 24 4,030/0 140 4,211 2004 8 1 9 4/1 3 26 165,813 3 68 108,101/2 12 273,999 2003 2 1 8 3/1 1 16 11 100 275 30,100/2 925 31,413 2002 2 1 0 1/1 2 7 5 10 0 12,000/250 11 12,276 2001 0 2 4 1/1 1 9 0 5 118 5,000/600 3 5,726 2000 2 0 0 5/0 1 8 220 0 0 4,700/0 2 4,922 1999 12 7 4 3/5 7 38 985 924 690 7,340/32 263 10,234 1998 7 8 0 0/2 8 25 375 3,312 0 0/2,008 95 5,790 1997 2 6 2 0/0 1 11 1,004 476 211 0/0 40 1,731 TOTAL 48 26 38 35 34 190 169,362 4,830 1,406 252,884 1,649 430,131 Notes: 1 Includes both synthetic based mud and synthetic based fluid. Numbers and volumes of each separated by /. 2 Includes mixed oil, condensate, well bore fluids, unidentified oil/hydrocarbons, jet, lubricating oil Source: C-NLOPB website, 18 May 2009.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 285

4.6.4 Interactions and Potential Effects of Accidental Hydrocarbon Releases

Any accidental release of hydrocarbons has the potential to interact with all eight VECs. The potential effects of exposure of each VEC to accidentally released hydrocarbons are briefly discussed in this subsection. More detailed discussion of potential interactions, effects, and significance of post-mitigation residual effects would be provided in project-specific environmental assessments of proposed oil and gas projects. Possible mitigations intended to reduce residual effects of accidental hydrocarbon releases are discussed in the subsection on `Planning Implications`.

4.6.4.1 Fish Habitat

There has been extensive study of the effects of oil spills on fish habitat (Armstrong et al. 1995; Rice et al. 1996). The fish habitat VEC includes plankton because it is a source of food for larvae and some adult fish thus, effects of an oil spill or blowout on plankton could affect fish. Dispersion and dissolution cause the soluble, lower molecular weight hydrocarbons to move from the slick into the water column. Effects of spills on pelagic organisms need to be assessed through examination of effects of water-soluble fractions of oil or light hydrocarbon products.

Effects of crude oil spills on plankton are short-lived, with zooplankton being more sensitive than phytoplankton. Zooplankton accumulate hydrocarbons in their bodies. The hydrocarbons may be metabolized and depurated (Trudel 1985). Hydrocarbons accumulated in zooplankton during a spill would be depurated within a few days after a return to clean water and thus, there is limited potential for transfer of hydrocarbons up the food chain (Trudel 1985). There is a potential for transfer of hydrocarbons up the food chain in an environment subject to chronic inputs of hydrocarbons, but there is no potential for biomagnification. Celewycz and Wertheimer (1996) concluded that the Exxon Valdez spill did not reduce the available prey resources, including zooplankton, of juvenile salmon in Prince William Sound.

Mortality of zooplankton can occur at diesel concentrations of 100 to 10,000 ppm (24 to 48 h LC50, where LC50 is the concentration of toxicant that kills 50 percent of the test animals; Trudel 1985). Diesel oil is much more toxic, but shorter-lived in the open ocean than crude oil. There is great variability among species and some species are relatively insensitive. For example, the 96-h LC50 of crude oil for Calanus hyperboreus, a common cold water copepod, was 73,000 ppm (Foy 1982). Complete narcotization of copepods can occur after a 15-min exposure to 1,800 ppm of aromatic heating oil and mortality can occur after a 6-h exposure (Berdugo et al. 1979). Exposure to concentrations of 1,000 ppm of aromatic heating oil for three days had no apparent effect on mobility, but exposure for as little as 10 minutes shortened life span and total egg production (Berdugo et al. 1979). No. 2 fuel oil at concentrations of 250 to 1,000 ppm completely inhibited or modified copepod feeding behaviour, while concentrations of 70 ppm or lower may not affect feeding behaviour (Berman and Heinle 1980). Exposure to naphthalene at concentrations of 10 to 50 ppm for 10 days did not affect feeding behaviour or reproductive potential of copepods although egg development was not examined (Berdugo et al. 1979). Individual zooplankton could be affected by a blowout or spill through mortality, sublethal effects, or hydrocarbon accumulation if oil concentrations are high enough. However, the predicted maximum concentrations for batch and blowouts are well below those known to cause effects.

Under some circumstances, oil spilled in nearshore waters can become incorporated into nearshore and intertidal sediments, where it can remain toxic and affect benthic animals for years after the spill (Sanders et al. 1990). Oil from an offshore spill will not likely become incorporated in the sediments. Oil released from an offshore blowout should quickly rise to the surface.

4.6.4.2 Fish

The fish VEC includes fish and invertebrate eggs and larvae, juvenile fish and invertebrates, adult pelagic fish and invertebrates, and adult groundfish/demersal invertebrates. Planktonic fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton) are less resistant to effects of contaminants than are adults because they are not physiologically equipped to either

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 286

detoxify them or actively avoid them. In addition, many eggs and larvae develop at or near the surface where oil exposure may be the greatest (Rice 1985; see also Section 3.0 for a detailed description of ichthyoplankton on the Grand Banks). It is estimated that sensitivities of fish larvae range from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm of soluble aromatic hydrocarbons, approximately 10 times the sensitivities of adults (Moore and Dwyer 1974). However, an organism’s sensitivity to oiling is not simply a function of age.

Generally, fish eggs appear to be highly sensitive at certain stages and then become less sensitive just prior to larval hatching (Kühnhold 1978; Rice 1985). Larval sensitivity varies with yolk sac stage and feeding conditions (Rice et al. 1986). Eggs and larvae exposed to high concentrations of oil generally exhibit morphological malformations, genetic damage, and reduced growth. Damage to embryos may not be apparent until the larvae hatch. For example, although Atlantic cod eggs were observed to survive oiling, the hatched larvae were deformed and unable to swim (Kühnhold 1974). Atlantic herring larvae exposed to oil have exhibited behavioural abnormalities such as initial increased swimming activity followed by low activity, narcosis, and death (Kühnhold 1972). Similarly, Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) eggs and larvae (possibly exposed as embryos) collected from beaches contaminated with Exxon Valdez oil in 1989 exhibited morphological and genetic damage (Hose et al. 1996; Norcross et al. 1996; Marty et al. 1997). Marty et al. (1997) indicated that herring larvae collected from oiled sites had ingested less food, displayed slower growth, and had a higher prevalence of cytogenetic damage than those sampled from ‘clean’ sites. However, these effects were not observed in eggs and larvae collected in later years (Hose et al. 1996; Norcross et al. 1996) and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that these oiled sites posed a long-term hazard to fish embryo or larval survival (Kocan et al. 1996).

The natural mortality rate in fish eggs and larvae is so high that large numbers could be destroyed by anthropogenic sources before effects would be detected in an adult population (Rice 1985). Oil-related mortalities would probably not affect year-class strength unless >50% of the larvae in a large proportion of the spawning area died (Rice 1985). Herring are one of the most sensitive fish species to oiling. Hose et al. (1996) claim that even though 58% fewer than normally expected herring larvae were produced at a site oiled during the Exxon Valdez spill, no effect would be detected at the population level. Ten-day exposures of large numbers of pink salmon smolt (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) to the water-soluble fraction of crude oil (0.025 to 0.349 ppm) did not result in any detectable effects on their survival to maturity (Birtwell et al. 1999). However, it should be noted that pink salmon may be more resistant to environmental disturbance than other species because they spend so much time in the variable estuarine environment.

The occurrence, abundance and distribution of ichthyoplankton in the SEA Area are highly variable by season and dependent on a variety of biological (e.g., stock size, spawning success, etc.) and environmental (temperature, currents, etc.) factors. In the unlikely event of a blowout or spill in the SEA Area, there is potential for individual ichthyoplankters in the upper water column to sustain lethal and sublethal effects following contact with high

concentrations of oil. The LC50 value at 25C used by Hurlbut et al. (1991) to predict effects on ichthyoplankton was 0.0143 ppm.

As in the case of fish larvae, the sensitivity of invertebrate larvae to petroleum hydrocarbons varies with species, life history stage, and type of oil. Generally, invertebrate larvae are more sensitive to effects of oil than are adult invertebrates. Sublethal and lethal effects on individual larvae are possible during a spill or blowout in the SEA Area. American lobster larvae (Stages 1 to 4) showed a 24-h LC50 of 0.1 ppm to Venezuelan crude oil (Wells 1972). Larvae exposed to 0.1 ppm of South Louisiana crude oil swam and fed actively while those exposed to 1 ppm were lethargic (Forns 1977). Stage 1 crab larvae (king crab, Paralithodes camtschatica and Tanner crab (Chionectes bairdi)) succumbed to similar concentrations of crude oil (0.96 to 2 ppm; Brodersen et al. 1977) while larval shrimp generally had higher LC50 limits (0.95 to 7.9 ppm; Brodersen et al. 1977; Mecklenburg et al. 1977). Anderson et al. (1974) tested a variety of crude and refined oils and found that post-larval brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) were less sensitive than adult invertebrate species. Also, moulting larvae appear to be more sensitive to oil than intermoult larvae (Mecklenburg et al. 1977). Kerosene affected development of sea urchin embryos at concentrations of 15 ppb or greater, as did gasoline at concentrations of 28 ppb or greater (Falk- Petersen 1979). Invertebrate larvae exposed to oil may exhibit reductions in food consumption and growth rate, and increases in oxygen consumption (Johns and Pechenik 1980). Despite these physiological changes, deleterious effects on invertebrate populations have not been detected, even after major oil spills (Armstrong et al. 1995). Larval distribution and settlement, fecundity, recruitment and growth of juveniles and subadult crab,

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 287

pandalid shrimp, clams and scallops were not significantly affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Armstrong et al. 1995).

The geographical and seasonal distribution of fish eggs and larvae in the region is highly variable. For example, in general, there are two peaks in abundance of ichthyoplankton on the Grand Banks. The first typically occurs in April-May and the second in August-September. As already indicated, the eggs and larvae of most of the above species are distributed in the upper 50 m of the water column. When all of the above ichthyoplankton are considered as a whole, the period of their occurrence in the plankton is quite broad (i.e., March to October). The effects of oil spill exposure on the eggs and larvae of the above fish and invertebrate species are predicted to be negative.

There is an extensive body of literature regarding the effects of exposure to oil on juvenile and adult fish. Although some of the literature describes field observations, most refers to laboratory studies. Reviews of the effects of oil on fish have been prepared by Armstrong et al. (1995), Rice et al. (1996), and numerous other authors. If exposed to oil in high enough concentrations, fish may suffer effects ranging from direct physical effects (e.g., coating of gills and suffocation) to more subtle physiological and behavioural effects. Actual effects depend on a variety of factors such as the amount and type of oil, environmental conditions, species and life stage, lifestyle, fish condition, degree of confinement of experimental subjects, and others. Based on laboratory toxicity studies, pelagic fish tend to be more sensitive (LC50s of 1 to 3 ppm) than either benthic (LC50s of 3 to 8 ppm) or intertidal fish species (LC50s of >8 ppm) (Rice et al. 1979). An LC50 is based upon controlled laboratory experiments using confined fish, usually in a container of standing water. The result is expressed as the concentration of a contaminant that achieves a mortality rate of 50%. There are recognized problems in applying LC50 data to the ”real world” but they are useful for “ball park” comparative information, especially in situations where it is very difficult to obtain good controlled field data.]

Reported physiological effects on fish have included abnormal gill function (Sanders et al. 1981 and Englehardt et al. 1981 in Brzorad and Burger 1994), increased liver enzyme activity (Koning 1987; Payne et al. 1987), decreased growth (Swatrz 1985 in Brzorad and Burger 1994; Moles and Norcross 1998), organ damage (Rice 1985), and increased disease or parasites loads (Brown et al. 1973; Steedman 1991 in Brzorad and Burger 1994; Carls et al. (1998); Marty et al. 1999).

Reported behavioural effects include avoidance of contamination by migrating salmon (Weber et al. 1981), and cod in laboratory studies at refined petroleum levels in excess of 100 μg/L (Bohle 1986 in Crucil 1989), and altered natural behaviours related to predator avoidance (Gardner 1975; Pearson et al. 1984) or feeding (Christiansen and George 1995). Juvenile (i.e., those past the egg and larval stages) and adult fish can and probably will avoid any crude oil by swimming from the blowout/spill region (Irwin 1997).

4.6.4.3 Fisheries

The primary effects of accidental hydrocarbon releases on the Fisheries VEC pertain to physical effects on target species (see Subsection 4.6.4.2 on Fish VEC), tainting of target species, fouling of gear, and perceived tainting of target species. Physical effects on fish from a spill may not be extensive because of their avoidance abilities. However, economic impacts might occur if the spill prevented or impeded a harvester’s ability to access fishing grounds (because of areas temporarily excluded during the spill or spill clean-up), caused damage to fishing gear (through oiling) or resulted in a negative effect on the marketability of fish products (because of market perception resulting in lower prices, even without organic or organoleptic evidence of tainting).

If a spill slick were to reach an area when fisheries were active, it is likely that fishing would be halted, owing to the possibility of fouling the buoy lines, or the nets or pots if these were raised through the slick. Exclusion from a spill area would be expected to be short-term, as typical sea and wind conditions would promote fairly rapid evaporation and weathering of the slick, and fishing vessels would likely be able to return within several days. Nevertheless, if fishers were required to cease fishing, harvesting might be disrupted. An interruption could result

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 288

in an economic impact because of reduced catches, or extra costs associated with having to relocate crab harvesting effort.

Effects due to market perceptions of poor product quality (no buyers or reduced prices, etc.) are more difficult to predict, since the actual (physical) impacts of the spill might have little to do with these perceptions. It would only be possible to quantify these effects by monitoring the situation if a spill were to occur.

4.6.4.4 Marine-associated Birds

Marine-associated birds are the marine animals most at risk from oil spills and blowouts. Exposure to oil causes thermal and buoyancy deficiencies that typically lead to the deaths of affected seabirds. Although some may survive these immediate effects, long-term physiological changes may eventually result in death (Ainley et al. 1981; Williams 1985; Frink and White 1990; Fry 1990). Reported effects vary with bird species, type of oil (Gorsline et al. 1981), weather conditions, time of year, and duration of the spill or blowout. Although oil spills at sea have the potential to kill tens of thousands of seabirds (Clark 1984; Piatt et al. 1990), some studies suggest that even very large spills may not have long-term effects on seabird populations (Clark 1984; Wiens 1995).

The preening leads to the ingestion of significant quantities of oil which, although apparently only partially absorbed (McEwan and Whitehead 1980) can cause lethal effects (Hartung and Hunt 1966; Lawler et al. 1978; Holmes et al. 1979; Peakall et al. 1980, 1982; Khan and Ryan 1991). Birds exposed to oil are also at risk of starvation (Hartung 1967, 1995; Gorman and Milne 1970; McEwan and Koelink 1973). It appears that direct, long-term sublethal toxic effects on seabirds are unlikely (Neff 1985 in Hartung 1995, Hartung 1995, McEwan and Whitehead 1980). However, nesting seabirds that are contaminated with oil but still survive generally exhibit decreased reproductive success. (Albers 1977; Albers and Szaro 1978; Holmes et al. 1979; Hoffmann 1978, 1979a; Macko and King 1980; Parnell et al. 1984; Hartung 1965; Miller et al. 1978; Peakall et al. 1980; Vangilder and Peterle 1980; Ainley et al. 1981; Szaro et al. 1981; Trivelpiece et al. 1984; Eppley and Rubega 1990; Harfenist et al. 1990).

Considering the proximity of the SEA Area to the south coast of Newfoundland, there are potential effects of accidental events on coastal bird habitats and sensitive areas, particularly the identified IBAs and Piping Plover critical habitat sites. There is no conclusive evidence that oil spills have either caused marked reductions in bird populations or have changed community structure at a large scale (Leighton 1995). Some studies have suggested that oil pollution is unlikely to have major long-term effects on bird productivity or population dynamics (Clark 1984; Butler et al. 1988; Boersma et al. 1995; Wiens 1995) while others suggest the opposite (Piatt et al. 1990; Walton et al. 1997). Natural interannual variation in other factors that affect populations (e.g., prey availability and weather) reduces the ability of scientists to assess the full effect of oil spills on bird populations.

It is clear that truly aquatic and marine species of birds are most vulnerable and most often affected by exposure to marine oil spills. Diving species such as the Alcidae, sea ducks, loons, and grebes are considered to be the most susceptible to the immediate effects of surface slicks (Leighton et al. 1985; Chardine 1995; Wiese and Ryan 1999, 2003). Alcids often have the highest oiling rate of seabirds recovered from beaches along the south and east coasts of the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland (Wiese and Ryan 1999, 2003). Other species such as fulmars, shearwaters, storm-petrels, gulls and terns are vulnerable to contact with oil because they feed over wide areas and make frequent contact with the water's surface. They are also vulnerable to the disturbance and habitat damage associated with oil spill cleanup (Lock et al. 1994). In the SEA Area, this would include species like terns and storm-petrels. Oil residues in bedrock habitat, like that used by most seabirds in Newfoundland, do not persist as long as residues in sedimentary habitat (e.g., sand beaches) (Gilfillan et al. 1995).

Birds are particularly vulnerable to oil spills during nesting, moulting, and prior to young seabirds gaining the ability to fly. Newly fledged murres and Northern Gannets are unable to fly for the first two to three weeks at sea, and are, therefore, less likely to avoid contact with oil during this time (Lock et al. 1994). Before and during moult, the risks of hypothermia and drowning (Erasmus and Wessels 1985) are increased because feather wear and loss reduce the ability to repel water by about 50% (Stephenson 1997). As discussed in Section 3.0, a small number of

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 289

pairs of the endangered Piping Plover nest on coastal beaches in the SEA Area. Sandy beaches are rare on the coast of Newfoundland and Cape Breton and Piping Plovers are vulnerable to oil washed ashore and to human disturbance (Lock et al. 1994). Consequently, most of such beaches are officially protected to preserve breeding habitat. Terns are less vulnerable to oil, but spill clean-up activities may disturb nesting terns and cause nesting failure (Lock et al. 1994).

Several oil spills have occurred on the Grand Banks, and “small” oil releases (most likely from bilge pumping and de-ballasting by vessel traffic) occur frequently, killing thousands of seabirds (Brown et al. 1973, Anon. 1990, Chardine and Pelly 1994). Primarily diving birds are affected, most notably Northern Fulmar, Long-tailed Duck, Red-breasted Merganser, murres, Dovekie, and grebes (Brown et al. 1973). On a broader geographical scale, estimates of the number of that birds die annually from operational spills range from 21,000 on the Atlantic coast of Canada, and 72,000 in all of Canada (Thomson et al. 1991), to 315,000±65,000 Common Murres, Thick-billed Murres and Dovekies annually in southeastern Newfoundland alone due to illegal oil discharges from ships (Wiese and Robertson 2004). There is no clear correlation between the size of an oil spill and numbers of seabirds killed (Burger 1993). The density of birds in a spill area, wind velocity and direction, wave action, and distance to shore may have a greater bearing on mortality than the size of the spill (Burger 1993). However, even small spills can cause cumulative mass mortality of seabirds (Joensen 1972; Clark 1984; Cairns and Elliot 1987). In November 2004, a spill of crude oil occurred from the production platform of the Terra Nova oil field. Canadian Wildlife Service has estimated that mortality to seabirds in the area may have been in the order of 10,000. Other seabird experts have cautioned that such estimates are not supported by sufficient data because surveys of the site did not occur for five days following the incident, and there was no information on drift trajectories of dead or contaminated birds. In addition, the amount of dispersant effect of the high sea state on the oil during and after the spill is not known. Possible mortality of seabirds has been speculated to range from hundreds to 100,000 or more (see www.mun.ca/acwern/terranova.html). It is thought that many thousands of pelagic seabirds occur in the Terra Nova area in November.

4.6.4.5 Marine Mammals

Most marine mammals, with the exception of fur seals, polar bears, and sea otters, are considered to be not directly susceptible to deleterious effects of oil. There is not clear evidence implicating oil spills with the mortality of cetaceans (Geraci 1990), although there was a significant decrease and lack of recovery in the population size of a killer whale pod that uses the area of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Dahlheim and Matkin 1994). Several species of cetaceans and seals have been documented behaving normally in the presence of oil (St. Aubin 1990; Harvey and Dahlheim 1994; Matkin et al. 1994). There may have been a long-term decline by 36% in the number of moulting harbour seals at oiled haul-out sites in Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Frost et al. 1994). Pup mortality at these beaches was 23-26%, which may have been higher than natural mortality. Further analyses do not support high mortality, but indicated that seals moved away from some oiled haul-out sites (Hoover-Miller et al. 2001).

There are several physical and internal functions that may be affected by oil fouling of marine mammals. Whales and seals rely on a layer of blubber for insulation, and so oil has little effect on thermoregulation. It can be assumed that if oil contacted the eyes, effects would be similar to that observed in ringed seals (conjunctivitis, corneal abrasion, and swollen nictitating membranes), and that continued exposure to eyes could cause permanent damage (St. Aubin 1990). Damage to the visual system would likely limit foraging abilities, as vision is an important sensory modality used to locate and capture prey, particularly for marine mammals. Animals could ingest oil with water, contaminated food, or oil could be absorbed through the respiratory tract; absorbed oil could cause toxic effects (Geraci 1990). Inhalation of vapours from volatile fractions of oil from a spill or blowout could potentially irritate respiratory membranes and hydrocarbons could be absorbed into the bloodstream. Absorbed oil can cause toxic effects such as minor kidney, liver, and brain lesions (Geraci and Smith 1976; Spraker et al. 1994), but contaminated animals could depurate this oil when returned to clean water (Engelhardt 1982). In baleen whales, crude oil could coat the baleen and reduce filtration efficiency, but these effects are considered to be reversible (Geraci 1990). Seals fouled externally with heavy oil may also encounter problems with locomotion, with flippers becoming stuck to their sides (Seargent 1991). Stressed individuals or those that

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 290

could not escape a contaminated area would be most at risk to potentially deleterious effects. Animals exposed to heavy doses of oil for prolonged periods could experience mortality.

4.6.4.6 Sea Turtles

It is unknown whether sea turtles can detect and avoid oil slicks. Gramentz (1988) reported that sea turtles did not avoid oil at sea, and sea turtles experimentally exposed to oil showed a limited ability to avoid oil (Vargo et al. 1986). Gross histologic lesions developed in loggerhead sea turtles experimentally exposed to oil, but most effects were apparently reversed by the tenth day after exposure (Bossart et al. 1995). Oil may also reduce lung diffusion capacity, decrease oxygen consumption or digestion efficiency, or damage nasal and eyelid tissue (Lutz et al. 1989). Hall et al. (1983) observed seven live and three dead sea turtles following an oil well blowout in 1979; two of the carcasses had oil in the gut but no lesions, and there was no evidence of aspirated oil in the lungs. However, hydrocarbon residues were found in kidney, liver, and muscle tissue of all three dead turtles, and prolonged exposure to oil may have disrupted feeding behaviour and weakened the turtles.

4.6.4.7 Species at Risk and Potentially Sensitive Areas

The potential effects of accidental hydrocarbon releases on all marine species considered as SAR (Subsection 3.7) are discussed in the relevant subsections on fish habitat, fishes, marine-associated birds, marine mammals and sea turtles (Subsections 4.6.4.1 to 4.6.4.6).

The potential effects of accidental hydrocarbon releases on potentially sensitive areas identified in Subsection 3.8 are discussed in the relevant subsections on fish habitat, fishes, marine-associated birds, marine mammals and sea turtles (Subsections 4.6.4.1 to 4.6.4.6). The potentially sensitive areas occurring in coastal areas would be at highest risk.

4.6.4.8 Planning Implications

The mitigations that can be applied to minimize the potential effects of accidental hydrocarbon releases on all VECs are discussed below.

Containment and Recovery

The typical approach for blowouts involves the deployment of a collection boom at a point downstream of but as close to the source as safe and practicable. Typically the boom might be deployed in a V-configuration to provide a sweep width of one-third the total boom length. A suitable oil recovery skimming system would be positioned at the apex of the ‘V’ and would discharge recovered oil to a storage barge or the tanks of a suitable support vessel. Clearly either of the scenarios will be strongly influenced by weather conditions at the time as well as safety and practical tactical decisions made by the response organization. For any major offshore oil spill there are environmental and technological constraints to response and cleanup. High sea states and visibility are examples of typical environmental constraints while examples of technological constraints include pumping capacity of oil recovery devices, effectiveness of chemical dispersants on viscous oils. These kinds of limitations apply even if the response organizations is perfectly prepared and trained and outfitted with the world's best available equipment.

Dispersants and in situ burning are possible alternative countermeasures that offer some advantages in certain spill situations. Dispersants are specially-formulated chemicals that, when applied to an oil slick reduce the interfacial tension of the oil and enhance its dispersion into the water under the influence of wave action. Notwithstanding the fact that dispersants function by causing the oil to be dispersed from the sea surface into the water column for spills in an offshore environment, this can be a good trade-off in that the lower concentrations of subsurface oil are generally less harmful to the environment, and more readily degraded naturally, than the relatively high concentrations of oil in a surface slick. In addition, the potential for seabirds to encounter oil on the sea surface can be reduced. The main advantages of dispersant use over containment and recovery are that with appropriate equipment slick that cover large

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 291

areas can be treated, the logistics involved in storing and disposing of recovered oil are avoided, and the rough sea conditions that prevail in the Newfoundland offshore complement and enhance the effectiveness of the dispersant.

For in situ burning the approach is to collect and thicken the oil slick with fire-resistant boom, ignite it, and burn the oil in place on the water surface. While its main advantage is that the logistics of storing and disposing of recovered oil are avoided, and that much higher treatment rates (i.e., versus skimming) are possible it offers no advantage when it comes to encounter rates. The oil must still be collected with a containment boom the effectiveness of which is constrained by sea state conditions. Apart from the potential limited availability of fire resistant booms more limiting is that burning is generally only effective on oils that are not emulsified or have suffered little emulsification.

Fisheries

Economic compensation can be provided to affected fishers for gear damage, loss of access to fishing grounds, and decrease in marketability due to either actual or perceived tainting of the invertebrates and fishes typically harvested.

Bird Rehabilitation

The rescue, cleaning, and rehabilitation of oiled birds have been practised in several parts of the world for a number of years (Clark 1984). Considerable effort has been made to improve rehabilitation techniques (Berkner et al. 1977; Williams 1985; Frink and White 1990), and release rates of birds have generally increased (Randall et al. 1980; Williams 1985; Frink 1987).However, cleaned seabirds often die shortly after release (Sharp 1996), which is reflected in much lower survival rate than non-oiled birds, regardless of cleaning techniques (Sharp 1996).

Recently, some oil companies operating on the Grand Banks have committed to conduct bird cleaning and rehabilitation programs on the basis of the following principles:

 Bird cleaning and rehabilitation operations will be carried out under the terms of permits issued by the CWS;  Procedures and protocols to ensure safe effective and humane cleaning and rehabilitation of birds under the guidance of a qualified veterinarian will be put in place pursuant to the aforementioned permits;  Procedures and protocols will make appropriate provision for triage and euthanasia under the direction of a qualified veterinarian and ensure appropriate focus for any endangered species that might be affected by an incident;  Collection of birds offshore for cleaning and rehabilitation during a spill incident will be conducted with strict regard for safety of personnel involved.

Bird Population Enhancement Techniques

In the unlikely event that seabird populations are significantly affected by oil spills (Clark 1984; Wiens 1995), it may be possible to restock certain species’ populations. Although no efforts to restock birds in areas that have suffered from major oil spills have been conducted, there have been several programs to reintroduce birds into abandoned parts of their ranges (e.g., Common Eiders in Hare Bay, Newfoundland, and Atlantic Puffins off the Maine coast and along the Brittany coast) (Gilliland, CWS, in prep.; Duncombe and Reille 1980; Clark 1984). These efforts have met with variable success. They all involved much planning, considerable labour and the programs were multi-year efforts that required a long-term commitment of personnel and resources.

The nesting success of some species can be improved by manipulation of nesting habitat. Nest shelter programs have been ongoing in Newfoundland and Labrador for Common Eiders since the late 1980s (Goudie 1989, 1991d).

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 292

4.6.4.9 Data Gaps

While the effects of different types of hydrocarbons are fairly well known, the physical characteristics of hydrocarbons potentially occurring in the SEA Area are not well known. The distribution of the fisheries in the SEA Area is well known in time and space. The key data gaps in assessing the potential effects of a large oil spill or blowout are listed below.

 Distribution of key VECs such as fish eggs and larvae, seabirds, marine mammals and sea turtles in the SEA Area are not completely understood,  Specific characteristics, fate and behaviour of hydrocarbon spills in most of the SEA Area are relatively unknown,  Development of better containment and recovery methods, and  Development of more effective bird rehabilitation techniques.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 293

5.0 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those effects that are additive (or possibly greater) within a project or with other outside existing or planned projects. Planned projects have to have a reasonable chance of proceeding (e.g., may be in the approval process). Guidance on cumulative effects assessment is available in Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) (1994, 1999).

Historical experience in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area was analyzed in a previous SEA (C-NLOPB 2005). The analysis indicated that (to end of 2002) 23 significant discoveries were made as a result of 129 "wildcat" exploration wells - a proportion of about 18% or 1 in 5.5. Of these discoveries, four to date (Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose and the potential Hebron development) resulted in more than one delineation well (approximately 3% of exploration wells or 1 in 32). Full pre-development field delineation offshore Newfoundland and Labrador to 2005 involved seven to nine wells in addition to the initial discovery well; this drilling typically has extended considerably beyond the nine-year period of the original exploration license.

Given today’s high oil prices and worldwide demand for oil and gas, it is difficult to predict future levels of offshore activity based upon past history. Nonetheless, given the relatively small area covered by the parcels in question, what is known of past decisions offshore Newfoundland, and other factors, the following may be a reasonable scenario for the SEA Area.

There likely would be no more than two seismic programs running concurrently. This is deduced based on past history, the high demand for seismic vessels, the need to maintain distance to avoid affecting each other’s data, and the general propensity of the oil industry to utilize resources sequentially to realize potential cost savings. There likely would be no more than two exploratory drill rigs (one shallow and one deep), excluding any drilling from land, operational at any one time. This is deduced based on past history, the high demand for drill rigs, and the general propensity of the oil industry to utilize resources sequentially to realize potential cost savings. There is typically no more than two exploratory wells drilled per parcel; given that there are four parcels and that exploration licenses typically last for five years then one may see eight wells over five years plus whatever activity existing licenses may generate over the next few years. In the statistically unlikely event that enough significant discoveries are made to justify a production development, one would be the maximum number. If a production development was proposed it can be speculated that in shallow water, say less than 100 metres, a bottom-founded unit might be used, whereas in deeper water an FPSO might be used. Production platforms would be tied into some unknown number of satellite wells with flow lines. Production developments could also be on land if directional drilling was used.

Within-project cumulative effects are normally integrated within a site-specific EA as part of the effects predictions which avoids double accounting. In the SEA Area, the key exterior factors include:

 Other oil and gas activities  Commercial fisheries  Hunting  Transportation (e.g., cargo and tankers)  Military exercises  Subsea cables

Other factors that may need to be considered for inshore projects are those associated with recreation and culture such as recreational fisheries, boating and kayaking, pleasure cruises, and cultural and archaeological sites. Some of these are discussed in more detail below.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 294

5.1 Oil and Gas Activities

Potential activities include those associated with exploration, production, and decommissioning. Some of these are discussed below with emphasis on the exploratory phase which is less speculative than the others which may or may not occur 20+ years hence.

5.1.1 Seismic Surveys

Any geophysical programs (2-D, 3-D, VSP, or other) will not overlap as they would interfere with data collection. Effects of noise may be additive on those animals such as certain species of fish (e.g., herring) and marine mammals (e.g., humpback whales) that may be sensitive to seismic survey noise. Some migratory animals may be subject to disturbance from noise from other surveys outside the SEA Area on the East Coast. Mitigations such as ramp-ups and avoidance of sensitive areas and times should mitigate any potential cumulative effects to acceptable levels.

Considering that environmental assessments to date have concluded that the effects of individual seismic programs on marine animals (e.g., marine mammals, marine birds, sea turtles, fish, and invertebrates) are not significant given the proper implementation of mitigation measures (Davis et al. 1998; Buchanan et al. 2004; Christian et al. 2005) and that spatial and temporal overlap between different seismic programs can be readily minimized, seismic cumulative effects should be minimal. Nonetheless, individual seismic programs will require a site-specific EA pursuant to CEAA which will examine cumulative effects in detail. The more detailed cumulative effects assessment, including background noise levels, would be contained in the site-specific EA. Standard mitigations such as a marine mammal monitoring program, ramp-up procedures and the use of FLOs are typically employed by operators to reduce potential effects.

5.1.2 Drilling

Any cumulative effects will not be overlapping or synergistic within the SEA Area, unless supply vessels follow the same routes at the same time. Cumulative effects will, however, be additive; this is a potential issue with migratory species that may be subject to repeated disturbances as they transit the South and East coasts.

Any cumulative effects on the SEA Area’s ecosystem from routine exploratory drilling in the SEA Area will probably not overlap in time and space and thus, will be additive but not multiplicative. This level of activity will not change any effects predictions when viewed on a cumulative basis unless significant oil spills or blowouts occur.

Barring major accidents, effects of a single exploratory well in the SEA Area should be minimal (Buchanan et al. 2003; Buchanan et al. 2006, 2007). In any event, it is unlikely that any effects, mostly confined to within 500 m, would overlap with another exploratory well, on or off the shelf; they will be simply additive. An exception could be the effects of drill rig noise and/or supply vessel noise.

5.2 Commercial, Research and Recreational Fisheries and Aquaculture

Some parts of the SEA Area undergo intensive fishing activity (Subsection 3.3), so much so that the environmental effects of trawling on benthos and fish, the effects of longlines and gillnets on fish populations, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals greatly exceed any potential effects from oil and gas exploration and production. Nonetheless, effects of exploration and production activities will add some negligible, but not measureable, additional stress on fish and fisheries.

DFO and industry fisheries research surveys normally involve only a few vessels operating in specific areas for relatively short periods of time relative to commercial fleet activity. As such, such surveys probably have relatively small contributions to overall cumulative effects.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 295

Recreational fisheries in the SEA Area are limited (see Subsection 3.3) and therefore have negligible contribution to the cumulative effect. No aquaculture is currently being conducted in the SEA Area so it does not contribute to cumulative effect.

5.3 Marine Traffic

The south coast sees extensive shipping activity, nationally through ports in Placentia Bay and Port aux Basques, and internationally through the entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for ships coming from Europe (Figure 5.1). There is local ship traffic such as ferries (see Figure 5.2) and fishing vessels. There has been a chronic problem on the south coast in winter with illegal discharge of oily bilge water by irresponsible ship owners. Seabirds, marine mammals, and sea turtles are the primarily affected VECs.

The SEA Area is in proximity to various shipping lanes so that any activities should be planned in recognition of the location and frequency of traffic. Major shipping routes pass over the middle and southern part of the region (Figure 5.1). The Marine Atlantic ferry from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Port Aux Basques, Newfoundland and Labrador, transits the western section of the SEA Area, and the Argentia ferry crosses through the area. Commercial cruise lines increasingly frequent ports such as Sydney, Nova Scotia, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and Corner Brook and St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Source: Wiese and Ryan (2003).

Figure 5.1. Shipping Routes in Vicinity of SEA Area.

The Eastern Canada and Great Lakes trade route with Europe passes directly through the SEA Area. Oceanex cargo routes from St. John’s and/or Halifax to Corner Brook or Montreal cross the SEA Area (Figure 5.2). There is also potential traffic from oil tanker traffic from the Newfoundland Transshipment Terminal and Come By Chance Oil Refinery in Placentia Bay or other locations sailing for east coast refineries (Figure 5.3).

Transport Canada conducted an Environmental Risk Assessment Study of the South Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador (RMRI 2007). This study may be of use in site-specific EAs.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 296

Legend Oceanex: St. John’s – Montreal Oceanex: Halifax-St. John’s-Corner Brook EIMSKIP: Europe-Argetnia-Shelburne-US Marine Atlantic Ferry: Argentia-North Sydney Marine Atlantic Ferry: Port aux Basques – N Sydney St. Pierre RoRo Service: Halifax

Figure 5.2. Cargo Vessels and Ferry Traffic.

Figure 5.3. Oil Tanker Traffic.

5.4 Hunting

Most hunting of seabirds in Newfoundland and Labrador waters occurs inshore. Most of the SEA Area is in offshore waters. Thus, there is little hunting in the SEA Area and thus minimal contribution to cumulative effects in the SEA Area from the hunting of seabirds. Nonetheless, there is a general lack of recent available data on seabird mortalities in Newfoundland and Labrador waters due to hunting.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 297

5.5 Tourism

The tourism industry provides an important role in rural Newfoundland economies. On the southwest coast, scenic, natural and cultural attractions translate into economic opportunities for the resident population and provide domestic, national and international travelers with world-class outdoor recreation activities. These activities (both commercial and private) include bird watching, whale watching, diving, kayaking, fishing and camping, as well as activities associated with cruise ship visitation and the area’s cultural and archaeological attractions.

Bird watching, like whale watching is a popular outdoor activity. The coastal area of the south coast, and particularly offshore islands such as the Ramea archipelago, provide habitat for water-associated birds (shorebirds, waterfowl, and seabirds) such as Atlantic Puffins, Common Eiders, Harlequin Ducks, Canada Geese, Leach’s Storm-Petrels, cormorants, Piping Plovers, terns, murres and Kittiwakes (BDDB 2003 in JW 2007). Bird watching is a popular activity at Sandbanks Provincial Park, which hosts a nesting colony of Piping Plover (JW 2007). Bird watching is often done in conjunction with other outdoor activities, such as whale watching, hiking and kayaking.

Sea kayaking is a popular activity on Newfoundland’s south coast. At least two operators offer sea kayaking tours in the region, one based in Ramea and the other in Burgeo (NLDTCR n.d. in JW 2007). The coast is popular for its scenic appeal, including its geomorphological features and its flora and fauna. There are also many sheltered coves and harbours, providing easy access to the land and suitable as camping sites on overnight trips. Aside from official operations, many kayakers enjoy the waters of the south coast independently, and are therefore never recorded in any tourism statistics. This is true of many of these outdoor recreation activities, especially with respect to the outdoor recreation participation of the resident population of the immediate area and of the Province as a whole.

Fishing is deeply rooted in Newfoundland and Labrador culture and is a popular recreational activity for residents and tourists alike. Three species are targeted recreationally on Newfoundland’s south coast: Atlantic salmon; sea- run trout (Salvinus fontinalis); and Atlantic cod. Grandy’s River and Grey River are two of the most productive salmon rivers on the south coast and both draw anglers from around the province and around the world (JW 2007). Sea-run trout are also a favoured target species for anglers and are sought in some south coast estuaries.

The cruise ship industry in Newfoundland grew from 17,700 passenger visits in 2004, with estimated expenditures of $1.3 million, to 25,600 passenger visits in 2005, with estimated expenditures of $1.9 million. There are four ports of call on Newfoundland’s southwest coast: François; Ramea; La Poile; and Grand Bruit. In 2005, Ramea was visited three times and Grand Bruit once. La Poile and François were not visited in 2005 but in 2004 were visited once and three times, respectively (NLDTCR 2006a in JW 2007).

5.6 Military Activities

The Canadian military may conduct military exercises in Newfoundland and Labrador waters from time to time. Theses would be mostly in the form of vessel traffic. In such cases, the military would coordinate with the oil and gas industry and other users of the area. Thus, any cumulative effects would be in the form of ship activities and potentially the use of sonar. Past military use of the area includes munition dumps (see Subsection 2.6).

5.7 Subsea Cables

There are a number of subsea cables in the SEA Area including a recently installed fibre optic one along the south coast. Additional ones may be installed in the future. The installation of subsea cables generally creates relatively little environmental effect other than the initial disturbance. However, Operators will be advised to check locations of such cables prior to any seabed activities in order to avoid any mutual damage.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 298

6.0 Summary and Conclusions

This SEA has compiled and consolidated a large amount of information relevant to oil and gas activities that may occur off the south coast of Newfoundland. The key points are summarized in this section.

6.1 Potential Issues

Potential issues that are generally applicable to East Coast oil and gas activities, including the Southern Newfoundland SEA Area, include:

 Effects of accidental spills on marine flora and fauna;  Effects of industrial sound on commercial and non-commercial invertebrates and fish, marine mammals, and Species at Risk;  Disturbance of commercial fishery activities;  Disturbance of sensitive benthic communities, particularly deep-sea coral areas; and  Attraction of seabirds, particularly petrels, to rigs and supply vessels.

Potential issues specific to the SEA Area include:

 Sensitivity of shallow subtidal and intertidal areas to an accidental spill, particularly with respect to coastal seabirds, coastal waterfowl and shorebirds, and their respective habitats;  Potential sensitivity of redfish and cod spawning areas in the northwest SEA Area;  Potential sensitivity of CAD-NAFO Coral Protection Area on Grand Banks southwest slope;  Potential sensitivity of areas identified by DFO (e.g., EBSAs) and CPAWS (i.e., SMAs);  Potential sensitivity of estuarine areas at mouths of Atlantic salmon rivers;  Intensive commercial fisheries in much of the SEA Area, and  Effects on aesthetics associated with the presence of oil and gas infrastructure nearshore.

6.2 Planning Implications

There are a number of aspects of the SEA Area that have planning implications for any exploration and production activities in the area. The most important ones are identified below.

6.2.1 Identified Potentially Sensitive Areas

Five categories of sensitive areas have been identified in the SEA. They are as follow:

1. DFO Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas; 2. CAD-NAFO Coral Protection Zone; 3. Special Marine Areas identified by CPAWS; 4. Potential Parks Canada National Marine Conservation Area; 5. Atlantic salmon rivers.

Defining characteristics include key fish spawning/nursery areas, deep-sea coral areas containing relatively high abundance and diversity, areas of high productivity manifested by aggregations of biota representing different levels of the food chain, important coastal habitats, and important nesting areas for Species-at-Risk bird species. All of these characteristics will have to be considered at some level when planning any exploration and production activities.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 299

6.2.2 Shallow Subtidal/Intertidal Areas

Various shore types exist along the section of the south coast and some are more sensitive than others to potential effects from oil and gas activities. For example, some rare and sensitive shore type habitats (e.g., salt marsh, tidal flats, and sandy beaches) would retain spilled oil for a longer period than more exposed shore types if cleanup were left to natural processes. Therefore, spill prevention and response are very important issues in the SEA Area. Another issue that is complicated by shallow water and complex bottom substrates is underwater sound transmission. Sound propagation is complex in deepwater areas due to different water layers and other factors but is it further complicated in shallow water. Acoustic modelling may be required to better predict the propagation of sound from sources such as seismic surveying.

6.2.3 Mitigations

Operators will be required by the C-NLOPB to comply with all applicable legislation and guidelines, including the C-NLOPB guidelines (e.g., Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines- C-NLOPB 2008; OWTG – NEB et al. 2002; Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines – NEB et al. 2009).

Mitigations have been discussed throughout the SEA. For seismic surveys (including VSP), typical mitigations employed by operators include:

 Establish a safety zone which is a circle with a radius of at least 500 m as measured from the centre of the air source array;  Ramping up (‘soft start’) of airguns at the start of survey;  Monitoring of marine mammals and sea turtles;  Good communications with the fishing industry;  Notice to mariners and fisheries broadcasts;  Fisheries guard vessels and observers (FLOs) to avoid conflicts with fishing vessels and gear;  Compensation for gear losses attributable to seismic survey activity;  Design/selection of equipment to optimize source levels;  Avoidance of sensitive areas and/or times, and  Shutdowns if sensitive species of marine mammals and sea turtles (e.g., Schedule 1 SARA species) are within a pre-determined safety zone.

These mitigations are now more or less standard practice on the East Coast, including Newfoundland and Labrador waters. Mitigations for exploratory drilling activity may include:

 Adherence to OWTG limits on discharges;  Screening and selection of chemicals used in drilling;  Design and implementation of a Waste Management Plan to be approved by the C-NLOPB;  Environmental criteria (to minimize emissions) in selection of new equipment to be installed;  Well abandonment procedures to be approved by C-NLOPB (mechanical procedures are much preferred over explosives; if explosives are used, safety zones, marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring, and restrictions on timing, type, placement and shape of charges may be imposed);  Selection of supply vessel and aircraft routing to avoid sensitive areas and/or times;  Communication with fishing industry and other mariners in regard to vessel routing and safety zones, and other issues that may arise;  Seabird observers (also to record marine mammals and sea turtles) on drilling rigs, and  Implementation of fishing gear compensation program in event of gear damage by an operator.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 300

Mitigations for accidental events include:

 Emphasis on prevention through education, procedures and policies;  Design and implementation of an Oil Spill Response Plan to be approved by C-NLOPB;  Spill response material (e.g., absorbents and booms) on the drill rig and/or attendant vessels;  Fishery compensation programs for damaged gear and lost markets in the event of damage attributable a major spill or blow out, and  Construction of impermeable berm around the drill rig area of an onshore to offshore directional drilling operation.

In addition, existing and future research under ESRF, PRAC, PERD, and others will assist in refining mitigations by filling data gaps (e.g., acoustical environment).

6.3 Data Gaps

Important data gaps identified during this SEA include:

1. High quality data on specific locations of various fisheries, especially inshore [There is a considerable database on fishery landings in the SEA Area and it is clear that the entire SEA Area is very important to the fishery, particularly for invertebrate species such as American lobster, snow crab and whelk, but also for finfish species such as Atlantic cod, redfish and yellowtail flounder. While many of the offshore catches are georeferenced, most of the inshore catches are not.]; 2. Distribution of VECs in time and space, specifically fish eggs and larvae, marine birds, marine mammals and sea turtles, particularly for SARA-listed species such as wolffish, leatherback sea turtles, and various whale species; 3. Locations of enhanced areas of production and/or concentrations of feeding seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals [While many areas have been identified as ‘potentially sensitive areas’, supporting biological, physical and chemical data are lacking.]; 4. Locations of important habitat where coastal waterfowl and shorebirds congregate; 5. Locations of spawning areas or other critical habitat for commercial invertebrates and fish; 6. Information on benthic communities, particularly in the deepwater (>500 m) areas. [Some deep-sea coral areas have been identified but many areas have not been surveyed.]; 7. Ambient and anthropogenic underwater sound data, both modeled and measured; 8. Information of oil and gas physical and chemical properties for the SEA Area, and 9. Oil spill trajectory modeling for any potential Bid Parcels and existing Exploration Licences.

6.4 Addressing Data Gaps

Some of the data gaps can be addressed by the relevant government departments under their respective mandates, some by collaborative efforts between industry and government (e.g., PERD), some by general industry-funded programs (e.g., ESRF), some during monitoring programs during exploration, and some as part of project-specific EAs. Some examples are listed below.

1. Additional spatial and temporal distribution data on fish spawning aggregations would be valuable for managing the fisheries as well as for use in impact assessment. It is likely that the Board in collaboration with DFO and others in industry will find means to continue gathering these types of data. 2. Additional distributional data on marine-associated birds and marine mammals will likely be collected by operators through seabird and marine mammal observation programs carried out in conjunction with exploration activities. These monitoring and observation programs have been undertaken for many of the exploration activities undertaken in the northeast Grand Banks, the Laurentian Subbasin and the Orphan Basin.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 301

3. Project-specific EAs may identify the need to collect baseline data or undertake modelling or monitoring programs. Depending upon timing of exploration activities, data collection may be undertaken opportunistically or there may be a requirement to collect data prior to commencement of activities. 4. Site-specific EAs typically provide reviews of all relevant data and in some cases also provide original data (e.g., benthic surveys). 5. The C-NLOPB will promote research through the ESRF, PRAC, and MUN to address data constraints identified in this SEA.

6.5 Conclusions

The draft SEA report has identified sensitive areas, data gaps and planning considerations for the Southern Newfoundland SEA Area. Following the conclusion of the regulatory and public comment period for the draft Southern Newfoundland SEA, recommendations and conclusions regarding the issuance of rights and any requirement on the restriction of offshore oil and gas activities in the Southern Newfoundland SEA Area will be finalized for inclusion in the Southern Newfoundland SEA report.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 302

7.0 References

Abgrall, P., A.L. Lang and V.D. Moulton. in prep. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of StatOil Hydro’s, Petro- Canada’s and Husky Energy’s 3-D seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, 2008. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for StatOil Hydro, Petro-Canada and Husky Energy.

Abgrall, P., A.L. Lang, and V.D. Moulton. 2008. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Husky Energy’s 3-D seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, 2006 and 2005-2006 combined. LGL Rep. SA920. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 98 p. + appendices.

Ainley, D.G., C.R. Grau, T.E. Roudybush, S.H. Morrell and J.M. Utts. 1981. Petroleum Ingestion Reduces Reproduction in Cassin’s Auklets. Marine Pollution Bulletin 12:314-317.

Ainley, D.G., D.N. Nettleship, H.R. Carter and A.E. Storey. 2002. Common Murre (Uria aalge). In The Birds of North America, No. 666, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Akamatsu, T., Y. Hatakeyama and N. Takatsu. 1993. Effects of pulsed sounds on escape behavior of false killer whales. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 59: 1297-1303.

Albers, P.H. 1977. Effects of External Applications of Fuel Oil on Hatchability of Mallard Eggs. pp. 158-163. In: D.A. Wolfe (ed.), Fate and effects of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine ecosystems and organisms. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 478 p.

Albers, P.H. and R.C. Szaro. 1978. Effects of No.2 Fuel Oil on Common Eider Eggs. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 9: 138- 139.

Amoser, S. and F. Ladich. 2003. Diversity in noise-induced temporary hearing loss in otophysine fishes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(4): 2170-2179.

Anderson, J.W., J.M. Neff, B.A. Cox, H.E. Tatem and G.M Hightower. 1974. Characteristics of Dispersions and Water Soluble Extracts of Crude and Refined Oils and Their Toxicity to Estuarine Crustaceans and Fish. Marine Biology, 27: 75-88.

Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., A. Ostrensky, M.R. Pie, U.A. Silva, and W.A. Boeger. 2005. Evaluating the impact of seismic prospecting on artisanal shrimp fisheries. Continental Shelf Research 25(14): 1720-1727.

Anon. 1990. Protecting Our Waters. Public Review Panel on Tanker Safety and Marine Spills Response Capability. Final Report. Ministry of Supply and Services.

Archambault, D., G.A. Chouinard, T. Hurlbut, B. Morin, S.D. Paul, G.A. Poirier, J.M. Porter, and D.P. Swain. 2001. Summary of information on the biology of exploited groundfish species and bluefin tuna in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2001/120.

Archer, F.I., II. and W.F. Perrin. 1999. Stenella coeruleoalba. Mamm. Sp. 603: 1-9.

Armitage, D.A., D.J.W. Piper, D.T. McGee, W.R. Morris (in press). Turbidity deposition on the glacially influenced, canyon-dominated Southwest Grand Banks Slope, Canada. Sedimentology.

Armstrong, D.A., P.A. Dinnel, J.M. Orensanz, J.L. Armstrong, T.L. McDonald, R.F. Cusimano, R.S. Nemeth, M.L. Landolt, J.R. Skalski, R.F. Lee and R.J. Huggett. 1995. Status of Selected Bottomfish and Crustacean Species in Prince William Sound Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. pp. 485-547. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 p.

Asbirk, S. 1979. The adaptive significance of the reproductive pattern in the black guillemot, Cepphus grylle. Vindesk. Medd. Dansk. Naturh. Foren. 141:2 9-80.

Ashcroft, R.R. 1979. Survival rates and breeding biology of puffins on Skomer Island, Wales. Ornis Scand. 10:100-110.

Astrup, J. and B. Møhl. 1993. Detection of intense ultrasound by the cod Gadus morhua. J. Exp. Biol. 182: 71-80.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 303

Atkinson, D.B. 1995. The biology and fishery of roundnose grenadier (Corypahenoides rupestris Gunnerus, 1765) in the North West Atlantic. pp. 51-111. In: Deepwater fishes of the North Atlantic oceanic slope. A.G. Hopper (ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht, The Netherlands. 418 pp. + appendices.

Au, W.W.L. and K. Banks 1998. The acoustics of snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe Bay. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103: 41-47.

Au, W.W.L. and W.L. Perryman. 1985. Dolphin habitats in the eastern tropical Pacific. Fish. Bull. 83(4): 623-643.

Austin, D., W.D. Bowen, J.I. McMillan and S.J. Iverson. 2006. Linking movement, diving, and habitat to foraging success in a large marine predator. Ecology 87: 3095-3108.

Bain, D.E. and R. Williams. 2006. Long-range effects of airgun noise on marine mammals: responses as a function of received sound level and distance. Paper SC/58/E35 presented to the IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Annu. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts.

Baird, P.H. 1994. Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla). In The Birds of North America, No. 92 A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 115(4): 663-675.

Baird, R.W. 2003. Update COSEWIC status report on the humpack whale Megaptera novaeangliae in Canada in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 25 p.

Baird, R.W. and P.J. Stacey. 1991. Status of Risso's Dolphin, Grampus griseus, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 105(2): 233-242.

Baird, R.W., P.J. Stacey and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba, in Canada. Can. Field- Nat. 107(4): 455-465.

Baker, C.S. and L.M. Herman. 1989. Behavioral responses of summering humpback whales to vessel traffic: Experimental and opportunistic observations. NPS-NR-TRS-89-01. Rep. by Kewalo Basin Mar. Mamm. Lab., Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for U.S. Natl. Park Serv., Anchorage, AK. 50 p. NTIS PB90-198409.

Balance, L.T., D.G. Ainley, and G.L. Hunt, Jr. 2001. Seabird foraging ecology. Pp. 2,626-2,644. In J.H. Steele, S.A. Thorpe and K.K. Turekian (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, Vol. 5. Academic Press, London, UK.

Ballie, S.M., G.J. Robertson, F.K. Wiese and U.P. Williams. 2005. Seabird data collected by the Grand Banks offshore hydrocarbon industry 1999-2002: results, limitations and suggestions for improvement. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region, Technical Report Series No. 434.

Barlow, J., M.C. Ferguson, W.F. Perrin, L.T. Ballance, T. Gerrodette, G. Joyce, C.D. MacLeod, K.D. Mullin, D. Palka and G.T. Waring. 2006. Abundance and densities of beaked and bottlenose whales (family Ziphiidae). J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 7(3): 263-270.

Barrie, J. and S. Browne. 1980. Nearshore studies of marine benthos in the Makkovik Bay and Cartwright regions. pp. 154- 173. In: Proceedings 1980 Workshop on Research in the Labrador Coastal and Offshore Region, Goose Bay, Labrador, Sept. 4-6, 1980. Sponsored by Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador Dept. of Mines and Energy, and Petro-Canada.

Barrie, J.D., B.A. Bennett, S.M. Browne, and A.J. Moir. 1980. Offshore Labrador Biological Studies, 1979: benthos nearshore studies in the Makkovik Bay and Cartwright region. OLABS Program Report. 158 pp.

Baumgartner, M.F. 1997. The distribution of Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) with respect to the physiography of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 13(4): 614-638.

Baumgartner, M.F. and B.R. Mate. 2003. Summertime foraging ecology of North Atlantic right whales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 264: 123-135.

Baumgartner, M.F., T.V.N. Cole, P.J. Clapham and B.R. Mate. 2003. North Atlantic right whale habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy and on the SW Scotian Shelf during 1999-2001. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 264: 137-154.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 304

BDDB (Burgeo Diversification Development Board). 2003. Potential National Marine Conservation Area South Coast of Newfoundland. Report prepared by Snow Consulting, Ottawa, ON fand submitted to Parks Canada.

Bédard, J. 1969. Histoire naturelle du Gode, Alca torda, L., dans le Golfe Laurent, province de Québec, Canada. Étude du service Canadien de la Faune, Nombre 7, Ottawa.

Begg. G.A. 1998. A review of stock identification of haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Fisheries Review, 60(4): 1-15.

Bell, G.D., and M. Chelliah, 2006: Leading Tropical Modes Associated with Interannual and Multidecadal Fluctuations in North Atlantic Hurricane Activity. J. Climate, 19, 590–612.

Berdugo, V., R.P. Harris and S.C. O'Hara. 1979. The Effect of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on Reproduction of an Estuarine Planktonic Copepod in Laboratory Cultures. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 8: 138-143.

Berkner, A.B., D.C. Smith and A.S. Williams. 1977. Cleaning Agents for Oiled Wildlife. pp. 411-415. In: Proceedings of the 1977 Conf. on the Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution. American Petroleum Institute, Washington. DC.

Berman, M.S. and D.R. Heinle. 1980. Modification of the Feeding Behavior of Marine Copepods by Sub-lethal Concentrations of Water Accommodated Fuel Oil. Marine Biology, 56: 59-64.

Best, P.B. 1993. Increase rates in severely depleted stocks of baleen whales. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 50: 169-186.

Birkhead, T.R. and D.N. Nettleship. 1982. Studies of alcids breeding at the Gannet Clusters, Labrador. Canadian Wildlife Service Seabird Research Unit Rep. No. 125. Dartmouth.

Birkhead, T.R. and P.J. Hudson. 1977. Population parameters for the common guillemot Uria aalge. Ornis Scand., 8: 145- 154.

Birtwell, I.K., R. Fink, D. Brand, R. Alexander and C.D. McAllister. 1999. Survival of Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Fry to Adulthood Following a 10-day Exposure to the Aromatic Hydrocarbon Water-soluble Fraction of Crude Oil and Release to the Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56: 2087-2098.

Blackwell, S.B., J.W. Lawson, M.T. Williams, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 2003. Tolerance of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) to sounds from impact pile driving at an oil production island. [Abstract] ECOUS Symposium. 12-16 May 2003, San Antonio, TX.

Blaxter, J.H.S., J.A.B. Gray and E.J. Denton. 1981. Sound and startle responses in herring shoals. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 61: 851-869.

Boersma, P.D., J.K. Parrish and A.B Kettle. 1995. Common Murre Abundance, Phenology, and Productivity on the Barren Islands, Alaska: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Long-term Environmental Change. pp. 820-853. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 pp.

Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren and K. Toklum. 1996. Effecter av luftkanonshyting på egg, larver og yngel. Fisken og Havet 1996(3):1-83. (Norwegian with English summary).

Borobia, M., P.J. Gearing, Y. Simard, J.N. Gearing and P. Beland. 1995. Blubber fatty-acids of finback and humpback whales from the Gulf of St-Lawrence. Mar. Biol. 122: 341-353.

Bossart, G.D., M. Lutcavage, B. Mealey and P. Lutz. 1995. The dermatopathologic effects of oil on loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). pp. 180-181. In: L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir and C. Smith (eds.), Wildlife and oil spills: response, research, and contingency plan. Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Delaware. 182 p.

Bourget, D., J.-P. L. Savard, and M. Guillemette. 2007. Distribution, diet and dive behavior of Barrow's and Common Goldeneyes during spring and autumn in the St. Lawrence Estuary. Waterbirds 30:230-240.

Bowen, B.W., S.L. Elis, S.J. Iverson and D.J. Boness. 2001. Maternal effects on offspring growth rate and weaning mass in harbour seals. Can. J. Zool. 79: 1088-1101.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 305

Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster, and D. Palka. 1994. Relative abundance and behavior of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96(4):2469-2484.

Breeze, H., D. Fenton, R.J. Rutherford, M.A. Silva and (eds.). 2002. The Scotian Shelf: An Ecological Overview for Ocean Planning. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, NS.

Brodersen, C.C., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, T.A. Mecklenberg and J.F. Karinen. 1977. Sensitivity of Larval and Adult Alaskan Shrimp and Crabs to Acute Exposures of the Water-soluble Fraction of Cook Inlet Crude Oil. pp. 575-578. In: Proceedings of the 1977 Oil Spill Conference, 8-10 March 1977. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Brodziak, J.K.T. 2005. Essential fish habitat source document: Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NE-196.

Brooke, M. 2004. Albatrosses and petrels across the world. Bird Families of the World. Oxford University Press, New York.

Brown, J.D. (1990). Constraints for Offshore Structures in Constraints to Development, Chapter 14. pp. 774-780. In: Geology of the Continental Margin of Eastern Canada, M.J. Keen and G.L. Williams (ed.); Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada, No. 2,.

Brown, M.W., D. Fenton, K. Smedbol, C. Merriman, K. Robichaud-Leblanc and J.D. Conway. 2008. Recovery strategy for the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian waters [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vi + 63 p.

Brown, R. G. B. 1986. Revised atlas of Eastern Canadian seabirds. 1. Shipboard surveys. Bedford Institute of Oceanography and Canadian Wildlife Service, Dartmouth, NS, and Ottawa, ON.

Brown, R. G. B., D. N. Nettleship, P. Germain, and T. Davis. 1975. Atlas of eastern Canadian seabirds. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa.

Brown, R.G.B., D.I. Gillespie, A.R. Lock, P.A. Pearce and G.H. Watson. 1973. Bird Mortality from Oil Slicks off Eastern Canada, February - April 1970. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 87: 225-234.

Brown, R.G.B., S.P. Barker, D.E. Gaskin and M.R. Sandeman. 1981. The foods of Great and Sooty Shearwaters (Puffinus gravis and P. griseus) in eastern Canadian waters. Ibis 123:19-30.

Bryant, R., I.L. Jones and J.M. Hipfner. 1999. Responses to changes in prey availability by Common Murres and Thick- billed Murres at the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Can. J. Zool. 77:1278-1287

Brzorad, J.N. and J. Burger. 1994. Fish and Shrimp Populations in the Arthur Kill. pp. 178-200. In: J. Burger (ed.), Before and after an oil spill: the Arthur Kill. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey. 305 p.

Buchanan, R.A., J. A. Cook and A. Mathieu. 2003. Environmental effects monitoring for exploration drilling. LGL Report No. SA735 by LGL Ltd., CEF Consultants Ltd., and Oceans Ltd. for Environmental Studies Research Fund, Calgary, Alberta.

Buchanan, R.A., J. Christian, V. Moulton, B. Mactavish, S. Dufault, R. Pitt, and S. Canning. 2004. Laurentian 2-D Seismic Survey Environmental Assessment. LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL Rep. No. SA816. Prepared LGL and Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc. for ConocoPhillips, Calgary, AB 261 p. + App.

Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, V.D. Moulton, B. Mactavish, R. Pitt, J. Bobbitt, S. Canning, R. Belore, P. Rudkin, D. Dunbar, and M. Wawrzkow. 2006. Laurentian Sub-basin Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment. LGL Rep. SA832. Rep. by LGL Limited with Oceans Limited, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., Provincial Airlines Limited, SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd., Calixte Environmental Management and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL. for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 408 p. + appendices.

Buchanan, R.A., J.R. Christian, V.D. Moulton, B. Mactavish, R. Pitt, J. Bobbitt, S. Canning, R. Belore, P. Rudkin, D. Dunbar, and M. Wawrzkow. 2007. Laurentian Sub-basin Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment Addendum. LGL Rep. SA934. Rep. by LGL Limited with Oceans Limited, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., Provincial Airlines Limited, SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd., Calixte Environmental Management and PAL

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 306

Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL. for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 80 p. + appendix.

Budelmann, B.U. 1992. Hearing in crustacea. pp. 131-139. In: (eds.) D.B. Webster, R.R. Fay and A.N. Popper. The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing.

Burger, A.E. 1993. Estimating the Mortality of Seabirds Following Oil Spills: Effects of Spill Volume. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 26: 140-143.

Busby, C.D., M.J. Morgan, K.S. Dwyer, G.M. Fowler, R. Morin, M. Treble, D. Maddock Parsons, and D. Archambault. 2007. Review of the structure, the abundance and distribution of American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in Atlantic Canada in a species-at-risk context. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/069.

Butler, R.G. and W. Trivelpiece. 1981. Nest spacing, reproductive success, and behavior of the Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus). Auk 98:99-107.

Butler, R.G., A. Harfenist, F.A. Leighton and D.B. Peakall. 1988. Impact of Sublethal Oil and Emulsion Exposure on the Reproductive Success of Leach’s Storm-petrels: Short and Long-term Effects. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25: 125- 143.

Cairns, D. 1981. Breeding, feeding, and chick growth of the black guillemot (Cepphus grulle) in Southern Quebec. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 95: 312-318.

Cairns, D.K. and R.D. Elliot. 1987. Oil Spill Impact Assessment for Seabirds: The Role of Refugia and Growth Centres. Biological Conservation, 40: 1-9.

Cairns, D.K., V. Tremblay, F. Caron, J.M. Casselman, G. Verreault, B.M. Jessop, Y. de Lafontaine, R.G. Bradford, R. Verdon, P. Dumont, Y. Mailhot, J. Zhu, A. Mathers, K. Oliveira, K. Benhalima, J. Dietrich, J.A. Hallett, and M. Lagacé. 2008. American eel abundance indicators in Canada. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 1207. 78 pp.

Cairns, D.K., W.A. Montevecchi and W. Threlfall. 1989. Researcher's guide to Newfoundland seabird colonies. Second edition, Memorial University of Newfoundland Occasional Papers in Biology No. 14. 43 p.

Campana S.E., W. Joyce, L. Marks, L.J. Natanson, N.E. Kohler, C.F. Jensen, J.J. Mello, H.L. Pratt, Jr. and S. Myklevoll. 2002. Population dynamics of the porbeagle shark in the Northwest Atlantic. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22: 106-121.

Campana, S. 1999. Porbeagle shark in NAFO Subareas 3-6. DFO Science Stock Status Report B3; 09 (1999). 8 p.

Campana, S., J. Brazner, and L. Marks. 2006. Assessment of the recovery potential of shortfin mako sharks in Atlantic Canada. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/091.

Campana, S.E., A.J.F. Gibson, L. Marks, W. Joyce, R. Rulifson, and M. Dadswell. 2008. Stock structure, life history, fishery and abundance for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in Atlantic Canada. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/089.

Campbell, J. and N. Sutterlin. 1981. Grand Banks bibliography. Unpubl. Report to Petro-Canada, St John’s, Newfoundland. 47 p.

Canning & Pitt Associates Inc. 2006. Sydney Basin SEA: Report On Industry and Agency Consultations. Prepared for Jacques Whitford Limited, St. John's, NL.

CAPP. 2001a. Producing oil and gas offshore. Report by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Calgary, AB. 6 p.

CAPP. 2001b. Offshore drilling waste management review. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Technical Report 2001-0007. 194 p. + App.

Carls, M.G., G.D. Marty, T.R. Meyers, R.E. Thomas and S.D. Rice. 1998. Expression of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus in Prespawning Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasi) Exposed to Weathered Crude Oil. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55: 2,300-2,309.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 307

CEA (Canadian Environmental Assessment) Agency. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide: Reference Guide. February 1999.

CEA Agency. 1994. A reference guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, addressing cumulative environmental effects. Prepared by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, November 1994.

Celewycz, A.G. and A.C. Wertheimer. 1996. Prey Availability to Juvenile Salmon after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. pp. 564-577. In: S.D. Rice, R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright (eds.), Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18.

Chardine, J.W. 1995. The Distribution and Abundance of Aquatic Birds in Canada in Relation to the Threat of Oil Pollution. pp. 23-36. In: L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir and C. Smith (eds.), Wildlife and oil spills: response, research, and contingency plan. Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Deleware. 182 p.

Chardine, J.W. 2000. Census of Northern Gannet colonies in the Atlantic Region in 1999. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region, Technical Report Series No. 361.

Chardine, J.W. and G. Pelly. 1994. Operation Clean Feather: Reducing Oil Pollution in Newfoundland Waters. Technical Report Series No. 198. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region.

Chippett, J.D. 2003. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanous, Newfoundland Population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. 21 pp.

Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White and R.A. Buchanan. 2004. Effect of seismic energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) 7 November 2003. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 144. Calgary. 106 p.

Christian, J., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Pitt, B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2005. Laurentian Sub-basin 3-D seismic program, environmental assessment update, 2005. LGL Rep. SA831. Rep. by LGL Limited and Canning & Pitt Associates Inc., St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, Alberta. 83 p. + appendix.

Christiansen, J.S. and S.G. George. 1995. Contamination of Food by Crude Oil Affects Food Selection and Growth Performance, but Not Appetite, in an Arctic Fish, the Polar Cod (Boreogadus saida). Polar Biology, 15: 277-281.

CIS 2000 - Sea Ice Climate Atlas, East Coast Canada. Canadian Ice Services.

Clapham, P.J. 2000. The humpback whale: seasonal feeding and breeding in a baleen whale. In: J. Mann, R. Connor, P.L. Tyack and H. Whitehead (ed.), Cetacean societies: Field studies of dolphins and whales. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. p. 173-196.

Clapham, P.J., L.S. Baraff, C.A. Carlson, M.A. Christian, D.K. Mattila, C.A. Mayo, M.A. Murphy and S. Pittman. 1993. Seasonal occurrence and annual return of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the southern Gulf of Maine. Can. J. Zool. 71: 440-443.

Clapham, P.J., S.B. Young and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1999. Baleen whales: conservation issues and the status of the most endangered populations. Mamm. Rev. 29: 35-60.

Clark, C.W. and G.C. Gagnon. 2006. Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise exposures from seismic surveys on baleen whales. Intern. Whal. Commis. Working Pap. SC/58/E9. 9 p.

Clark, C.W. and W.T. Ellison. 2004. Potential use of low-frequency sounds by baleen whales for probing the environment: Evidence from models and empirical measurements. p. 564-589 In: J.A. Thomas, C.F. Moss and M. Vater (eds.), Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 604 p.

Clark, R.B. 1984. Impact of Oil Pollution on Seabirds. Environmental Pollution, 33: 1-22.

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board). 2005. Western Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment. Prepared by LGL Ltd., St. John’s, NL, for C-NLOPB, St. John’s, NL. 335 p. + appendices.

C-NLOPB. 2006. Development Plan Guidelines.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 308

C-NLOPB. 2008. Geophysical, geological, environmental and geotechnical program guidelines. 30 p.

Coady, L.W. 1973. Aspects of the reproductive biology of Cucumaria frondosa (Gunnerus, 1770) and Psolus fabricii (Düben and Koren, 1846) (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) in shallow waters of the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland. 117 p.

Coady, L.W. and J.M. Maidment. 1984. Publications of the Fisheries Research Branch, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, St John’s, Newfoundland, 1931 to 1984. Canadian Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1790: 159 p.

Colbourne, E., 2000. Interannual variation in the stratification and transport of the Labrador Current on the Newfoundland Shelf. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. CM 2000/L:2.

Colbourne, E.B. and E.F. Murphy, 2005. Physical Oceanographic conditions in NAFO dDivision 3B during 2005 – Possible Influences on the distribution and abundance of Atlantic Cod (Godus morhua). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2005/065.

Cook, F.R. 1984. Introduction to Canadian amphibians and reptiles. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, ON. 200 p.

Coombs, S. and J.C. Montgomery. 1999. The enigmatic lateral line system. p. 319-362. In: (eds.) R.R. Fay and A.N. Popper. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

Corwin, J.T. 1981. Audition in elasmobranchs. pp. 81-102. In: W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay (eds.) Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

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. 2004a. 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 p.

COSEWIC. 2004b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Porbeagle Shark Lamna nasus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. viii + 43 pp.

COSEWIC. 2004c. COSEWIC status report on roundnose grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris Gunnerus, 1765. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 33 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 p.

COSEWIC. 2006a. 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 p. Available from: www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfmp.

COSEWIC. 2006b. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the harbour porpoise Phoecena phoecena (Northwest Atlantic population) in Canada. Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 32 p.

COSEWIC. 2006c. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the White Shark Carcharodon carcharias (Atlantic and Pacific populations) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 31 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

COSEWIC. 2006d. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the blue shark Prionace glauca (Atlantic and Pacific populations) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 46 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

COSEWIC. 2006e. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 71 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 309

COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the harbour seal Atlantic and Eastern Arctic subspecies Phoca vitulina concolor and Lacs de Loups Marins subspecies Phoca vitulina mellonae in Canada. Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 40 p.

COSEWIC. 2008. Canadian Wildlife Species at Risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. December 2008. 90 p.

Cramp, S. and K.E.L. Simmons (eds.). 1977. The birds of the western Palearctic, Volume 1: Ostrich to ducks. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. 722 pp.

Crucil, C. 1989. Fish Tainting and its Role in Environmental Impact Assessment. Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration Environmental Protection Branch. 52 p.

Cullen, J.M. 1956. A study of the behaviour of the Arctic tern (Sterna macrura). Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford Univ., Oxford. 214 pp.

Dahlheim, M.E. and C.O. Matkin. 1994. Assessment of injuries to Prince William Sound killer whales. pp. 163-171. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p.

Dalen, J. And Knutsen, G.M. 1987. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations. S. 93-102 i MERKLINGER, H.M. red. Progress in Underwater Acoustics. Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Dalen, J., E. Ona, A.V. Soldal and R. Saetre. 1996. Seismiske undersøkelser til havs: en vurdering av konsekvenser for fisk og fiskerier [Seismic investigations at sea; an evaluation of consequences for fish and fisheries]. Fisken og Havet 1996:1-26. (in Norwegian, with an English summary).

Davis, J., S. Meservey, A. Agulay, J. Wishinski, and L. MacNevin. 2001. Sexuality and embryogenesis of the Atlantic hagfish, Myxine glutinosa S.E.A.H. Sea Grant New Hampshire/Maine. Ocean Technology 797.

Davis, R.A., D.H. Thomson and C.I. Malme. 1998. Environmental assessment of seismic exploration on the Scotian Shelf. Report by LGL Limited for Mobil Oil Canada Properties Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd. and Imperial Oil Ltd. 181 p.

DeCelles, G.R., and S.X. Cadrin. 2007. An interdisciplinary assessment of winter flounder stock structure. ICES CM 2007/L:18.

Dempson, J.B., M.F. O’Connell, D.G. Reddin, and N.M. Cochrane. 2006. Stock status summary for Atlantic salmon from Newfoundland and Labrador. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/028.

Denbeste, J. and P.J. McCart. 1979. Studies of the plankton, benthic fauna, and macroalgae of Nachvak Fiord, Labrador. Report to ESSO Resources Canada Ltd., Aquitane Company of Canada Ltd., and Canada Cities Services Ltd., by Aquatic Environments Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Arctic Petroleum Operators Association Project No 146, 135 p.

Desrosiers, G., C. Savenkoff, M. Olivier, G. Stora, K. Juniper, A. Caron, J.-P. Gagné, L. Legendre, S. Mulsow, J. Grant, S. Roy, A. Grehan, P. Scaps, N. Silverberg, B. Klein, J.-É. Tremblay, and J.-C. Therriault. 2000. Trophic structure of macrobenthos in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Scotian Shelf. Deep-Sea Res. II 47: 663-697.

Devine, J.A., and Haedrich, R.L. 2008. Population trends and status of two exploited Northwest Atlantic grenadiers, Coryphaenoides rupestris and Macrourus berglax. American Fisheries Society Symposium 63: 463-484.

DFO (Department of Fisheries & Oceans). 2001. Subdivision 3PS haddock. DFO Science Stock Status, Report A2- 05(2001). 4 pp.

DFO. 2002. Wolffish in Divisions 2GHJ, 2KLNO, and Subdivisions 3Ps/3Pn. DFO Stock Status Report, A2-16(2002).

DFO. 2004a. Proceedings of the Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Advisory Process for 3Ps Cod, 2+3K American Plaice, and 3LNO and 3Ps Monkfish; 20-24 October 2003 and 27-31 October 2003. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2004/039.

DFO. 2004b. Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Habitat Status Report 2004/003.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 310

DFO. 2004c. Review of Scientific Information on Impacts of Seismic Sound on Fish, Invertebrates, Marine Turtles and Marine Mammals. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Habitat Status Report 2004/002.

DFO. 2005a. Stock Assessment Report on Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/017.

DFO. 2005b. Stock Assessment Report on NAFO Subareas 3 – 6 Porbeagle Shark. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/044.

DFO. 2005c. Stock assessment of Northwest Atlantic harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). Science Advisory Report 2005/037. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. 12 p.

DFO. 2006a. Assessment of Quebec coastal waters whelk stocks in 2005. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/001.

DFO. 2006b. An Assessment of American Lobster in Newfoundland. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/009.

DFO. 2006c. Proceedings of the Review of DFO Science Information for Smooth Skate (Malacoraja senta) Relevant to Status Assessment by COSEWIC. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2006/030.

DFO. 2006d. An assessment of Iceland scallop in the Canada-France Transboundary Zone of St. Pierre Bank. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/008.

DFO. 2006e. Proceedings of the Maritime Provinces Recovery Potential Assessment of Atlantic Shortfin Mako, White Shark, and Loggerhead Turtle; 28-29 November 2006. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2006/039.

DFO. 2006f. Underwater World - American Plaice. Department of Fisheries and Oceans website, last updated 2006-06-06. Online at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/zone/underwater_sous-marin/plaice/plaice-plie_e.htm

DFO. 2006g. Stock Assessment on Subdivision 3PS Pollock. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report, 2005/049. 5 pp.

DFO. 2006h. Assessment of the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (Divisions 4RST) capelin stock in 2005. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report, 2006/022.

DFO. 2007a. The Grand Banks of Newfoundland: Atlas of Human Activities. Produced by Oceans Division, Oceans and Habitat Management Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Newfoundland Region.

DFO. 2007b. 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. 2007c. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Statistical Profile. Number of Fishing Licenses 2007. Newfoundland and Labrador Region. Regional Licensing Office Fisheries Management Branch (Data as of December 31, 2007). ]

DFO. 2007d. Stock Assessment of Subdivision 3Ps cod. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/041.

DFO. 2007e. A review of ice conditions and potential impact on harp seal neonatal mortality in March 2007. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Response 2007/008. 8 p.

DFO. 2007f. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence: identification and characterization. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec., Sci. Adv. Rep. 2007/016.

DFO. 2008a. Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/009.

DFO. 2008b. Assessment of Scallops (Placopecten magellanicus) in Scallop Fishing Area (SFA) 29 West of Longitude 65°30′W. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/039.

DFO. 2008c. Advice on the stock definition of redfish (Sebastes fasciatus and S. mentella) in Units 1 and 2. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/026.

DFO. 2008d. Assessment of the Atlantic Mackerel stock for the Northwest Atlantic (Subareas 3 and 4) in 2007. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/041.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 311

DFO. 2008e. Newfoundland and Labrador Angler’s Guide 2008. 46 pp.

DFO. 2008f. Stock Assessment of Northern (2J3KL) cod in 2008. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/034.

DFO. 2008g. Assessment of cod stock in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (3Pn, 4RS) in 2007. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec., Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/003.

DFO. 2008h. Assessment of Cod in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/004 (revised).

DFO. 2008i. Recovery Potential Assessment for Cusk (Brosme brosme). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/024.

DFO. 2008j. Proceedings of the Review of DFO Science Information for American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) Relevant to Status Assessment by COSEWIC. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2007/042.

DFO. 2009a. 2007 State of the Ocean: Chemical and Biological Oceanographic Conditions in the Gulf of Maine - Bay of Fundy and on the Scotian Shelf. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2009/005.

DFO. 2009b. DFO GeoBrowser v5.0 http://geoportail-geoportal.gc.ca/publicGeoBrowser/public/GeoPortal Browser .jsp. Accessed: 26 May, 2009.

DFO. 2009c. Statement of Canadian Practice with respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment. Available online at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/im-gi/seismic-sismique/statement- enonce_e.asp.

Dicks, B. 1982. Monitoring the biological effects of North Sea platforms. Marine Pollution Bulletin 13: 221-227.

DOC 2002. Taking and importing marine mammals; taking bottlenose dolphins and spotted dolphins incidental to oil and gas structure removal activities in the Gulf of Mexico. Dept. Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 50 CFR Part 216 [Docket No. 020326071-2166-02; I.D. 061402E]. Federal Register 67 (148): 49869-49875.

Doherty, P., and T. Horsman. 2007. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas of the Scotian Shelf and Environs: A Compilation of Scientific Expert Opinion. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2774: 57 + xii pp.

Doniol-Valcroze, T., D. Berteaux, P. Larouche and R. Sears. 2007. Influence of thermal fronts on habitat selection by four rorqual whale species in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 335: 207-216.

Dufault, S. 2005. Draft COSEWIC status report on common minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata in Canada. Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 32 p.

Duncombe, F. and A. Reille. 1980. Experience de Transplantation de Macareau. Courrier de la Nature: 13-17.

Dunnet, G.M. and J.C. Ollason. 1978. The estimation of survival rate in the fulmar Fulmarus glacialis. Journal of Animal Ecology, 47: 507-520.

Dunnet, G.M., A. Anderson and R.M. Cormak. 1963. A study of survival of adult fulmars with observations on the prelaying exodus. British Birds, 56: 2-18.

Dunning, D.J., Q.E. Ross, P. Geoghegan, J. Reichle, J.K. Menezes and J.K. Watson. 1992. Alewives avoid high-frequency sound. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 12: 407-416.

Eckert, S.A. 2006. High-use oceanic areas for Atlantic leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) as identified using satellite telemetered location and dive information. Mar. Biol. 149: 1257-1267.

Edinger, E., K. Baker, R. Devillers, and V. Wareham. 2007. Coldwater corals off Newfoundland and Labrador: distribution and fisheries impacts. WWF-Canada Report, Toronto, ON. v + 41 p.

Edinger, E., V. Wareham, K.Baker, and R. Haedrich. 2009. Relationships between deep-sea corals and groundfish. pp. 39- 55. In: K. Gilkinson and E. Edinger (eds). The ecology of deep-sea corals of Newfoundland and Labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2830.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 312

Elsner, J. B. 2003: Tracking Hurricanes. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 84 pp 353-356.

Elsner, J. B., & B. H. Bossak. 2004: “Hurricane landfall probability and climate”, in Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future, R. Murnane & K.-b. Liu, Eds., Columbia University Press.

Engås, A, S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona and A.V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (G. morhua) and haddock (M. aeglefinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2238-2249. (Norwegian with an English summary).

Engelhardt, F.R. 1982. Hydrocarbon metabolism and cortisol balance in oil-exposed ringed seals, Phoca hispida. Comp. Biochemistry and Physiology 72C:133-136.

Enger, P.S. 1981. Frequency discrimination in teleosts-central or peripheral. pp. 243-253. In: (eds.) W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay. Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag New York.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Environmental assessment of final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for synthetic-based drilling fluids and other non-aqueous drilling fluids in the oil and gas extraction point source category. EPA-821-B-00-014, December 2000.

Eppley, Z.A. and M.A. Rubega. 1990. Indirect Effects of an Oil Spill: Reproductive Failure in a Population of South Polar Skuas Following the ‘Bahia Paraiso’ Oil Spill in Antarctica. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 67: 1-6.

Erasmus, T. and E.D. Wessels. 1985. Heat Production Studies on Normal and Oil-covered Jackass Penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in Air and Water. South African Journal of Zoology, 20: 209-212.

Erwin, R.M. 1971. The breeding success of two sympatric gulls, the herring gull and the great black-backed gull. Wilson Bulletin 83:152-158.

Fader, G.B., King, L.H., and Josenhans, H.W. 1982. Surficial geology of the Laurentian Channel and the western Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Marine Sciences Paper 21. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 81-22.

Fahay, M.P. 1983. Guide to early stages of marine fishes occurring in the western North Atlantic Ocean, Cape Hatteras to the southern Scotian Shelf. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 4.

Falk, M.R. and M.J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic exploration: its nature and effects on fish. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. Vol. CEN/T- 73-9. Resource Management Branch, Fisheries Operations Directorate, Central Region, Winnepeg.

Falk-Petersen, I.-B. 1979. Toxic Effects of Aqueous Extracts of Ekofisk Crude Oil, Crude Oil Fractions and Commercial Oil Products on the Development of Sea Urchin Eggs. Sarsia, 64: 161-169.

Falk-Petersen, I-B. 1982. Breeding season and egg morphology of echinoderms in Balsfjorden, northern Norway. Sarsia 67: 215-221.

Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 1999. Hearing in fishes and amphibians: An introduction. pp. 1-14. In: (eds.) R.R. Fay and A.N. Popper. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. Springer- Verlag New York Inc.

Fechhelm, R.G., B.J. Gallaway, G.F. Hubbard, S. MacLean and L.R. Martin. 2001. Opportunistic sampling at a deep-water synthetic drilling fluid discharge site in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science. 2: 97-106.

Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder, J.A. Clark, J.A. Young, J.B. Gaspin and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Auditory and behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) to impulsive sounds resembling distant signatures of underwater explosions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108: 417-431.

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. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111(6):2929-2940.

Flinn, R.D., A.W. Trites and E.J. Gregr. 2002. Diets of fin, sei, and sperm whales in British Columbia: An analysis of commercial whaling records, 1963-1967. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18(3): 663-679.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 313

Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis and K.C. Balcomb. 2000. Killer Whales. Second Edition ed. UBC Press, Vancouver. 104 p.

Forns, J.M. 1977. The Effects of Crude Oil on Larvae of Lobster, Homarus americanus. pp. 569-573. In: Proceedings of the 1977 Oil Spill Conference, 8-10 March 1977. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Foy, M.G. 1982. Acute Lethal Toxicity of Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil and Corexit 9527 to Arctic Marine Fish and Invertebrates. Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service Report No. EPS 4-EC-82-3. 62 p.

Fratantoni P.S. and R.S. Pickart (2007). The western North Atlantic Shelfbreak current system in summer. J. Phys Oceanogr.,V. 37, No. 10, p.2509-2533.

Frink, L. 1987. An Overview: Rehabilitation of Oil Contaminated Birds. pp. 479-482. In: Proceedings of the 1987 oil spill conference: prevention, behaviour, control, cleanup. Baltimore, Maryland. 634 p.

Frink, L. and J. White. 1990. A Perspective on the Effects of Oil on Birds. In: The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. Presented by International Wildlife Research, Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Inc. and International Bird Rescue Research Center. Washington.

Frost, K.J., L.F. Lowry and R.R. Nelson. 1984. Belukha whale studies in Bristol Bay, Alaska. pp. 187-200. In: B.R. Melteff and D.H. Rosenberg, Proceedings of the workshop on biological interactions among marine mammals and commercial fisheries in the southeastern Bering Sea, October 18-21, 1983, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. Alaska Sea Grant Report 84-1.

Frost, K.J., L.F. Lowry, E.H. Sinclair, J. Ver Hoef and D.C. McAllister. 1994. Impacts on distribution, abundance and productivity of harbour seals. pp. 97-118. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p.

Fry, D.M. 1990. Oil Exposure and Stress Effects on Avian Reproduction. In: The effects of oil on wildlife: research, rehabilitation and general concerns. Presented by International Wildlife Research, Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Inc. and International Bird Rescue Research Center. Washington.

Gales, R.S. 1982. Effects of noise of offshore oil and gas operations on marine mammals—an introductory assessment. NOSC Tech. Rep. 844. Rep. from Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, for U.S. Bur. Land Management, New York. 79 + 300 p.

Gardner, G.R. 1975. Chemically Induced Lesions in Estuarine or Marine Teleosts. pp. 657-693. In: W.E. Ribelin and G. Migaki (eds.), The pathology of fishes. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Gaskin, D.E. 1982. The ecology of whales and dolphins. Heineman Educational Books Ltd., London. 459 p.

Gaston, A.J. 1980. Population, movements and wintering areas of thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia) in eastern Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Notes No. 110. 10 p.

Gaston, A.J. and D.N. Nettleship. 1981. The thick-billed murres of Prince Leopold Island – a study of the breeding ecology of a colonial high arctic seabird. Canadian Wildlife Services Monograph, No. 6. 350 pp.

Gaston, A.J. and I.L. Jones. 1998. The Auks. Bird Families of the World. Oxford Univ. Press, NY. 349 p.

Gaston, A.J. and J.M. Hipfner. 2000. Thick-billed Murre (Uria lomvia). In The Birds of North America, No. 497, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Geraci, J.R. 1990. Cetaceans and oil: physiologic and toxic effects. pp. 167-197. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.), Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego. 282 p.

Geraci, J.R. and T.G. Smith. 1976. Direct and indirect effects of oil on ringed seals (Phoca hispida) of the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:1976-1984.

Gibson, A.J.F., and S.E. Campana. 2005. Status and recovery potential of porbeagle shark in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2005/053.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 314

Gilbert, R.A., A. Aitken and B. McLaughlin. 1982. A biophysical survey of coastal environments in the vicinity of Nain, Labrador. Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, 121 p. (Final report of research supported by Petro-Canada Exploration Inc.)

Gilchrist, H.G. 2001. Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus). In The Birds of North America, No. 573 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Gilfillan, W.A., D.S. Page, E.J. Harner and P.D. Boehm. 1995. Shoreline Ecology Program for Prince William Sound, Alaska, Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill; part 3-Biology. pp. 398-443. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 pp.

Gilkinson, K. 1986. Review and assessment of the literature on marine benthic molluscs (Amphineura, Bivalvia, Gastropoda) in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. NAFO Science Council Studies, 10: 93-108.

Gilkinson, K., and E. Edinger (eds). 2009. The ecology of deep-sea corals of Newfoundland and Labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2830.

Gilliland, S. G., G. J. Robertson, M. Robert, J.-P. L. Savard, D. Amirault, P. Laporte, and P. Lamothe. 2002. Abundance and Distribution of Harlequin Ducks Molting in Eastern Canada. Waterbirds 25:333-339.

Godfrey, W. E. 1986. The birds of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, ON.

Gomes, M.C., R.L. Haedrich and J.C. Rice. 1992. Biogeography of groundfish assemblages on the Grand Bank. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Society, 14: 13-27.

Gonzalez-Costas, F., and H. Murua. 2007. An analytical assessment of NAFO roughhead grenadier Subareas 2 and 3 stock. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/34.

Gonzalez-Costas, F., D. Gonzalez-Troncoso, M. Casas, and G. Ramilo. 2006. Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and black dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii) Spanish data (surveys and fishery) in NAFO Divisions 3LMNO. NAFO SCR Doc. 06/30.

Good, T.P. 1998. Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 330 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Goossen, J. P., D. L. Amirault, J. Arndt, R. Bjore, S. Boates, J. Brazil, S. Brechtel, R. Chaisson, G. N. Corbett, R. Curley, M. Elderkin, S. P. Fleming, W. Harris, L. Heyens, D. Hjertaas, M. Huot, B. Johnson, R. Jones, W. Koonz, P. Laporte, D. McAskill, R. I. G. Morrison, S. Richard, F. Shaffer, C. Stewart, L. Swanson and E. Wiltse. 2002. National Recovery Plan for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). National Recovery Plan No, 22. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife, Ottawa.

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. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 37(4):16-34.

Gorman, M.L. and H. Milne. 1970. Seasonal Changes in the Adrenal Steroid Tissue of the Common Eider Somateria mollissima and its Relation to Organic Metabolism in Normal and Oil-polluted Birds. Ibis, 113: 218-228.

Gorsline, J., W.N. Holmes, and J. Cronshaw. 1981. The Effects of Ingested Petroleum on the Naphthalene-metabolizing Properties of Liver Tissue in Seawater-adapted Mallard Ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). Environmental Research, 24: 377-390.

Gosselin, J.F., V. Lesage and A. Robillard. 2001. Population index estimate for the beluge of the St. Lawrence Estuary in 2000. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2001/049. 13 p.

Goudie, R.I. 1989. The Common Eider situation in Newfoundland and Labrador. pp. 35-37. In: C.-A. Drolet, ed. Report on a workshop on eider management. Can. Wildl. Serv. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 64, Ste. Foy, Quebec.

Goudie, R.I. 1991a. Eider ducks and gulls: is there a problem? Atlantic Society of Fish & Wildlife Biologists 7(1):24-26.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 315

Goudie, R.I. 1991b. Status report of the Harlequin Duck (eastern population) (Histrionicus histrionicus). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3.

Goudie, R.I. 1991c. Field investigation for eider ducks in the Burgeo Archipelago, 17 June 1991. Canadian Wildlife Service Atlantic Region Unpublished Report. 6 p. + appendix.

Goudie, R.I. 1991d. Eider Duck enhancement in Newfoundland: the role of nest shelters. Atlantic Society of Fish Wildlife Biologists 8(1): 21-23.

Government of Canada. 2009. Species at Risk Act Public Registry. Available at http://www.sararegistry.gc.cap.

Gowans, S. and H. Whitehead. 1995. Distribution and habitat partitioning by small odontocetes in The Gully, a submarine canyon on the Scotian Shelf. Can. J. Zool. 73: 1599-1608.

Gowans, S., H. Whitehead and S.K. Hooker. 2001. Social organization in northern bottlenose whales, Hyperoodon ampullatus: not driven by deep-water foraging? Anim. Beh. 62: 369-377.

Gower, J. F. R. (1996), Intercalibration of wave and wind data from TOPEX/POSEIDON and moored buoys off the west coast of Canada, J. Geophys. Res., 101(C2), 3817–3829.

Gramentz, D. 1988. Involvement of loggerhead turtle with the plastic, metal and hydrocarbon pollution in the Central Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19:11-13.

Greene Jr., C.R. 1985. Characteristics of waterborne industrial noise, 1980-84. pp. 197-253. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Behavior, disturbance responses and distribution of bowhead whales Balaena mysticetus in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1980-84. OCS Study MMS 85-0034. Rep. from LGL Ecol. Res. Assoc. Inc., Bryan, TX, for US Minerals Manage. Serv., Reston, VA. 306 p. NTIS PB87-124376.

Greene, C.R. 1997. An autonomous acoustic recorder for shallow arctic waters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102(5, Pt. 2):3197.

Greene, C.R. 1986. Underwater sounds from the semisubmersible drill rig SEDCO 708 drilling in the Aleutian Islands. Sect. 1. In: API Publ. 4438. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. 69 p.

Greene, C.R., Jr. and W.C. Burgess, with R. Norman and R.W. Blaylock. 2000. Physical acoustics measurements, 1999. pp. 3-1 to 3-45. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open- water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1999. LGL Rep. TA2313-4. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 155 p.

Gregr, E.J. and A.W. Trites. 2001. Predictions of critical habitat of five whale species in the waters of coastal British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 1265-1285.

Grimmer, B.L. 1980. Habitat selection of leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) in three Newfoundland colonies. M.Sc. Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. 144 p.

Guerra, A., A.F. González and F. Rocha. 2004. A review of the records of giant squid in the north-eastern Atlantic and severe injuries in Architeuthis dux stranded after acoustic explorations. ICES CM 2004/CC:29.

Hall, R.J., A.A. Belisle and L. Sileo. 1983. Residues of petroleum hydrocarbons in tissues of sea turtles exposed to the Ixtoc 1 oil spill. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 19:106-109.

Hamazaki, T. 2002. Spatiotemporal prediction models of cetacean habitats in the mid-western North Atlantic Ocean (from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, U. S. A. to Nova Scotia, Canada). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18: 920-939.

Hamel, J.-F. and Mercier, A. 1996a. Evidence of chemical communication during the gametogenesis of holothuroids. Ecology 77(5): 1600-1616.

Hamel, J.-F. and Mercier, A. 1996b. Early development, settlement, growth, and spatial distribution of the sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 253-271.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 316

Hamel, J.-F. and Mercier, A. 1998. Diet and feeding behaviour of the sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa in the St. Lawrence estuary, eastern Canada. Can. J. Zool. 76: 1194-1198.

Hammill, M.O. 2005. Abundance of northwest Atlantic grey seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Nova Scotian eastern shore. Research Document 2005/036. Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 11 p.

Hammill, M.O. and G.B. Stenson. 2000. Estimated prey consumption by harp seals (Phoca groenlandica), hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in Atlantic Canada. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 26: 1-23.

Hammill, M.O. and G.B. Stenson. 2006. Abundance of Northwest Atlantic hooded seals (1960-2005). Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 2006/068. 23 p.

Han, G., J.W. Loder and P.C. Smith, 1999. Seasonal –Mean Hydrography and Circulation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Eastern Scotian and Southern Newfoundland Shelves. J. Phys. Oceanogr., V.29, No. 6, p1279-1301.

Hanlon, R.T., and B.-U. Budelmann. 1987. Why cephalopods are probably not “deaf”. The American Naturalist 129(2): 312-317.

Hardy. 1984. Analysis of benthic samples form the Hibernia oil field. Report by Hardy Associates (1978) Ltd. to Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. St. John’s, Newfoundland. 16 p.

Hardy. 1985. Evaluation of biological community studies of the southern and southeastern Newfoundland shoreline. Report by Hardy Associates (1978) Ltd. to Petroleum Directorate, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St John’s, Newfoundland. 251 p.

Harfenist, A., A.P. Gilman and K.L. Maus. 1990. The Effects of Exposure of Incubating Adult and Young Herring Gulls to a Simulated No.2 Fuel Oil Slick. Arch. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 19: 902-906.

Harrington, Brian A. 2001. Red Knot (Calidris canutus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/563

Harris, L.E., C.L. Waters, R.K. Smedbol and D.C. Millar. 2007. Assessment of the recovery potential of the Scotian Shelf population of northern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2007/078. 26 p.

Harris, M.P. 1983. Biology and survival of immature puffin, Fratercula arctica. Ibis 125:56-73.

Harrison, G., C. Johnson, E. Head, J. Spry, K. Pauley, H. Maass, C. Porter, and V. Soukhovtsev. 2008. Optical, chemical, and biological oceanographic conditions in the Maritimes region in 2007. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2008/044.

Hart, R.E., and J.L. Evans. 2001: A Climatology of extratropical transition of Atlantic tropical cyclones. J. Climate, 14, 546- 564

Hartung, R. 1965. Some Effects of Oiling on Reproduction of Ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management, 29: 872-874.

Hartung, R. 1967. Energy Metabolism in Oil-covered Ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management., 31: 798-804.

Hartung, R. and G.S. Hunt. 1966. Toxicity of Some Oils to Waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management, 30: 564-570.

Hartung. R. 1995. Assessment of the Potential for Long-term Toxicological Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Birds and Mammals. pp. 693-725. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 pp.

Harvey, J.T. and M.E. Dahlheim. 1994. Cetaceans in oil. pp. 257-264. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p.

Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, S. Løkkeborg, K. Skaar, Ø. Østensen, E.K. Haugland, M. Fonn, Å. Høines and O.A. Misund. 2003. Reaction of sandeel to seismic shooting: A field experiment and fishery statistics study. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 317

Hatch, J.J. 2002. Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea). In The Birds of North America, No. 707 A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.),The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Hatch, S.A. and D.N. Nettleship. 1998. Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis). In The Birds of North America, No. 361 A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.),The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey and B.J. Godley. 2007. Only some like it hot -- quantifying the environmental niche of the loggerhead sea turtle. Diversity Distrib. 13: 447-457.

Hawkins, A.D. 1986. Underwater sound and fish behaviour. Pp: 114-151. In: T.J. Pitcher (ed.). The Behaviour of Teleost Fishes. Croom Helm, London, UK.

Hawksley, O. 1950. A study of behaviour and ecology of the Arctic tern, Sterma paradisaea Brunnich. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca. 228 pp.

Haycock, K.A. and W. Threlfall. 1975. The breeding biology of the Herring Gull in Newfoundland. Auk, 92:678-697.

Hays, G.C., J.D.R. Houghton and A.E. Myers. 2004. Pan-Atlantic leatherback turtle movements. Nature 429: 522.

Hazel, J., I.R. Lawler, H. Marsh, S. Robson. 2007. Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green sea turtle Chelonia mydas. End. Spp. Res. 3:105-113.

Hendrickson, L. 2006b. Status of fishery resources off the Northeastern US. NEFSC – Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus). 9 p.

Hendrickson, L. C. 2004. Population biology of northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and initial documentation of a spawning area. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61: 252-266.

Hendrickson, L.C. 2006a. Distribution of northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in Subarea 3 based on multi-species bottom trawl surveys conducted during 1995-2005. NAFO SCR Doc. 06/45.

Hipfner, J.M. and G. Chapdelaine. 2002. Razorbill (Alca torda). In The Birds of North America, No. 635 A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.),The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Hirst, A.G. and P.G. Rodhouse. 2000. Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 10:113-118.

Historical Hurricane Tracks. NOAA Coastal Services Center. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. 01 August 2006. http://hurricane.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/index.htm

Hoelzel, A.R., C.W. Potter and P.B. Best. 1998. Genetic differentiation between parapatric 'nearshore' and 'offshore' populations of bottlenose dolphin. Proc. R. Soc. London, Biol. Sci. 265: 1177-1183.

Hoffman, D.J. 1978. Embryotoxic Effects of Crude Oil in Mallard Ducks and Chicks. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 46: 183-190.

Hoffman, D.J. 1979a. Embryotoxic and Teratogenic Effects of Crude Oil on Mallard Embryos on Day One of Development. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 22: 632-637.

Holliday, D.V., R.E. Pieper, M.E. Clarke and C.F. Greenlaw. 1987. The effects of airgun energy releases on the eggs, larvae, and adults of the northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax). API Publication 4453. Report by Tracor Applied Sciences for American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. 115 p.

Holmes, W.N., J. Gorsline and J. Cronshaw. 1979. Effects of Mild Cold Stress on the Survival of Seawater-adapted Mallard Ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) Maintained on Food Contaminated with Petroleum. Environmental Research, 20: 425- 444.

Hooker, S.K. and R.W. Baird. 1999a. Deep-diving behaviour of the northern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus (Cetacea: Ziphiidae). Proc. R. Soc. London, Biol. Sci. 266: 671-676.

Hooker, S.K. and R.W. Baird. 1999b. Observations of Sowerby's beaked whales, Mesoplodon bidens, in the Gully, Nova Scotia. Can. Field-Nat. 113(2): 273-277.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 318

Hoover-Miller, A., K.R. Parker and J.J. Burns. 2001. A reassessment of the impact of Exxon Valdez oil spill on harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 17(1):111-135.

Hose, J.E., M.D. McGurk, G.D. Marty, D.E. Hinton, E.D. Brown and T.T. Baker. 1996. Sublethal Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Herring Embryos and Larvae: Morphological, Cytogenetic, and Histopathological Assessments, 1989-1991. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53: 2,355-2,365.

Hudson, P.J. 1982. Nest-site characteristics and breeding success in the razorbill, Alca torda. Ibis 124:355-359.

Huntington, C. E., R. G. Butler, and R. A. Mauck. 1996. Leach's Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). A. Poole, and F. Gill, Eds., The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences and The American Ornithologists' Union, Philadelphia, PA, Washington, DC.

Huntington, C.E. 1963. Population dynamics of leach’s petrel, Oceanodroma leucorhoa. Proceedings of the XIII International Ornithological Congress: 701-705.

Hurlbut, S.E., S.E. French and B.J. Taylor 1991. Evaluation of Potential Effects of Major Oil Spills on Grand Banks Commercial Fish Species as a Result of Impacts on Eggs and Larvae. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 110, Calgary, AB. 53 p.

Hurley, G. and J. Ellis. 2004. Environmental effects of exploratory drilling offshore Canada: Environmental effects monitoring data and literature review-final report. Report for The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Regulatory Advisory Committee (RAC).

Husky. 2000. White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study. Submitted by Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL.

Husky. 2001. White Rose oilfield comprehensive study supplemental report responses to comments from Canada- Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Submitted by Husky Oil Operations Limited (Operator). 265 p. + App.

Husky. 2003a. Husky Lewis Hill Prospect Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment. Prepared by LGL Limited, Oceans Limited, Provincial Airlines Limited, and S.R. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 324 p.

Husky. 2003b. White Rose baseline addendum draft report January 2003. Prepared by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 14 p. + App.

Husky. 2002. Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin Exploration Drilling Program Project Description and Environmental Assessment. Prepared by LGL Limited, Oceans Limited, Provincial Airlines Limited, and S.R. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 179 p.

Hutcheson, M.S., P.L. Stewart, and J.D. Spry. 1981. The biology and benthic community of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (including the Hibernia area). Grand Banks Oceanographic Studies, Vol. 3. Prepared for Mobil Oil Canada by McLaren Plansearch.

IMG-Golder Corp. 2002. Behavioural and physical response of riverine fish to airguns. Report prepared for WesternGeco, Calgary, Alberta.

Irwin, R.J. 1997. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia Crude Oil Entry. National Park Service, Water Resources Divisions, Water Operations Branch, Colorado.

IUCN. 2009. 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org.

IWC. 2001. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of right whales: a worldwide comparison. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. Spec. Iss. 2: 1-60.

IWC. 2007a. Report on the standing working group on environmental concerns. Annex K to Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 9(Suppl.): 227-260.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 319

IWC. 2007b. Whale population estimates: population table. Last updated 09/01/09. Accessed on 25 February 2009 at http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm#table.

James, M.C., C.A. Ottensmeyer and R.A. Myers. 2005. Identification of high-use habitat and threats to leatherback sea turtles in northern waters: new directions for conservation. Ecology Letters 8: 195-201.

Jarvinen, B. R., C. J. Neumann, and M. A. S. Davis. 1984: A tropical cyclone data tape for the North Atlantic basin, 1886– 1983: Contents, limitations, and uses. NOAA Tech. Memo. NWS NHC 22, NOAA/National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL, 21 pp. [Available from NOAA/Tropical Prediction Center, 11691 SW 17th St., Miami, FL 33165-2149.]

Jefferson, T.A., M.A. Webber and R. Pitman. 2008. Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive Guide to their Identification. Academic Press, London. 573 p.

Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri, and J.C. Montgomery. 2003. Crabs on cue for the coast: the use of underwater sound for orientation by pelagic crab stages. Marine and Freshwater Research 54(7): 841-845.

Jensen, C.F., L.J. Natanson, H.L. Pratt, N.E. Kohler and S. Campana. 2002. The reproductive biology of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fishery Bulletin, 100: 727-738.

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J., Ortega-Ortiz, A., Thode, P. Tyack, J. Wormuth, and B. Würsig. 2006. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico; Summary Report, 2002-2004. OCS Study MMS 2006-034. Minerals Manage. Serv., Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: synthesis report. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. Rep. from Dep. Oceanogr., Texas A & M Univ., College Station, TX, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Gulf of Mexico OCS Reg., New Orleans, LA. 341 p.

Joensen, A.H. 1972. Studies on Oil Pollution and Seabirds in Denmark 1968-1971. Dan. Rev. Game Biol., 6: 1-32.

Johns, D.M. and J.A. Pechenik. 1980. Influence of the Water-accommodated Fraction of No. 2 Fuel Oil on Energetics of Cancer irroratus Larvae. Marine Biology, 55: 247-254.

Johnson, D.L. 2004. Essential fish habitat source document: American plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides, life history and habitat characteristics, Second Edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NE-187.

Jury, S.H., J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in North Atlantic Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 13. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 221 pp.

JW (Jacques Whitford). 2007. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Sydney Basin Offshore Area. JW report to Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. 305 p. + appendices.

JWEL (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited). 2001. Environmental review of ROV survey of Annapolis Well B24. Report by Jacques Whitford Environment, Dartmouth, NS to Marathon Canada Limited, Halifax, NS. 4 p.

JWEL (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited). 2002. Post-drilling environmental observations of deepwater exploration drilling at Well H-23 Newburn. Report by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited, Dartmouth, NS to Chevron Canada Resources. 6 p.

JWEL (Jacques Whitford Environment Limited). 2003. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Laurentian Subbasin. JWEL report to Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. 250 p. + appendices.

Kadlec, J. A. 1976. A re-evaluation of mortality rates in adult herring gulls. Bird-Banding 47:8-12.

Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu, and S. Segawa. 2008. Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst. Fisheries Science 74(4): 781-786.

Katona, S.K. and J.A. Beard. 1990. Population size, migration and feeding aggregation of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 12: 295-305.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 320

Keats, D.W., G.R. South and D.H. Steele. 1985. Reproduction and egg guarding by Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus: Anarhichidae) and ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus: Zoarcidae) in Newfoundland waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 63: 2,565-2,568.

Kenney, R.D. 1996. Preliminary assessment of competition for prey between leatherback turtles and ocean sunfish in northeast shelf waters. In: J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick and B.A. Bell (ed.), Proc. 15th Ann. Symp. Sea Turtle Biol. Conserv. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-387. 393 p.

Kenney, R.D. and H.E. Winn. 1987. Cetacean biomass densities near submarine canyons compared to adjacent shelf/slope areas. Continent. Shelf Res. 7: 107-114.

Kenyon, T.N., F. Ladich and H.Y. Yan. 1998. A comparative study of hearing ability in fishes: the auditory brainstem response approach. J. Comp. Physiol. A 182: 307-318.

Ketten, D.R. 1995. Estimates of blast injury and acoustic trauma zones for marine mammals from underwater explosions. pp. 391-406. In: J.A. Kastelein, P.E. Thomas, and P.E. Nachtigall (eds.), Sensory Systems of Aquatic Mammals. De Spil, Woerden.

Khan, R.A. and P. Ryan. 1991. Long Term Effects of Crude Oil on Common Murre (Uria aalge) Following Rehabilitation. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 46: 216-222.

Kingsley, M.C.S. and R.R. Reeves. 1998. Aerial surveys of cetaceans in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1995 and 1996. Can. J. Zool. 76: 1529-1550.

Kirkham, I.R. 1980. Chick development and parental care in the northern gannet. M.Sc. Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. 75 p.

Kirkham, I.R. and D.N. Nettleship. 1986. COSEWIC status report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 49 p.

Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of the explosive removal of offshore petroleum platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50: 33-42.

Knowlton, A.R., J. Sigurjonsson, J.N. Ciano and S.D. Kraus. 1992. Long-distance movements of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 8(4): 397-405.

Kocan, R.M., J.E. Hose, E.D. Brown and T.T. Baker. 1996. Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasi) Embryo Sensitivity to Prudhoe Bay Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Laboratory Evaluation and In Situ Exposure at Oiled and Unoiled Sites in Prince William Sound. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53: 2,366-2,375.

Koning, W. 1987. Sensory and Chemical Analysis of Fish Tainting by Oil Sands Wastewater. M.Sc. University of Alberta.

Kostyuchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elasitc waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea. Hydrobiol. J. 9:45-48.

Kryter, K.D. 1985. The effects of noise on man, 2nd ed. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 688 p.

Kryter, K.D. 1994. The Handbook of Hearing and the Effects of Noise. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL. 673 p.

Kühnhold, W.W. 1972. The Influence of Crude Oils on Fish Fry. pp. 315-318. In: M. Ruivo (ed.), Marine Pollution and Sea Life. Fishing News (Books) Ltd., London, England.

Kühnhold, W.W. 1974. Investigations on the Toxicity of Seawater-extracts of Three Crude Oils on Eggs of Cod (Gadus morhua L.). Ber. Dtsch. Wiss. Kommn. Meeresforsch, 23: 165-180.

Kühnhold, W.W. 1978. Effects of the Water Soluble Fraction of a Venezuelan Heavy Fuel Oil (No.6) on Cod Eggs and Larvae. pp. 126-130. In: In the Wake of the Argo Merchant, Center for Ocean Management. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 321

Kulka D.W. and E.M. DeBlois. 1996. Non-traditional groundfish species on the Labrador Shelf and Grand Banks - Wolffish, monkfish, white hake and winter (blackback) flounder. DFO Atlantic Fisheries Research Document, 96/97. 49 pp.

Kulka, D. W. 2006. Abundance and distribution of demersal sharks on the Grand Banks with particular reference to the NAFO regulatory area. NAFO SCR Doc. 06/20.

Kulka, D., C. Hood and J. Huntington. 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.

Kulka, D.W., and C.M. Miri. 2007a. The status of white hake (Urophycis tenuis, Mitchill 1815) in NAFO Divisions 3N, 3O, and Subdivision 3Ps. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/52.

Kulka, D.W., and C.M. Miri. 2007b. Update on the status of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata Donovan, 1808) in NAFO Divisions 3L, 3N, 3O, and Subdivision 3Ps. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/33.

Kulka, D.W., D. Swain, M.R. Simpson, C.M. Miri, J. Simon, J. Gauthier, R. McPhie, J. Sulikowki, and L. Hamilton. 2006. Distribution, abundance, and life history of Malacoraja senta (smooth skate) in Canadian Atlantic waters with reference to its global distribution. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/093.

Kulka, D.W., N.C. Antle and J.M. Simms. 2003. Spatial analysis of 18 demersal species in relation to petroleum license areas on the Grand Bank (1980-2000). Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 2473: 202 pp.

LaBella, G., C. Froglia, A. Modica, S. Ratti and G. Rivas. 1996. First assessment of effects of air-gun seismic shooting on marine resources in the central Adriatic Sea. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., 9-12 June 1996.

Lacroix, D.L., R.B. Lanctot, J.A. Reed and T.L. McDonald. 2003. Effect of underwater surveys on molting male Long-tailed Ducks in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 81:1862-1875.

Lagardère, J.-P. 1982. Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. Marine Biology 71(2): 177-185.

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collett, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17(1):35-75.

Lang, A. L., and V. D. Moulton. 2004. Marine Mammal and Seabird Monitoring during the CCGS Hudson research expedition, June--July 2004. LGL Rep. SA818. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, and Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB. 22 p.

Lang, A.L, V.D. Moulton and R.A. Buchanan. 2006. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Husky Energy’s 3-D seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, 2005. LGL Rep. SA836. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, AB. 63 p. + appendices. Lee, D. S., and C. Haney. 1996. Manx Shearwater (Puffinus puffinus). The Birds of North America. A. Poole, and F. Gill, Eds., The Academy of Natural Sciences and The American Ornithologists' Union, Philadelphia, PA, Washington, DC.

Lang, A.L. and V.D. Moulton. 2008. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Petro-Canada’s 3-D seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, 2007. LGL Rep. SA938. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL. 32 p. + appendices.

Latha, G., S. Senthilvadivu, R. Venlatesan, and V. Rajendran. 2005. Sound of shallow and deep water lobsters: Measurements, analysis, and characterization. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(5): 2720-2723.

Lawler, G.C., W. Loong and J.L. Laseter. 1978. Accumulation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Tissues of Petroleum-exposed Mallard Ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). ES & T Research, 12: 51-54.

Lawson, J. and I. McQuinn. 2004. Review of the potential hydrophysical-related issues in Canada, risks to marine mammals and monitoring and mitigation strategies for seismic activities. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2004/121.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 322

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. Unpublished Report by LGL Limited environmental research associates, King City, ON and Charles I. Malme, Eng. and Sci. Services, Hingham, MA for Oceans Act Coordination Office, Maritime Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 140 p.

Lawson, J.W., S. Benjamins and G.B. Stenson. 2004. Harbour porpoise bycatch estimates for Newfoundland's 2002 nearshore cod fishery. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2004/066. 33 p.

Lawson, J.W., T. Stevens and D. Snow. 2007. Killer whales of Atlantic Canada, with particular reference to the Newfoundland and Labrador region. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2007/062. 16 p.

Lazell, J.D. 1980. New England waters: Critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 1980: 290-295.

Ledger-Piercy, S. and D.J.W. Piper. 2007. Late Quaternary geological history of the SW Grand Banks Slope and Rise off Green Bank and Whale Bank: implications for geohazard assessment. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 5663. 84p.

LeDrew. 1984. Southeastern Newfoundland marine resources: a literature review. Report to Newfoundland Department of Development by LeDrew Environmental Management Ltd., and Oceans Ltd., St. John’s, Newfoundland. 413 p.

Ledwell, W. and J. Huntington. 2009. Incidental entrapments in fishing gear and strandings reported to the whale release and strandings group in Newfoundland and Labrador, and a summary of the whale release and strandings program during 2008. Rep. by Whale Release and Strandings Tangly Whales, Inc., Portugal Cove-St. Philips, NL to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St. John's, NL. 4 p.

Lee, D. S., and C. Haney. 1996. Manx Shearwater (Puffinus puffinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 257, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.),The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.

Legault, C.M., H.H. Stone, and C. Waters. 2007. Stock assessment of Georges Bank yellowtail flounder for 2007. Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee Reference Document 2007/05.

Leighton, F.A., R.G. Butler and D.B. Peakall. 1985. Oil and Arctic Marine Birds

Leighton, F.A. 1995. The Toxicity of Petroleum Oils to Birds: An Overview. pp. 10-22. In: L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir and C. Smith (eds.), Wildlife and oil spills: response, research, and contingency plan. Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, Deleware. 182 p.

Lens, S. 1997. Interactions between marine mammals in the NAFO Regulatory Area. ICES CM 1997/Q8.

Lesage, V. and M.O. Hammill. 2001. The status of the grey seal, Halichoerus grypus, in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. Field- Nat. 115(4): 653-662.

Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M.C.S. Kingsley and B. Sjare. 1999. The effect of vessel noise on the vocal behaviour of belugas in the St. Lawrence River Estuary, Canada. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15: 65-84.

Lesage, V., M.O. Hammill and K.M. Kovacs. 1999. Functional classification of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) dives using depth profiles, swimming velocity, and an index of foraging success. Can. J. Zool. 77: 74-87.

Lewis, C.F.M and M.J. Keen. 1990. Constraints to development. Chapter 14. In: M.J. Keen and G.L. Williams (ed.). Geology of the Continental Margin of Eastern Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada No. 2: 743-823.

LGL 2005. Husky Delineation/Exploration Drilling Program for Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area Environmental Assessment. Prepared in association with Oceans Limited, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL. LGL Rep. No. SA845. Prepared for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 340 p. + App.

LGL. 2003. Orphan Basin Strategic Environmental Assessment. Rep. No. SA767. Prepared by LGL Limited, environmental associates, St. John's, NL for Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John's, NL. 244 p.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 323

LGL. 2007. Harlequins Ducks in Placentia Bay. LGL Rep. SA914E to SNC Lavalin and Newfoundland and Labrador Refinery Corporation.10 p. + appendix.

Lien, J. and L. Grimmer. 1978. Manx shearwater breeding in Newfoundland. Osprey, 9: 50-54.

Lien, J., D. Nelson and D.J. Hai. 2001. Status of the white-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 115: 118-126.

Lien, J., G.B. Stenson and P.W. Jones. 1988. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, 1978- 1986. Rit Fiskideildar 11: 194-201.

Lien, J., R. Sears, G.B. Stenson, P.W. Jones and N. I-Hsun. 1989. Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) sightings in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 1978-1987. Can. Field-Nat. 103: 91-93.

Lloyd, C.S. and C.M. Perrins. 1977. Survival and age at first breeding in the razorbill (Alca torda). Bird-Banding 48:239- 252.

Lock, A. R., R. G. B. Brown, and S. H. Gerriets. 1994. Gazetteer of marine birds in Atlantic Canada. An atlas of seabird vulnerability to oil pollution. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada, Atlantic Region.

Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. ICES CM B: 40. 9 p.

Lowther, P.E., A.W. Diamond, S.W. Kress, G.J. Robertson and K. Russell. 2002. Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica). In The Birds of North America, No. 709, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Lubard, S.C., and P.M. Hurdle. 1976. Experimental investigation of acoustic transmission from air into a rough ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 60(5):1048-1052.

Lucas, Z.N. and S.K. Hooker. 2000. Cetacean strandings on Sable Island, Nova Scotia, 1970-1998. Can. Field-Nat. 114: 45- 61.

Lucke, K., P.A. Lepper, M.-A. Blanchet, and U. Siebert. 2007. Testing the auditory tolerance of harbor porpoise hearing for impulsive sounds. Poster Paper presented at Conf. on Noise and Aquatic Life, Nyborg, Denmark, Aug. 2007.

Lusseau, D. 2005. The residency pattern of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) have different strategies to avoid interactions with tour boats in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 257: 265-272.

Lutz, P.L., M. Lutcavage and C.W. Caillouet. 1989. The effects of petroleum on sea turtles: applicability to Kemp’s Ridley. pp. 52-54. In: A.M. Landry (ed.), Proceedings of the First International symposium on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, October 1-4, 1985, Galvaston, TX. Texas A&M University Sea Grant Program.

Maccarone, A.D. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1981. Predation and catching of seabirds by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) on Baccalieu Island, Newfoundland. Can. Field-Nat. 95:352-353.

Macko, S.A. and S.M. King. 1980. Weathered Oil: Effect on Hatchability of Heron and Gull Eggs. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 25: 316-320.

MacLaren. 1977. Report on biological literature review of the Labrador Sea region. Report for Imperial Oil Ltd., by MacLaren Atlantic Ltd., St John’s, Newfoundland. 109 p.

MacLeod, C.D., W.F. Perrin, R. Pitman, J. Barlow, L.T. Ballance, A. D'Amico, T. Gerrodette, G. Joyce, K.D. Mullin, D. Palka and G.T. Waring. 2006. Known and inferred distributions of beaked whale species (Cetacea: Ziphiidae). J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 7(3): 271-286.

MacLeod, D. 2000. Review of the distribution of Mesoplodon species (order Cetacea, family Ziphiidae) in the North Atlantic. Mamm. Rev. 30(1): 1-8.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 324

Macleod, K., R. Fairbairns, A. Gill, B. Fairbairns, J. Gordon, C. Blair-Myers and E.C.M. Parsons. 2004. Seasonal distribution of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata in relation to physiography and prey off the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 277: 263-274.

Mactavish, B., J. E. Maunder, W. A. Montevecchi, J. L. Wells, and D. Fifield. 2003. Checklist (2003) of the birds of insular Newfoundland and its continental shelf waters. Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador Inc., St. John's, NL.

Madsen, P.T. and B. Møhl. 2000. Sperm whales (Physeter catodon L. 1758) do not react to sounds from detonators. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(1):668-671.

Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behavior during exposures to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquat. Mamm. 28(3):231-240.

Madsen, P.T., M. Johnson, P.J.O. Miller, N. Aguilar de Soto, J. Lynch, and P.L. Tyack. 2006. Quantitative measures of air gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) using acoustic tags during controlled exposure experiments. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(4):2366–2379.

Makkonen, L., R.D. Brown, and P.T. Mitten. 1991: Comments on “Prediction of Vessel Icing for Near-Freezing Sea Temperatures”. Wea. Forecasting, *6*, 565–567.

Malme, C.I. 1993. Prediction of potential disturbance of baleen whales by low-frequency acoustic transients. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94: 1850.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior. Phase II: January 1984 migration. BBN Rep. 5586. Bolt, Beranek and Newman Rep. for Minerals Management Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. Var. pag.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. BBN Rep. 5851; OCS Study MMS 85- 0019. Rep. from BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for U.S. Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. Var. pag.

Mann, D.A., D.M. Higgs, W.N. Tavolga, M.J. Souza and A.N. Popper. 2001. Ultrasound detection by clupeiform fishes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109: 3048-3054.

Marty, G.D., J.E. Hose, M.D. McGurk, E.D. Brown and D.E. Hinton. 1997. Histopathology and Cytogenetic Evaluation of Pacific Herring Larvae Exposed to Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Laboratory or in Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 1846-1857.

Marty, G.D., M.S. Okihiro, E.D. Brown, D. Hanes and D.E. Hinton. 1999. Histopathology of Adult Pacific Herring in Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56: 419-426.

Mate, B.R. 1989. Satellite-monitored radio tracking as a method for studying cetacean movements and behaviour. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 39: 389-391.

Matishov, G.G. 1992. The reaction of bottom-fish larvae to airgun pulses in the context of the vulnerable Barents Sea ecosystem. Fisheries and Offshore Petroleum Exploitation 2nd International Conference, Bergen, Norway, 6-8 April 1992.

Matkin, C.O., G.M. Ellis, M.E. Dahlheim and J. Zeh. 1994. Status of killer whales in Prince William Sound, 1985-1992. pp. 141-162. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p.

Maunder, J.E. and W. Threlfall. 1972. The breeding biology of the black-legged kittiwake in Newfoundland. Auk, 89: 789- 816.

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of airgun signals; and effects of air gun exposure on

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 325

humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Rep. from Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin Univ., Perth, W.A., for Austral. Petrol. Prod. Assoc., Sydney, N.S.W. 188 p.

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

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, M.-N. Jenner, M-N., C. Jenner, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, K. McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 113, 1: 638-642.

McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA (Australian Petroleum Producers and Explorers Association) Journal 1998: 692-707.

McClintock, J. 2007. Year nine of the NAFO Subdivision 3Ps Fall GEAC Surveys: Catch results for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides F.), witch flounder (Glyptosephalus synglossus L.), and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/055.

McEwan, E.H. and F.C. Koelink. 1973. The Heat Production of Oiled Mallards and Scaup. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 51: 27-31.

McEwan, E.H. and P.M. Whitehead. 1980. Uptake and Clearance of Petroleum Hydrocarbons by the Glaucous-winged Gull (Laras glaucescens) and the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 58:723-726.

Mecklenberg, T.A., S.D. Rice and J.F. Karinen. 1977. Molting and Survival of King Crab (Paralithodes camtschatica) and Coonstripe Shrimp (Pandalus hypsinotus) Larvae Exposed to Cook Inlet Crude Oil Water-soluble Fraction. pp. 221-228. In: D.A. Wofe (ed.), Fate and effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in marine Organisms and Ecosystems. Proceedings of a Symposium, 10-12 November 1976. Seattle, Washington. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Medeiros-Bergen, D.E. and Miles, E. 1997. Recruitment in the holothurian Cucumaria frondosa in the Gulf of Maine. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 31(1-3): 123-133.

Medeiros-Bergen, D.E., Olson, R.R., Conroy, J.A., and Kocher, T.D. 1995. Distribution of holothurian larvae determined with species-specific genetic probes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 40(7): 1225-1235.

Meltzer Research and Consulting. 1996. Identification of representative marine areas in the Laurentian Channel Marine Region. Prepared by Meltzer Research and Consulting, Halifax, NS for Parks Canada Department of Canadian Heritage.

Miller, D.S., D.B. Peakall and W.B. Kinter. 1978. Ingestion of Crude Oil: Sublethal Effects in Herring Gull Chicks. Science, 199: 315-317.

Miller, P.J., P.L. Tyack, M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, and R. King. 2006. Techniques to assess and mitigate the environmental risk posed by use of airguns: recent advances from academic research programs. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Supple., Abstract OS42A-03. 23-26 May 2006, Baltimore, MD.

Minsk, L.D. 1977: Ice Accumulation on Ocean Structures. CRREL Rep. 77-17, COld Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, N.H., 42pp

Mitchell, E. and D.G. Chapman. 1977. Preliminary assessment of stocks of northwest Atlantic sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis). Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue) 1: 117-120.

MMS. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling fluids. U.S. Dept. Interior Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS region. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 121 p.

Mobil. 1985. Hibernia Development Project, Environmental Impact Statement. Volume IIIa: Biophysical Assessment. Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd. (Operator), Gulf Canada Resources Inc., Petro-Canada Inc., Chevron Canada Resources Ltd., and Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd. 258 pp.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 326

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. Rep. from Virginia Inst. Mar. Sci., [Gloucester Point], VA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 33 p.

Moles, A. and B.L. Norcross. 1998. Effects of Oil-laden Sediments on Growth and Health of Juvenile Flatfishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55: 605-610.

Montevecchi, W. A. 2006. Influences of artificial light on marine birds. Chapter 5 In Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, C. Rich, and T. Longcore (editors), Island Press, Washington, D.C. 478 p.

Montevecchi, W.A. and I.J. Stenhouse. 2002. Dovekie (Alle alle). In The Birds of North America, No. 701, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Montevecchi, W.A. and R.A. Myers. 1997. Centurial and decadal oceanographic influences on changes in Northern Gannet populations and diets in the North-west Atlantic: Implications for climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54:608-614.

Montevecchi, W.A., Blundon, E., Boombes, G.; Porter, J. and Rice, P. 1978. Northern fulmar breeding range extended to Baccalieu Island, Newfoundland. Can. Field-Nat. 92:80-82.

Montevechi, W.A. and Porter, J.M. 1980. Parental investments by seabirds at the breeding area with emphasis on northern gannets, Morus bassanus. pp. 323-365 in Burger, J. Olla, B.L. and Winn, H.E. (eds.), Behaviour of marine animals, Volume 4: Marine birds. Plenum Press, New York.

Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, S. Vlachos, and W.W.L. Au. 2009. Predicting temporary threshold shifts in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): The effects of noise level and duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(3):1816- 1826.

Moore, S.F. and R.L. Dwyer. 1974. Effects of Oil on Marine Organisms: A Critical Assessment of Published Data. Water Research, 8: 819-827.

Morgan, M.J. 2000. Interactions between substrate and temperature preference in adult American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides). Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiolgy, 33: 249-259.

Morgan, M.J., E.F. Murphy, and J. Brattey. 2007. An assessment of the cod stock in NAFO Divisions 3NO. NAFO SCR. No. 07/40.

Moriyasu, M., R. Allain, K. Benhalima, and R. Claytor. Effects of seismic and marine noise on invertebrates: a literature review. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2004/126.

Morreale, S.J., P.T. Plotkin, D.J. Shaver and H.J. Kalb. 2007. Adult migration and habitat utilization: ridley turtles in their element. In: P.T. Plotkin (ed.), Biology and conservation of ridley sea turtles. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. p. 213-229.

Morse, D. H., and C. W. Buchheister. 1977. Age and survival of breeding Leach's storm-petrels in Maine. Bird-Banding 48:341-349.

Mosher, D.C., D.J.W. Piper, K. Mackillop, and K. Jarrett (in prep.). Near surface geology of the Halibut Channel region of the SW Newfoundland Slope from GSC data holdings. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 6214.

Mosher, D.C., and D.J.W. Piper. 2007. Multibeam seafloor imagery of the Laurentian Fan and the 1929 Grand Banks Landslide Area. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 5638. POSTER.

Moulton, V.D., and B.D. Mactavish. 2004. Recommended seabird and marine mammal observational protocols for Atlantic Canada. LGL Rep. SA775-1. Rep. from LGL Ltd., St. John’s, NL, for Environmental Studies Research Funds, Calgary, AB. 71 p. Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2005. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Chevron Canada Resources’ 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2004. LGL Rep. SA817. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB. 90 p. + appendices.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 327

Moulton, V. D., B. D. Mactavish, and R. A. Buchanan. 2006. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of ConocoPhillips’ 3- D seismic program, Laurentian Sub-basin, 2005. LGL Rep. SA849. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, AB. 97 p. + appendices.

Mowbray, T.B. 2002. Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus). In The Birds of North America, No. 693, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Murphy. E. 2003. The Distribution of Pollock (Pollachius virens) in NAFO Subdivision 3PS. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2003/004.

Murua, H. 2003. Assessment of roughhead grenadier, Macrourus berglax, in NAFO Subareas 2 and 3. NAFO SCR Doc. 03/43.

Musick, J.A., D.E. Barnard and J.A. Keinath. 1994. Aerial estimates of seasonal distribution and abundance of sea turtles near the Cape Hatteras faunal barrier. In: B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (ed.), Proc. 13th Ann. Symp. Sea Turtle Biol. Conserv. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 p.

NAS (National Academy of Science (US)). 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academic Press, New York, 278 pp.

NEB, C-NOPB and C-NSOPB. 2002. Offshore waste treatment guidelines. National Energy Board, Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 21 p.

NEB, C-NOPB and C-NSOPB. 2009. Guidelines respecting the selection of chemicals intended to be used in conjunction with offshore drilling and production activities on frontier lands. Prepared by National Energy Board, Canada – Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and the, Canada – Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 16 p.

Nedwell, J.R., B. Edwards, A.W.H. Turnpenny and J. Gordon. 2004. Fish and marine mammal audiograms: A summary of available information. Report by Subacoustech Ltd for Chevron Texaco Ltd., TotalFinaElf Exploration UK PLC, DSTL, Department of Trade and Industry, and Shell U.K. Exploration and Production Ltd.

Nelson, D. and J. Lien. 1996. The status of the long-finned pilot whale, Globicephala melas, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 110: 511-524.

Nelson, J.B. 1966. Population dynamics of the gannet (Sula bassana) at the bass rock, with comparative information from other Sulidae. J. Anim. Ecol. 35:443-470.

Nesis, K.I. 1965. Biocoenoses and Biomass of Benthos of the Newfoundland – Labrador Region. (In Russian). Fisheries Research Board of Canada Translation Series, No. 1375.

Nestler, J.M., G.R. Ploskey, J. Pickens, J. Menezes and C. Schilt. 1992. Responses of blueback herring to high-frequency sound and implications for reducing entrainment at hydropower dams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 12: 667-683.

Nettleship, D.N. 1972. Breeding success of the common puffin (Fratercula arctica) on different habitats at Great Island, Newfoundland. Ecological Monographs. 42:239-268.

Nettleship, D.N. 1980. A Guide to the Major Seabird Colonies of Eastern Canada - Identity, Distribution and Abundance. Canadian Wildlife Service Manuscript Report. 133 p.

Neumann, C. J., B. R. Jarvinen, C. J. McAdie, and J. D. Elms. 1993: Tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871– 1992. National Climatic Data Center in cooperation with the National Hurricane Center, Coral Gables, FL, 193 pp. [Most recent track information available online at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov.]

NMFS. 1998. Recovery plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Prepared by R.R. Reeves, P.J. Clapham, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and G.K. Silber for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 42.

NMFS. 2000. Taking and importing marine mammals; Taking marine mammals incidental to Naval activities/Proposed rule. Fed. Regist. 65(239 12 December): 77546-77553.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 328

Norcross, B.L., J.E. Hose, M. Frandsen and E.D. Brown. 1996. Distribution, Abundance, Morphological Condition, and Cytogenetic Abnormalities of Larval Herring in Prince William Sound, Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53: 2,376-2,387.

Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Rev. 37(2):81-115.

NRC (National Research Council). 2003a. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National Academies Press. 192 pp.

NRCan. 2006. Earthquakes in Southeastern Canada. Natural Resources Canada website, found at: www.seisom.nrcan.gc.ca/historic_eq/eastcan_e.php

NRCan. 2009. Recent earthquake reports. Accessed 3 July 2009 at http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/recent/index- eng.php.

O’Connell, M.F., J. B. Dempson, and G. Chaput. 2006. Aspects of the Life History, Biology, and Population Dynamics of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Eastern Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2006/014.

Ollerhead, L.M.N. and J. Lawrence. 2007. Mapping the spatial distribution of juveniles for nine selected finfish species found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Report for Environmental Studies Research Funds Secretariat, NEB, Calgary, AB. 65 pp.

Ollerhead, L.M.N., M.J. Morgan, D.A. Scruton and B. Marrie. 2004. Mapping spawning times and locations for 10 commercially important fish species found on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2522.

Overland, J.E. 1990: Prediction of vessel icing for near-freezing sea temperatures, Weather and Climate, 5, 62-77.

Overland, J.E., C.H. Pease, R.W. Preisendorfer and A.L. Comiskey. 1986: Prediction of vessel icing. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 25, 1793-1806.

Packard, A., H.E. Karlson, and O. Sand. 1990. Low frequency hearing in cephalopods. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology 166(4): 501-505.

Page, F.H. and K.T. Frank. 1989. Spawning time and egg stage duration in Northwest Atlantic haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) stocks with emphasis on Georges and Browns Bank. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 46(Supplement 1): 68-81.

Palka, D., A.J. Read and C.W. Potter. 1997. Summary of knowledge of white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) from US and Canadian Atlantic waters. Report of the International Whaling Commission 47: 729-734.

Parente, C.L., M.C.C. Marcondes, and M.H. Engel. 2006. Humpback whale strandings and seismic surveys in Brazil from 1999 to 2004. Intern. Whal. Commis. Working Pap. SC/58/E41. 16 p.

Parnell, J.F., M.A. Shield and D. Frierson, Jr. 1984. Hatching Success of Brown Pelican Eggs after Contamination with Oil. Colonial Waterbirds, 7: 22-24.

Parry, G.D., and A. Gason. 2006. The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research 79(3): 272-284.

Pavlov, D.A. 1994. Fertilization in the wolffish, Anarhichas lupus: External or internal? Journal of Ichthyology, 34(1): 140-151.

Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, and L. Fancey. 2008. Potential effects of seismic energy on fish and shellfish: an update since 2003. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2008/060.

Payne, J.F., C.A. Andrews, L.L. Fancey, A.L. Cook, and J.R. Christian. 2007. Pilot study on the effect of seismic air gun noise on lobster (Homarus americanus). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2712: v + 46 p.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 329

Payne, J.F., L.L. Fancey, A.D. Rahimtula, and E.L. Porter. 1987. Review and perspective or the use of mixed function oxygenase enzymes in biological monitoring. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 86C: 233-245.

Peakall, D.B., D. Hallet, D.S. Miller, R.G. Butler and W.B. Kinter. 1980. Effects of Ingested Crude Oil on Black Guillemots: A Combined Field and Laboratory Study. Ambio, 9: 28-30.

Peakall, D.B., D.J. Hallet, J.R. Bend, G.L. Foureman and D.S. Miller. 1982. Toxicity of Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil and its Aromatic Fractions to Nestling Herring Gulls. Environmental Research, 27: 206-215.

Pearson, W., J. Skalski, S. Sulkin and C. Malme. 1994. Effects of seismic energy releases on the survival and development of zoeal larvae of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Mar. Environ. Res., 38: 93-113.

Pearson, W.H., D.L. Woodruff, P.C. Sugarman and B.L. Olla. 1984. The Burrowing Behavior of Sand Lance, Ammodytes hexapterus: Effects of Oil-contaminated Sediment. Marine Environmental Research, 11: 17-32.

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. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1343-1356.

Pepin, P., G.L. Maillet, S. Fraser, D. Lane, and T. Shears. 2007. Biological and chemical oceanographic conditions on the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelf during 2006. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/042.

PERD 2007 - PERD Iceberg Sighting Database: 2007 BMT Fleet Technology.

Perrins, C.M.; Harris, M.P. and Britton, C.K. 1973. Survival of Manx shearwaters, Puffinus puffinus. Ibis 115:535-548.

Petrie, B., and C. Anderson, 1983. Circulation on the Newfoundland Continental Shelf. Atmosphere-Ocean, V.21, p.207- 226.

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W.Butler, M. Kendziorek and D.R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate Impact of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Marine Birds. Auk, 107: 387-397.

Piatt, J.F., D.A. Methven, A.E. Burger, R.L. McLagan, V. Mercer and E. Creelman. 1989. Baleen whales and their prey in a coastal environment. Can. J. Zool. 67: 1523-1530.

Pickart R. S., T. K. McKee, D.J. Torres and S. A. Harrington (1999) Mean Structure and Interannual Variability of the Slopewater System South of Newfoundland. Journal of Physical Oceanography. Vol. 29. October, 1999.

Pierotti, R. 1982. Habitat selection and its effect on reproductive output in the herring gull in Newfoundland. Ecology. 63: 854-868.

Pierotti, R.J. and T.P. Good. 1994. Herring Gull (Larus argentatus). The Birds of North America, A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds., The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Piper, D.J.W., Mudie, P.J., Fader, G.B., Josenhans, H.W., Maclean, B., and Vilks, G. (1990). Quaternary Geology, Chapter 10. pp. 475-607. In: Geology of the Continental Margin of Eastern Canada, M.J. Keen and G.L. Williams (ed.); Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada, no. 2,

Pitocchelli, J.; Kirkham, I. And Montevecchi, W.A. 1981. Initial listing of birds observed on Baccalieu Island. Osprey 12: 14-17.

Popper, A.N., and M.B. Halvorsen. 2007. The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122(1): 623-635.

Popper, A.N., D.T.T. Plachta, D.A. Mann and D. Higgs. 2004. Response of clupeid fish to ultrasound: a review. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 61: 1057-1061.

Popper, A.N., M. Salmon and K.W. Horch. 2001. Acoustic detection and communication by decapod crustaceans. J. Comp. Physiol. A 187: 83-89.

Popper, A.N., M.E. Smith, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, A.O. MacGillivray, M.E. Austin, and D.A. Mann. 2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117 (6): 3958-3971.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 330

Potter, J.R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M.A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, and P.J. Seekings. 2007. Visual and passive acoustic marine mammal observations and high-frequency seismic source characteristics recorded during a seismic survey. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 32(2):469-483.

Power, D. 1999. Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in NAFO Subareas 2+3. NAFO SCR Doc. 99/51.

Powles, P.M. 1965. Life history and ecology of American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides F.) in the Magdalen Shallows. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 22: 565-598.

Randall, R.M., B.M. Randall and J. Bevan. 1980. Oil Pollution and Penguins - Is Cleaning Justified? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 11: 234-237.

Rao, A., L.-A. Outhouse, and D. Gregory. 2009. Special marine areas of interest in our marine backyards. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter, St. John's, NL. 179 p.

Read, A.J. 1999. Harbour porpoise Phoecena phoecena. In: S.H. Ridgeway and R. Harrison (ed.), Handbook of marine mammals. Volume 6: The second book of dolphins and porpoises. Academic Press. San Diego. p. 323-355.

Reddin, D.G. 2006. Perspectives on the marine ecology of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Northwest Atlantic. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2006/018.

Reeves, R.R. and E. Mitchell. 1986. American pelagic whaling for right whales in the North Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission Spec. Iss. 10: 221-254.

Reeves, R.R. and H. Whitehead. 1997. Status of the sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 111: 293-307.

Reeves, R.R., E. Mitchell and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the northern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus. Can. Field-Nat. 107: 490-508.

Regehr, H.M. and M.S. Rodway. 1999. Seabird Breeding Performance During Two Years of Delayed Capelin Arrival in the Northwest Atlantic: a Multi-species Comparison. Waterbirds 22:60-67.

Renaud, W.E.; and Bradstreet, M.S.W. 1980. Late winter distribution of black guillemots in northern Baffin Bay in Canadian high Arctic. Can. Field-Nat. 94:421-425.

Rice, S.D. 1985. Effects of Oil on Fish. pp. 157-182. In: F.R. Engelhardt (ed.), Petroleum Effects in the Arctic Environment. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., NY.

Rice, S.D., D.A. Moles, T.L. Taylor and J.F. Karinen. 1979. Sensitivity of 39 Alaskan Marine Species to Cook Inlet Crude Oil and No.2 Fuel Oil. pp. 549-554. In: API, EPA, and USCG, 1979 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup), Proceedings. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Rice, S.D., M.M. Babcock, C.C. Brodersen, M.G. Carls, J.A. Gharrett , S. Korn, A. Moles and J.W. Short. 1986. Lethal and Sub-lethal Effects of the Water-soluble Fraction of Cook Inlet Crude on Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) Reproduction. Final report, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, NOAA.

Rice, S.D., R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright (eds). 1996. Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18, Bethesda, MD.

Richardson, W.J., B.W. Würsig and C.R. Greene Jr. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 79: 1117-1128.

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

Richardson, W.J., M.A. Fraker, B. Würsig and R.S. Wells. 1985a. Behaviour of bowhead whales Balaena mysticetus summering in the Beaufort Sea: reactions to industrial activities. Biol. Conserv. 32: 195-230.

Richardson, W.J., R.S. Wells and B. Würsig. 1985b. Disturbance responses of bowheads, 1980-84. pp. 89-196. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Behavior, disturbance responses and distribution of bowhead whales Balaena mysticetus in the

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 331

eastern Beaufort Sea, 1980-84. OCS Study MMS 85-0034. Rep. from LGL Ecol. Res. Assoc. Inc., Bryan, TX, for U.S. Minerals Management Service, Reston, VA. 306 p. NTIS PB87-124376.

RMRI (RMRI Canada). 2007. Quantitative Assessment of Oil Spill Risk for the South Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Draft report by RMRI Canada, St. John`s, NL for Transport Canada.

Robards, M.D., M.F. Willson, R.H. Armstrong, and J.F. Piatt. 1999. Sand lance: a review of biology and predator relations and annotated bibliography. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-521. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 327 p.

Robert, M., D. Bordage, J.-P. L. Savard, G. Fitzgerald, and F. Morneau. 2000. The breeding range of the Barrow's Goldeneye in eastern North America. Wilson Bulletin 112:1-7.

Robertson, G. J. 2002. Current status of the Manx Shearwater (Puffinus puffinus) colony on Middle Lawn Island, Newfoundland. Northeastern Naturalist 9:317-324.

Robertson, G.J. and R.D. Elliot. 2002. Changes in seabird populations breeding on Small Island, Wadham Islands, Newfoundland. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region, Technical Report Series No. 381.

Robertson, G.J., D. Fifield, M. Massaro and J.W. Chardine. 2001. Changes in nesting-habitat use of large gulls breeding in Witless Bay, Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:2159-2167.

Robertson, G.J., J. Russell and D. Fifield. 2002. Breeding population estimates for three Leach’s Storm-Petrel colonies in southeastern Newfoundland, 2001. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region Technical, Report Series No. 380.

Robertson, G.J., S.I. Wilhelm and P.A. Taylor. 2004. Population size and trends of seabirds breeding on Gull and Great Islands, Witless Bay Islands Ecological Reserve, Newfoundland, up to 2003. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region, Technical Report Series No. 418.

Rodway, M.S., H.M. Regehr and J.W. Chardine. 1996. Population census of breeding Atlantic Puffins at Great Island, Newfoundland in 1993-1994. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region, Technical Report Series No. 263.

Rodway, M.S., H.M. Regehr and J.W. Chardine. 2003. Status of the largest breeding concentration of Atlantic Puffins, Fratercula arctica, in North America. Canadian Field-Naturalist 117:70-75.

Rodway, M.S., J.W. Chardine and W.A. Montevecchi. 1998. Intra-colony Variation in Breeding Performance of Atlantic Puffins. Colonial Waterbirds 21:171-184.

Røe, T.I. and S. Johnsen. 1996. Discharges of produced water to the North Sea: Effects in the water column. pp. 13-25. In: M. Read and S. Johnsen. Produced Water 2: Environmental Issues and Mitigation Technologies. Plenum Press, NY.

Rogers, E. and L.F. Bosart. 1986. An Investigation of Explosively Deepening Oceanic Cyclones. Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 114, 702-718.

Romanenko, E.V. and V.Ya. Kitain. 1992. The functioning of the echolocation system of Tursiops truncatus during noise masking. pp. 415-419. In: J.A. Thomas, R.A. Kastelein and A.Ya. Supin (eds.), Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. Plenum, New York. 773 p.

Romano, T.A., M.J. Keogh, C. Kelly, P. Feng, L. Berk, C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder and J.J. Finneran. 2004. Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: measures of the nervous and immune systems before and after intense sound exposure. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61:1124-1134.

Rubega, M.A., D. Schamel and D.M. Tracy. 2000. Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 538 , A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Saetre, R. and E. Ona. 1996. Seismike undersøkelser og på fiskeegg og -larver en vurdering av mulige effecter pa bestandsniva. [Seismic investigations and damages on fish eggs and larvae; an evaluation of possible effects on stock level] Fisken og Havet 1996:1-17, 1-8. (in Norwegian, with an English summary).

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 332

Sand, O. 1981. The lateral line and sound reception. pp. 459-478. In: W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay (eds.) Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hampson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price and C.C. Jones. 1990. Anatomy of an Oil Spill: Long-term Effects from the Grounding of the Barge Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research, 38: 265-380.

Santulli, A., C. Messina, L. Ceffa, A. Curatolo, G. Rivas, G. Fabi and V. Damelio. 1999. Biochemical responses of European sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) to the stress induced by offshore experimental seismic prospecting. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38:1105-1114.

SAR (Species at Risk). 2006. Species at Risk. Online at: http://speciesatrisk.gc.ca

Schick, R.S. and D.L. Urban. 2000. Spatial components of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) distribution in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(11): 2193-2200.

Schmelzer, I. 2006. A management plan for Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica; Eastern Population) in Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Environment and Conservation, Corner Brook, NL. 21 p.

Schusterman, R., D. Kastak, B. Southall and C. Kastak. 2000. Underwater temporary threshold shifts in pinnipeds: tradeoffs between noise intensity and duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108: 2515-2516.

Schwarz, A.L. and G.L. Greer. 1984. Responses of Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi to some underwater sounds. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:1183-1192.

Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fishery and Aquatic Sciences, 219: 731 pp.

Scruton, D.A., S.C. Riley, B.A. Bennett, F.T. Bowdring, and K.D. Clarke. 2000. A review of habitat suitability criteria applicable to four salmonid species in Newfoundland, Canada. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2548: vi + 56 p + appendices.

Sears, R. and J. Calambokidis. 2002. Update status report on the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 32 p.

Sears, R., F. Wenzel and J.M. Williamson. 1987. The blue whale: a catalog of individuals from the western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence). Mingan Island Cetacean Study, St. Lambert, Quebec. 27 p.

Selzer, L.A. and P.M. Payne. 1988. The distribution of white-sided (Lagenorhynchus acutus) and common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) vs. environmental features of the continental shelf of the northeastern United States. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 4: 141-153.

Sergeant, D.E. 1991. Harp Seals, man and ice. Canadian Special Publications of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 114: 153 p.

Sergeant, D.E. 1962. The biology of the pilot of pothead whale Globicephala melaena (Traill) in Newfoundland waters. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 132: 1-84.

Shane, S.H., R.S. Wells and B. Wursig. 1986. Ecology, behavior and social organization of the bottlenose dolphin: A review. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 2(1): 34-63.

Sharp, B.E. 1996. Post-release Survival of Oiled, Cleaned Seabirds in North America. Ibis, 138: 222-228.

Shin, H.-O., D.-J. Lee and H.-I. Shin. 2003. Behavior of Israeli carp Cyprinus carpio traced by long baseline telemetry techniques during dynamite explosion work. Fish. Sci. 69: 27-36.

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundances of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs 6: 43-67.

Sikumiut (Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd.). 2008. Strategic Environmental Assessment Labrador Shelf Offshore Area. Report for Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 333

Simpson, M.R. and D.W. Kulka. 2001. Distribution and biomass of selected unregulated species occurring in the NAFO Regulatory Area and adjacent areas. NAFO Science Council Research Document, 01/162.

Sjare, B., M. Lebeuf and G. Veinot. 2005. Harbour seals in Newfoundland and Labrador: a preliminary summary of new data on aspects of biology, ecology and contaminant profiles. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Resource Document 2005/030. 42 p.

Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-per-unit- effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1357-1365.

Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen and E. Ona. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian coast. Fish. Res. 67: 143-150.

Smith, M.E. A.S. Kane and A.N. Popper. 2004. Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Journal of Experimental Biology, 207: 427-435.

Smith, P. 2000. Sea-run brown trout fishing in Newfoundland. Part 2. www.flyanglersonline.com/features/canada/can112.php.

Snell, R.R. 2002. Iceland Gull (Larus glaucoides) and Thayer's Gull (Larus thayeri). In The Birds of North America, No. 699, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Song, J., A. Mathieu, R.F. Soper, and A.N. Popper. 2006. Structure of the inner ear of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). J. Fish Biol. 68: 1767-1781.

South, G.R., A. Whitlatch and R. Hooper. 1979. Biological bibliography of the Labrador Sea and coastal Labrador. Report to Total Eastern Exploration Ltd., St John’s, Newfoundland. 328 p.

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

Spotila, J.R. 2004. Sea turtles: A complete guide to their biology, behavior, and conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 227 p.

Spraker, T.R., L.F. Lowry and K.J. Frost. 1994. Gross necropsy and histopathological lesions found in harbor seals. pp. 281-311. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.). Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego. 395 p.

St. Aubin, D.J. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects on polar bears. pp. 235-239. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.), Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego. 282 p.

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. J. Acous. Soc. Am. 104:3616-3625.

Steele, D.H. 1983. Marine ecology and zoogeography. In: (ed.) G.R. South. Biogeography and Ecology of the Island of Newfoundland. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The hague-Boston-London.

Stenhouse, I.J. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999a. Increasing and expanding populations of breeding Northern Fulmars in Atlantic Canada. Waterbirds 22(3):382-391.

Stenhouse, I.J. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999b. Indirect effects of the availability of capelin and fishery discards: Gull predation on breeding storm-petrels. Marine Ecology Progress Series 184:303-307.

Stenhouse, I.J., G.J Robertson and W.A. Montevecchi. 2000. Herring Gull Larus argentatus predation on Leach’s Storm- Petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa breeding on Great Island, Newfoundland. Atlantic Seabirds 2:35-44.

Stephenson, R. 1997. Effects of Oil and Other Surface-active Organic Pollutants on Aquatic Birds. Environmental Conservation, 24: 121-129.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 334

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, N.A. Friday, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsboll, J. Sigurjonsson, T.D. Smith, N. Oien and P.S. Hammond. 2003. North Atlantic humpback whale abundance and rate of increase four decades after protection from whaling. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 258: 263-273.

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsboll, R. Sears, J. Sigurjonsson, T.D. Smith, G. Vikingsson, N. Oien and P.S. Hammond. 2006. Population spatial structuring on the feeding grounds in North Atlantic humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). J. Zool. 270(2): 244-255.

Stevick, P.T., N. Oien and D.K. Mattila. 1998. Migration of a humpback whale between Norway and the West Indies. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 14: 162-166.

Stewart, B.S. and S. Leatherwood. 1985. Minke whale--Balaenoptera acutorostrata. In: S.H. Ridgeway and R. Harrison (ed.), Handbook of marine mammals. Volume 3: The sirenians and baleen whales. Academic Press. San Diego. 91- 136.

Stewart, B.S., W.E. Evans and F.T. Awbrey. 1982. Effects of man-made waterborne noise on behavior of belukha whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Bristol Bay, Alaska. HSWRI Tech. Rep. 82-145. Rep. from Hubbs/Sea World Res. Inst., San Diego, CA, for Nat. Oceanic & Atmosph. Admin., Juneau, AK. 29 p.

Stone, C.J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters 1998-2000. JNCC Report 323. Joint Nature Conservancy, Aberdeen, Scotland. 43 p.

Stone, C.J. and M.L. Tasker. 2006. The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 8(3):255-263.

Suryan, R.M., and J.T. Harvey. 1999. Variability in reactions of Pacific harbor seals, Phoca vitulina richardsi, to disturbance. Fish. Bull. 97: 332-339.

Sverdrup, A., E. Kjellsby, P.G. Krüger, R. Fløysand, F.R. Knudsen, P.S. Enger, G. Serck-Hanssen and K.B. Helle. 1994. Effects of experimental seismic shock on vasoactivity of arteries, integrity of the vascular endothelium and on primary stress hormones of the Atlantic salmon. J. Fish Biol. 45: 973-995.

Swail, V.R., V.J. Cardone, M. Ferguson, D.J. Gummer, E.L. Harris, E.A. Orelup and A.T. Cox, 2006 The MSC50 Wind and Wave Reanalysis. 9th International Wind and Wave Workshop, September 25-29, 2006, Victoria, B.C.

Swennen, C. 1989. Gull predation upon eider Somateria mollissima ducklings: destruction or elimination of the unfit? Ardea 77:21-44.

Szaro, R.C., G. Hensler and G.H. Heinz. 1981. Effects of Chronic Ingestion of No. 2 Fuel Oil on Mallard Ducklings. Journal of Toxicology and Human Health, 7: 789-799.

Templeman, N.D. 2007. Placentia Bay-Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area ecologically and biologically significant areas. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/052.

Templeman, W. 1984. Migrations of Wolffishes, Anarhichas sp., from tagging in the Newfoundland Area. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science, 5: 93-97.

Templeman, W. 1985. Stomach contents of Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) from the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO Scientific Council Studies, 8: 49-51.

Templeman, W. 1986. Contribution to the biology of the spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) in the Northwest Atlantic. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science, 7: 47-55.

Terhune, J.M. 1999. Pitch separation as a possible jamming-avoidance mechanism in underwater calls of bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). Can. J. Zool. 77(7):1025-1034.

Therkildsen, N.O., and C.W. Petersen. 2006. A review of the emerging fishery for the sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa: Biology, policy, and future prospects. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin #23.

Thomas, B. R.,E. C. Kent and V. R. Swail. 2004: Methods to Homogenize Wind Speeds from Ships and Buoys, accepted by Int. J. Climatology., September 2004

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 335

Thomas, J.A., R.A. Kastelein and F.T. Awbrey. 1990. Behavior and blood catecholamines of captive belugas during playbacks of noise from an oil drilling platform. Zoo Biol. 9(5):393-402.

Thomas, P. W. 2008. Harlequin Ducks in Newfoundland. Waterbirds 31:44-49.

Thompson, P.M., M. Sjöberg, E.B. Bryant, P. Lovell and A. Bjørge. 1998. Behavioural and physiological responses of harbour (Phoca vitulina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys. p. 134. In: The World Marine Mammal Science Conference Proceedings, Monaco.

Thompson, R.J. and D.A. Aggett. 1981. Biological and oceanographic descriptions of the Labrador Sea region. Report to Can. National Parks Service, Ottawa, ON.130 p.

Thomsen, B. 2002. An experiment on how seismic shooting affects caged fish. Faroese Fisheries Laboratory, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

Thomson, D.H., R.A. Davis and T. Hillis. 1991. Effects of Operational Discharges from Ships on Marine Life. Unpublished report by LGL Ltd. for Government Consulting Group, Ottawa and Canadian Coast Guard, Ottawa, ON. 30 p.

Threfall, W. and R.I. Goudie. 1986. Marine Bird Observations at Placentia Bay and Cape St. Mary’s, 1973-76. Canadian Wildlife Service Atlantic Region Technical Report Series No. 6.

Todd, S, P. Stevick, J. Lien, F. Marques and D. Ketten. 1996. Behavioural effects of exposure to underwater explosions in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Can. J. Zool. 74(9): 1661-1672.

Todd, V.L.G., W.D. Pearse, N.C. Tregenza, P.A. Lepper, and I.B. Todd. 2009. Diel echolocation activity of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) around North Sea offshore gas installations. ICES J. Mar. Sci Advance Access:1- 12.

Tracy, D.M., D. Schamel and J. Dale. 2002. Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius). In The Birds of North America, No. 698, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Trivelpiece, W.Z., R.G. Butler, D.S. Miller and D.B. Peakall. 1984. Reduced Survival of Chicks of Oil-dosed Adult Leach’s Storm-petrels. The Condor, 86: 81-82.

Trudel, K. 1985. Zooplankton. Part 3.3. In. W.S. Duval (ed.), A Review of the Biological Fate and Effects of Oil in Cold Marine Environments. Report by ESL Limited, S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. and Artic Laboratories Ltd. for Environment Canada, Edmonton, AB. 242 p.

Tuck, L.M. 1961. The murres: their distribution, populations and biology – a study of the genus Uris. Canadian Wildlife Service Monographs No. 1. 260 pp.

Tufts, R. W. 1986. Birds of Nova Scotia. Third edition, Nimbus Publishing Limited and The Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, NS. 478 p.

United States Geological Survey, Conservation Division, 1979. OCS Platform Verification Program. Reston, Virginia.

Vahl, O. 1982. Long-term variations in recruitment of the Iceland scallop, Chlamys islandica, from northern Norway. Netherlands J. Sea Res. 16: 80-87.

Vangilder, L.D. and T.J. Peterle. 1980. South Louisiana Crude Oil and DDE in the Diet of Mallard Hens: Effects on Reproduction and Duckling Survival. Bulletin Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 25: 23-28.

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. VanVleet and G. Bossart. 1986. Study of the effects of oil on marine turtles. Final report to Minerals Management Service MMS Contract No. 14-12-0001-30063. 181 p.

Vazquez, A. 2002. Results from bottom trawl survey on Flemish Cap of July 2001. NAFO SCR Doc. 02/12.

Versluis, M., B. Schmitz, A. von der Heydt, and D. Lohse. 2000. How snapping shrimp snap: through cavitating bubbles. Science 289 (5487): 2114-2117.

Walsh, S.J., M.F. Veitch, E.G. Colbourne, and W.B. Brodie. 2007. The 2007 interim monitoring report of yeloowtail flounder stock status on the Grand Bank, NAFO Divisions 3LNO. NAFO SCR Doc. 07/51.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 336

Walton, P., C.M.R. Turner, G. Austin, M.D. Burns and P. Monaghan. 1997. Sub-lethal Effects of an Oil Pollution Incident on Breeding Kittiwakes Rissa Tridactyla. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 155: 261-268.

Wang, J.Y., D.E. Gaskin and B.N. White. 1996. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of harbour porpoise, Phoecena phoecena, subpopulations in North American waters. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 1632-1645.

Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson and D. Mackie. 2001. Effects of seismic air guns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research 21: 1005- 1027.

Wareham, V.E. 2009. Updates on deep-sea coral distributions in the Newfoundland, Labrador, and Arctic Regions, Northwest Atlantic. pp. 4-22. In: K. Gilkinson and E. Edinger (eds). The ecology of deep-sea corals of Newfoundland and Labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2830.

Wareham, V.E. and Edinger, E.N. 2007. Distributions of deep-sea corals in the Newfoundland and Labrador region, Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Bull. Mar. Sci. 81, Suppl 1: 289-312.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield-Walsh, K. Maze-Foley and editors. 2007. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments--2007. NMFS-NE-205. NOAA Tech. Memo. 415 p.

Watkins, W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 2: 251-262.

Weber, D.D., D.J. Maynard, W.D. Gronlund and V. Konchin. 1981. Avoidance Reactions of Migrating Adult Salmon to Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38: 779-781.

Weilgart, L.S. 2007. A brief review of known effects of noise on marine mammals. Int. J. Comp. Psych. 20:159-168.

Weinrich, M.T., C.R. Belt and D. Morin. 2001. Behavior and ecology of the Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) in coastal New England waters. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17: 231-248.

Weir, C.R. 2007. Observations of marine turtles in relation to seismic airgun sound off Angola. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 116:17- 20.

Weir, C.R. 2008. Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales (Physeter macro- cephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic exploration off Angola. Aquat. Mamm. 34(1):71-83.

Welaptega Consulting. 1993. Biofouling management considerations for the Hibernia development. Final Report for Hibernia Management and Development Company. 141 p + Appendix.

Wells P.G. 1972. Influence of Venezuelan Crude Oil on Lobster Llarvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 3: 105-106.

Westgate, A.J., A.J. Read, P. Berggen, H.N. Koopman and D.E. Gaskin. 1995. Diving behaviour of harbour porpoises, Phoecena phoecena. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 1064-1073.

Westgate, A.J., A.J. Read, T.M. Cox, T.D. Schofield, B.R. Whitaker and K.E. Anderson. 1998. Monitoring a rehabilitated harbor porpoise using satellite telemetry. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 14(3): 599-604.

Whitehead, H. 1982. Populations of humpback whales in the Northwest Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission 32: 345-353.

Whitehead, H. and C. Glass. 1985. The significance of the Southeast Shoal of the Grand Bank to humpback whales and other cetacean species. Can. J. Zool. 63: 2617-2625.

Whitehead, H. and T. Wimmer. 2005. Heterogeneity and the mark-recapture assesement of the Scotian Shelf population of northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 2573-2585.

Wiens, J.A. 1995. Recovery of Seabirds Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: An Overview. pp. 854-893. In: P.G. Wells, J.N. Butler and J.S. Hughes (eds.), Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan waters, ASTM STP 1219. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 965 pp.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 337

Wiens, J.A., T.O. Crist, R.H. Day, S.M. Murphy and G.D. Hayward. 1996. Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Marine Bird Communities in Prince William Sound. Alaska. Ecological Applications, 6: 828-841.

Wiese F.K. and G.J. Robertson. 2004. Assessing seabird mortality from chronic oil discharges at sea. J. Wildl. Manage. 68(3): 627-638.

Wiese, F.K. and P.C. Ryan. 1999. Trends of Chronic Oil Pollution in Southeast Newfoundland Assessed Through Beached- bird Surveys 1984-1997. Bird Trends, No.7: 36-40.

Wiese, F.K. and P.C. Ryan. 2003. The extent of chronic marine oil pollution in southeastern Newfoundland waters assessed through beached-bird surveys, 1984-1999. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 1090-1101.

Wilbur, H.M. 1969. The breeding biology of leach’s petrel; Oceanodroma leucorhoa. Auk 86:433-442.

Wiley, R.H. and D.S. Lee. 1998. Long-tailed Jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus). In The Birds of North America, No. 365, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Wiley, R.H. and D.S. Lee. 1999. Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus). In The Birds of North America, No. 445, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Wiley, R.H. and D.S. Lee. 2000. Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 483, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Williams, A.S. 1985. Rehabilitating Oiled Seabirds. In: J. Burridge and M. Kane (eds.). A Field Manual. International Bird Rescue Research Center, Berkely CA. 79 p.

Williams, R., A.W. Trites, and D.E. Bain. 2002. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. J. Zool. 256:255-270.

Williams, U. and J. Chardine. nd. The Leach’s Storm-Petrel: General Information and handling Instructions.

Williams, U., F. Power, B. Wylie, R. Dugal, M. Fefer, J. Kiceniuk, B. Hunter, J. Payne, and E. DeBlois. 2002. Update on environmental implications of the cuttings management option selected for use on the Terra Nova offshore oil development. Presented at IBC 10th Annual International Conference. Minimizing the Environmental Effects of Drilling Operations, 4-5 March, 2002. London, UK. 43 p.

Wilson, B. and L.M. Dill. 2002. Pacific herring respond to stimulated odontocete echolocation sounds. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59: 542-553.

Wimmer, T. and H. Whitehead. 2004. Movements and distribution of northern bottlenose whales, Hyperoodon ampullatus, on the Scotian Slope and in adjacent waters. Can. J. Zool. 82: 1782-1794.

Winn, H.E., C.A. Price and P.W. Sorenson. 1986. The distributional biology of the right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission Spec. Iss. 10: 129-138.

Winters, G.H. 1983. Analysis of the biological and demographic parameters of the northern sand lance. Ammodytes dubius, from the Newfoundland Grand Bank. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 40: 409-419.

Wiseman, D.L. 1997. Effects of Prey Density and Temperature on Survival, Growth and Behaviour of Newly Hatched Striped Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus). Master’s in Aquaculture Thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland. 90 pp.

Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet in the western north Atlantic ocean, 1992-1995. Fish. Bull. 97: 200-211.

Woodley, T.H. and D.E. Gaskin. 1996. Environmental characteristics of North Atlantic right and fin whale habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Zool. 75: 75-84.

Wooller, R. D. and J. C. Coulson. 1977. Factors affecting the age of first breeding in the Kittiwake. Ibis 119:339-349.

Wright, A.J., N. Aguila Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.S. Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo di

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 338

Sciara, and V. Martin. 2007a. Do marine mammals experience stress related to anthropogenic noise? Int. J. Comp. Psych. 20(2-3):274-316.

Wright, A.J., N. Aguila Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.S. Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara and V. Martin. 2007b. Anthropogenic noise as a stressor in animals: A multidisciplinary perspective. Int. J. Comp. Psych. 20(2-3): 250-273.

Würsig, B., C.R. Greene Jr. and T.A. Jefferson. 2000. Development of an air bubble curtain to reduce underwater noise of percussive piling. Mar. Environ. Res. 48: 1-15.

Zelick, R., D.A. Mann and A.N. Popper. 1999. Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs. In: (eds.) R.R. Fay and A.N. Popper. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Personal Communications

Boland, C. DFO, 2009 Brattey, J. DFO, in JW 2007 Brazil, J. Newfoundland Piping Plover Working Group Budgell, T. DFA, 2009 Cahill, F. DFO, in Templeman 2007 C-NLOPB 2009 Foote, W. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Hawkins, D. C-NLOPB Kulka, D. DFO Lawson, J. DFO, 2009 Linegar, P. 2006 Mactavish, B. LGL Ltd, 2009 Mercer, D. DFO, in JW 2007 Mercier, F. Parks Canada Payne, J. DFO Piper, David GSC, BIO, 2009 Robertson, G. EC, in Thomas 2008 Taylor, D. Husky Wheeler, J. DFO, in JW 2007 Williams, U. Petro-Canada WWF in Templeman 2007

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page 339

Appendix 1 - Report on Industry, Agency and Community Consultations

Introduction

Consultations for this Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) report were undertaken with relevant agencies and SEA area stakeholder groups during May and June 2009. Meetings were held in Port aux Basques, Burgeo, Marystown, St. Bride’s and St. John’s. These consultations were organized and coordinated by Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., with additional assistance from the Mountain Marine Zonal Board, the Schooner Regional Development Board, the Burgeo Town Council, and fisher representatives in Burgeo, Marystown and St. Bride’s.

Information and background data pertaining to the SEA were sent via email to various agency representatives and potential participants prior to face-to-face meetings and/or follow-up telephone interviews.

A representative of the C-NLOPB and a member of LGL’s Study Team attended area-level meetings scheduled in various SEA area communities. At each meeting, following general introductions and a short discussion of the purpose of the consultations, the Board’s representative, Elizabeth Young, presented an overview outlining the C- NLOPB’s role and mandate, the purpose and scope of the SEA process and a review of the various environmental components to be addressed in the SEA Report. Other information provided by the consultants was then presented and reviewed.

Following these presentations, there was a general round-table discussion that included comments and questions from participants concerning various aspects of the SEA process, potential offshore exploration and development activities, and issues and concerns about the fisheries and marine environmental components. All of the comments, questions and issues raised by participants were noted and recorded.

Appendix 1 contains a complete list of the agencies, individuals and groups who participated in the consultation meetings or else received SEA background documents and other related information for their review and comment.

Issues and Concerns

The following sections provide a summary of the topics and issues discussed at each consultation meeting, or with other stakeholders via telephone and/or email communication.

Fisheries and Oceans. DFO representatives provided a detailed description of the department’s ongoing Large Ocean Management Area (LOMA) processes, and the various initiatives and research efforts associated with identifying Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) within a specific LOMA located within the SEA study area (the Placentia Bay/Grand Banks LOMA.

The consultants asked how the LOMA process might relate to the SEA process; for example, will some of the significant areas within a particular LOMA eventually be “off limits” to oil and gas exploration? DFO’s Ocean Governance Co-ordinator noted. the LOMA process is in its early stages and specific management measures have not yet been identified for EBSAs. There are a suite of potential management measures that may be established, not just strict protection. It was further suggested that, in a call for bids process, the C-NLOPB should be aware of the ecological or biological significance of EBSAs. It was also noted that, if a MPA was designated, there could potentially be relevant conditions attached to that MPA vis-à-vis any potential restrictions on oil and gas exploration activities with that area.

In future, then, the presence of an EBSA might be expected to give industry proponents, or the C-NLOPB, a “heads up” about some offshore areas. In other words, although DFO managers cannot yet say with certainty that a particular offshore area would be “off limits” to oil and gas exploration activities, at present the EBSA process at least serves to raise a “red flag” to the industry regarding the significance of such areas.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page A-1

Following a review of the draft SEA report, DFO managers offered further comments on EBSAs, and some of the concerns raised by the fishing industry regarding future policy for these areas. DFO managers noted: "There appears to be some confusion and apprehension regarding some of the tools and approaches that Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) utilizes for the protection of fish, fish habitat, and ecological areas. The identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) is not a general strategy for protecting all habitats and marine communities that have some ecological significance. Rather, it is a tool for highlighting an area that has particularly high ecological or biological significance and to facilitate provision of a greater-than-usual degree of risk aversion in the management of activities in these areas of high ecological and biological significance.

Just because an area is identified as an EBSA, does not give it any special legal status. In terms of restrictions or special protection measures, the identification simply provides guidance on the standard of management that is considered to be appropriate.

DFO NL Region has identified 11 EBSAs within the Placentia Bay Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area (PBGB LOMA). Such areas may require some level of protection, which may be achieved by implementing a Fisheries Act closure, a Marine Protected Area, or perhaps may be addressed through some other avenue such as a National Marine Conservation Area, or a Marine Wildlife Area. The most appropriate form of protection will be determined in consultation with DFO Science and FAM, other federal or provincial departments with a mandate to establish marine conservation areas, as well as affected stakeholders.

As a result of informal discussion with key stakeholder groups, and the application of technical and feasibility criteria, five of the 11 EBSAs were put forward for formal consultation with stakeholders. Of the five EBSAs put forward, for this formal consultation, three: the Southwest Shelf Edge and Slope; St. Pierre Bank; and the Laurentian Channel are located within or adjacent to the SEA study area. Following consultations, DFO - NL Region will recommend one of the five EBSAs as the regional Area of Interest (AOI) for MPA designation by 2012.

There are also questions regarding activities that would be permitted within MPAs. The activities that take place within an Oceans Act MPA will depend on the conservation priorities set for each particular site. DFO will work with local resource users to identify activities that will be permitted within future MPAs. The level and types of activities permitted within a particular MPA may range from strict protection to multiple uses. The objective of a MPA is to conserve and protect the ecological integrity of marine ecosystems, species and their habitats. Management Plans for a specific MPA will be developed with involvement of local resource users and affected parties." (G. Coughlan, pers comm., July 2009).

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DFA)

DFA was contacted for an update on aquacultural operations in the western portion of the SEA area, i.e. the shoreline area between Grey River and Port aux Basques. Previous consultations (2006) had identified the location of a licenced cod grow-out operation at Venil’s Island close to Burgeo. The department’s Manager of Aquaculture Licencing and Inspections reports that this site is no longer operative and the licence has lapsed. However he notes that the department has received applications for four salmonids sites in Bay de Vieux, just to the west of Grey River (T. Budgell, pers comm., July 2009).

Port aux Basques - Rose Blanche - Burgeo Fisher Meetings. In 2006, during consultations for the Sydney Basin SEA, fish harvesters operating in various fishing communities between Port aux Basques and Burgeo provided extensive comments about their region’s fisheries resources as well as their concerns about future offshore oil exploration activities and potential interactions with their established fisheries.

Meetings for these same fishers were scheduled and advertised as part of the area-level consultations for this SEA report. But, for various reasons, fishers did not attend the meetings in Port aux Basques or Burgeo. However, the FFAW’s Stewardship Advocate attended both meetings and provded some general comments on the area’s fisheries milieu.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page A-2

Port aux Basques Meeting. The Port aux Basques area meeting was organized with the assistance of the Marine Mountain Zone Corporation (MMZC), and was well attended by various Corporation Board members representing a range of local groups and agencies.

A number of general questions and comments were raised and discussed following the Study Team’s presentation.

With respect to special or sensitive areas or resources within the region, it was noted that a large number of shipwreck sites have been identified, including a heritage wreck just off Isle aux Mort.

It was noted that a MPA is being considered for the region (in the Burgeo area), and someone asked if that area would be closed to exploration activities while it was being considered for a MPA. Another person asked if oil exploration activities would be detrimental to some of the marine resources within a MPA.

Concern was also raised that if an EBSA is declared this might act as an impediment to the development of the region’s oil and gas resources. For example, it was suggested that an oil company might decide not to explore for oil in an EBSA because that area might be closed to oil-related operations in the future. It was also noted that all of these “environmental rules” were not in place when Hibernia was being developed, and that these new regulations, etc., would make it more difficult to get an offshore industry started in this region. There were a few questions about exploration licences, e.g. how many years does a company have before it has to drill a well, and how long might it take to get some oil development activity underway in the region.

The Corporation’s Executive Director, who is also a member of the SEA Working Group, noted that she would be reviewing the draft SEA report and distributing copies to various local agencies and stakeholders for their comments.

Burgeo Town Council. Discussions with Council representatives focused on the area’s plans for establishing a NMCA, and on several concerns fishers have raised regarding the potential negative effects on fisheries resources from previous and future oil and gas exploration activities.

The Mayor explained the situation regarding the proposed NMCA initiative noting many of the same points he raised in previous consultations with the Board (Sydney Basin SEA, 2006), and reported that Council and other local groups have made very little progress on this matter in the past three years. He reiterated that the NMCA initiative was launched in 2003 under the auspices of the Burgeo Economic Diversification Board (BEDB), and that the project has the support and endorsement of many local groups and area fishers. If approved, the NMCA would cover a relatively large coastal and inshore zone, approximately from Grand Bruit to Francois out to about 15 km offshore. However, it seems that the project is being held up because the relevant federal and provincial agencies cannot agree how to proceed.

If an MCA is eventually declared, it remains unclear whether oil and gas exploration activities would be permitted within that area. Another Councilor asked if the designation of a MCA would affect Husky’s exploration of its lease area in the Burgeo Bank area.

The Mayor also noted that local fishers remain concerned about the negative effects of oil and gas exploration activities. They have reported that a seismic vessel went through some crab grounds 80 km offshore three years ago and crab have since “disappeared” from that area. A Councilor, who is also a fisher representative, said that fishers report finding a significant increase in the number of lobsters close to shore and claim that offshore seismic operations had “driven these lobsters inshore”. He went on to note that the western portion of the St. Pierre Bank is a relatively new crab fishing area, and fishers might be concerned if exploration activities were to take place in that zone. Another person asked if there have been any studies undertaken to assess the potential effects of seismic operations on crab. LGL’s biologist responded to this question describing the research his firm had done on the effects of seismic on crab several years ago. Council members suggested that exploration companies should consult with fishers regarding the best time to conduct seismic surveys in this region.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page A-3

In a final comment, one Council member said that, if any offshore exploration activities do take place in this area, the community would like to see Burgeo used as an onshore supply / service base for those activities.

Marystown Meeting. The Marystown meeting was organized with the assistance of the Schooner Regional Development Corporation. Most of the discussion at this meeting focused on the offshore harvesting activities within the SEA area by vessels operated by Ocean Choice International (OCI). The manager responsible for OCI’s fleet spoke about his company’s fisheries and how they relate to DFO’s LOMA initiative, in particular the potential implications of the departmental identification of EBSAs. OCI’s fleet manager, along with other industry agency representatives - e.g., GEAC - is a member of the stakeholder-based PB/GB LOMA Committee involved in the LOMA process.

Based on discussions within the DFO working group, the fishing industry’s view is that DFO’s long-term intention is to designate one or more MPAs and that the identification of EBSAs is an important part of the process of selecting an offshore area as a candidate for a MPA. As such, OCI and GEAC have indicated to the department which area the fishing industry would prefer to see designated as a MPA, if DFO proceeds to establish such an area (or areas).

OCI (and other offshore harvesting firms) would like certain specific offshore areas to be “off limits” for a MPA. These include the St. Pierre Bank area, which is an important cod fishing zone for OCI’s fleet, and likewise the Burgeo Bank area which is one of the company’s key redfish grounds. OCI has told DFO that the declaration of a MPA on the Southeast Shoal would result in a closure of the company’s Marystown processing facility because that is where the company harvests its yellowtail.

As such, OCI has told DFO that, if a MPA is to be declared, it should be within the NAFO-designated Coral Protection Zone (CPZ), since OCI (or it predecessor company FPI) have never been overly dependent on that particular area, though it was noted that OCI continues to fish redfish in the CPZ using mid-water trawls which do not come in contact with the coral species in this zone.

By extension, in light of the above discussion, it is evident that OCI would also prefer that future oil and gas exploration actives avoid having any negative effects on the company’s key, important fishing grounds in the offshore areas identified above, i.e. Burgeo Bank, St. Pierre Bank and the Southeast Shoal.

The meeting ended with a brief question from the Corporation’s Executive Director concerning ConocoPhillips’ plans to drill a well in the Laurentian Sub-Basin. The Corporation wanted to know the date the company needed to do this work in order to meet its lease obligations. It was also noted that area fishers are relatively pleased with the results of the ESRF-funded research undertaken to assess the potential negative effects of seismic operations on monkfish eggs.

St. Bride’s Meeting. Together with several other enterprises from this community, fishers attending the meeting take a portion of their annual catch (crab, cod and other groundfish) within the SEA area, e.g. in 3PSF and 3PSn. They noted their concern that eventually, they might be excluded from fishing in the EBSAs that have been identified by DFO. The CPZ within 3O is a much better turbot fishing area compared to other 3PS fishing zones where this species is now taken.

They would prefer not to see any exploration activities in the St. Pierre Bank area, and suggest that the Halibut Channel should also be “off limits” to oil activities. They take a significant portion of their crab in this area. Grounds along the edge of the slope are also important areas for monkfish, cod and halibut, and the Easter and Wester Gullies – especially areas where water depths are between 450 – 750 fathoms – are important grounds for these and other 3PS fishers as well.

Conne River Band Council. During preparation of the Sydney Basin SEA report, in 2006, the SEA study team obtained detailed information on the type and location of fish harvesting activities that were under the jurisdiction of the Conne River Band Council (“the Council”). The SEA report presented a detailed description of those fisheries.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page A-4

In the process of preparing the present SEA report, the consultants contacted the Council’s fisheries resource manager for an update on the harvesting activities of Band members. The description prepared for the 2006 SEA report was sent to the Operations Manager for her comment and review. She subsequently reported that there have been no changes in the Band’s communal/commercial fisheries operations since 2006 (J. Drake, pers comm., June 2009).

Environment Canada. Agency mangers received relevant background information on the SEA process and study research. In response, the agency’s EC’s Environmental Assessment Coordinator indicated that he and his managers will be reviewing the draft SEA report and providing any written comments to the Board (G. Troke, pers comm., June 2009).

Fish Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW) Meeting. Following a presentation by LGL’s representative, there was a short discussion of the DFO LOMA process, and the designation of various EBSAs offshore. The FFAW’s representative in this process has suggested to DFO that, if the department wants to create a Marine Protected Area, they should establish one within the existing NAFO CPZ.

Commenting on the various commercial fish species that LGL had identified as being economically important, it was noted that the economic value and importance of a particular species can vary greatly over time, depending on market conditions, product prices and resource abundance. As such, it was suggested that a 10-year perspective might not be long enough to identify which species are of economic importance to harvesters vis-a-vis future oil and gas exploration activities.

FFAW managers noted that fishers are becoming more and more concerned about the additional costs incurred in having to steam around the existing offshore production facilities located in the Jean d’Arc Basin area. Though it was acknowledged that this matter is not within the geographic scope of the present SEA study, it is nevertheless an issue which will become of greater concern to the fishing industry as exploration activities expand and as more oil fields come into production.

Concern was expressed about the potential negative effects on fisheries resources of seismic activities, and mention was made of fisher reports that seismic survey operations in the Laurentian Channel several years ago drove all of the crab away from established fishing grounds. FFAW managers reiterated their view regarding the need for long-term monitoring to assess any negative effects on fish and fisheries operations. It was also suggested that, during their regular exploration activities, oil companies could help fill data gaps in our knowledge of fisheries resources. For example, ROV operations associated with various exploration activities could be used to gather data to identify spawning areas.

One Ocean.

One Ocean’s representative did not raise any specific environmental concerns or issues with respect to the SEA area. As a general comment, it was noted that there is a need for better/improved communications between the oil and gas industry and fisheries participants. It was suggested that the Union Forum would be one of the venues used to keep fishers up to date about ongoing fisheries environmental research and upcoming surveys and other exploration activities.

Natural History Society (NHS). Members of the NHS received relevant background information on the SEA process and the SEA environmental assessment report, but have not yet responded with any comments or concerns.

Association of Seafood Producer (ASP)

The consultants met with the Association’s Executive Director to review and discuss the SEA process and the fisheries data to be included in the SEA report. The ASP had no major concerns or issues with respect to the proposed SEA Area, and the Executive Director noted that his group always appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on offshore oil and gas activities as they relate to the province’s fisheries industry.

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page A-5

Ocean Choice International (OCI). OCI’s Manager of Fleet Administration and Scheduling attended the Marystown meeting organized by the Schooner Regional Development Corporation. His comments are included in the report of that meeting, as discussed above.

Other Corporate Harvesting Firms and Agencies. Background information on the SEA area and on the SEA environmental assessment process were sent to relevant managers of Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership, Icewater Fisheries Ltd., and also to the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council. However, to date, none of these groups have responded with any comments or concerns.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

DFO Jim Meade, Senior Regional Habitat Biologist Geoff Coughlan, Oceans Governance Co-ordinator (Oceans Division) Leon Slaney, Area Chief of Resource Management, Grand Bank Office

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DFA) Todd Budgell, Manager, Aquaculture Licencing and Inspections (Grand Falls)

Environment Canada Glenn Troke, Environmental Assessment Coordinator

Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership Rik Scheffers, Director of Fleet Operations

Icewater Fisheries Ltd. Michael O’Connor, Fish Harvesting Consultant Tom Osbourne, Plant Manager, Arnold’s Cove

Ocean Choice International (OCI) Derek Fudge, Manager, Fleet Administration and Scheduling, OCI Marystown

Association of Seafood Producers E. Derek Butler, Executive Director One Ocean Maureen Murphy, Director of Operations

Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council (Ottawa) Bruce Chapman, Executive Director

Conne River Band Council Joeleen Drake, Operations Manager, Communal/Commercial Fisheries

FFAW Robyn Saunders, Petroleum Industry Liaison Mildred Skinner, Inshore Council Executive Board Member George Feltam, Vice-President, Inshore Council Bill Broderick, Director of the Inshore Sector John Boland, Staff Representative Mandy Ryan, Stewardship Advocate

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page A-6

Port aux Basques Meeting - Mountain Marine Zonal Board (MMZB) Debbie Munden, Executive Director, MMZB Doreen Hardy, MMZB Sherry Kinch, Chamber of Commerce Gary White, Chamber of Commerce Bruce Billard, MMZB / Town of Channel-Port aux Basques Blandford Billard, MMZB / Town of Channel-Port aux Basques Fonse Pittman, MMZB / College of the North Atlantic Jan Peddle, College of the North Atlantic Bryson Webb, Chair, Community and Business Development Corporation / MMZB Baxter House, INTRD

Marystown Meeting Paul McGinn, Executive Director, Schooner regional Development Corporation June Petten, Area resident

Burgeo Town Council George Reid, Mayor June Hiscock, Councilor Dave MacDonald, Councilor Gerald MacDonald, Councilor Blaine Marks, Town Manager (and Board Member, Long Range Regional Economic Development Board)

St. Bride’s Fishers Kevin McGrath, Fish Harvester Clarence Foley, Fish Harvester

Natural History Society Len Zedel, MUN

Southern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment – Draft 2 Page A-7