GXT Northeast Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Environmental Impact Assessment

(from GXT’s Survey Program Application)

Prepared for the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum

Nuuk, Greenland

GX Technology Corporation

May 2011

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 0

GX Technology Corporation

May 2011 (with revisions, July 2011)

Prepared by GXT with assistance (environmental impact assessment) from LGL Ltd, St. John‘s and King City, Canada

Cover photos by Kevin Simpson, GXT

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 1

Contents

1 Relevant Project Components and Method...... 5 1.1 Recent Studies and Assessments ...... 6 2 Project Area Environment (Physical, Biological and Human Use) ...... 8 2.1 Physical Oceanography ...... 8 2.1.1 Currents ...... 8 2.1.2 Ice ...... 8 2.2 Biological Environment ...... 9 2.2.1 Primary Production, Zooplankton and Marine Invertebrates ...... 9 2.2.2 Ice Fauna and Flora ...... 9 2.2.3 Fish ...... 9 2.2.4 Marine-Associated Birds ...... 9 2.2.5 Marine Mammals ...... 10 2.2.6 Threatened Species ...... 17 2.2.7 Protected Areas and Areas of Interest ...... 18 2.2.8 Subsistence Hunting and Fisheries ...... 18 3 Impact Assessment...... 20 3.1 Impact Assessment Methods...... 20 3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ...... 20 3.3 Identification of Potential Impacts ...... 21 3.4 Impact Definitions and Evaluation of Impact Significance ...... 22 3.4.1 Magnitude of Impacts ...... 23 3.4.2 Spatial Extent ...... 27 3.4.3 Duration of Impacts ...... 27 3.4.4 Significance of Impacts...... 27 3.4.5 Level of Confidence ...... 28 3.5 Potential Impact of Project Activities ...... 28 3.5.1 Underwater Sound ...... 28 3.5.2 Effects of Sound on Marine Animals...... 29 3.6 Effects on Marine Mammals (Seismic Array) ...... 32 3.6.1 Narwhals ...... 32 3.6.2 Bowhead Whales ...... 35 3.6.3 Walruses ...... 37 3.6.4 Seals ...... 38 3.6.5 Polar Bears ...... 39 3.7 Effects on Marine Mammals (Vessel and Ice Breaker Traffic) ...... 40 3.7.1 Narwhal ...... 40 3.7.2 Bowhead Whales ...... 41 3.7.3 Walrus ...... 41 3.7.4 Seals ...... 42 3.7.5 Polar Bears ...... 42 3.8 Effects on Marine-associated Birds ...... 42 3.8.1 Potential Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds ...... 43 3.8.2 Potential Effects of Vessel and Icebreaker Traffic ...... 44 3.9 Effects on Zooplankton ...... 44 3.10 Effects on Macroinvertebrates ...... 45 3.10.1 Sound Detection ...... 45 3.10.2 Potential Effects of Seismic Survey Sound ...... 45 3.11 Effects on Fish ...... 46

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 2

3.11.1 Hearing in Fish ...... 46 3.11.2 Potential Effects of Seismic Survey Sound ...... 47 3.11.3 Potential Effects of Vessel and Icebreaker Sound on Fish ...... 49 3.12 Accidental Events ...... 49 3.12.1 Probability of Occurrence ...... 49 3.12.2 Mitigation ...... 49 3.12.3 Residual Risk ...... 50 3.12.4 Potential Environmental Effects ...... 50 3.13 Cumulative Effects...... 52 3.13.1 Tourism ...... 53 3.13.2 Fishing Activity ...... 53 3.13.3 Research Cruises ...... 53 3.13.4 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts ...... 54 3.14 Data Gaps and Potential Research ...... 54 4 Environmental Management and Mitigations Summary ...... 56 4.1 Best Technology and Best Practices ...... 56 4.2 Marine Mammals and Seismic Array Operations ...... 56 4.3 Fishing Activities ...... 58 4.4 Important Wildlife Areas and Protection Zones ...... 58 4.5 Monitoring ...... 58 4.5.1 Fisheries ...... 58 4.5.2 Marine Mammals ...... 58 4.6 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention ...... 60 4.7 Other Environmental Conditions ...... 60 5 References / Citations ...... 62

Figures

Figure 1. GXT NE Greenland 2011 Seismic Program and Study Areas ...... 7 Figure 2. The Locations of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Ramsar sites ...... 11 Figure 3. Narwhal Summering Areas in and near the Study Area...... 12 Figure 4. Bowhead and Narwhal Protection Zones in and near the Study Area...... 14 Figure 5. Walrus Protection Zones in and near the Study Area...... 16 Figure 6. Oil Spill Sensitive Areas for July to September ...... 52

Tables

Table 1. Greenland Red-listed Marine-associated Species Occurring in the KANUMAS East Assessment Area ...... 17 Table 2. Potential Interactions (Level 1 Matrix) between the Project and VECs ...... 22 Table 3. Summary of Potential Impacts, Proposed Mitigation, and Predicted Residual Impacts for the Project Area VECs ...... 24

Appendix

1. List of Marine-Associated Birds and Summary of their Distribution and Abundance in Northeast Greenland 2. Important Bird Areas and Ramsar Sites within the KANUMAS East Assessment Area 3. Overview of Marine Mammals Occurring in the KANUMAS East Assessment Area.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 3

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 4

GXT 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment

This is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) component of GX Technology Corporation‘s (GXT) 2011 Application to the Greenland Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum (BMP) for its proposed Northeast Greenland offshore survey program. As described below additional technical information is contained in the Application Appendix Volume, and other sections of the Application documents describe (Volume 1) and contain (Volume 2) the detailed safety, emergency response (including spill response), waste management and pollution prevention plans that will be applied during the survey.

1 Relevant Project Components and Method

As described in detail in Section 4.1 – 4.8 of GXT‘s 2011 Application, GX Technology Corporation is proposing to conduct a marine 2-D (single streamer) seismic, gravity and magnetic program located offshore of Northeast Greenland. Data acquisition is expected between July and October 2011. GXT is requesting to permit approximately 12,610 km of seismic lines in Greenland waters. However, it is expected that approximately half this amount will actually be acquired in 2011, if ice conditions are favourable. The additional permitted lines will allow options / alternatives in case some areas have ice that is too heavy for acquisition, or cannot be surveyed for other environmental / environmental protection reasons.

This program is similar to, and overlaps the area of GXT‘s previous two Greenland marine programs conducted successfully and without environmental incidents in 2009 and 2010. As in 2009 and 2010, two vessels will be used for the survey - a seismic source vessel with hull modifications for deploying seismic equipment to work in ice (the Polar Explorer) and an icebreaker, which will go ahead to open leads and channels (the Vladimir Ignatyuk). The Polar Explorer (then named the Geo Explorer) was also used in 2009 and 2010, and the Vladimir Ignatyuk was used for GXT‘s 2009 survey. As in 2009 and 2010, the seismic source ship will tow a compressed air sound source array (28 airguns, 4330 in3 array) and a single submerged solid-core passive hydrophone receiver cable, which will extend up to 8.5 km behind the vessel. (A very similar and successful program was also conducted in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in 2010.)

The maps in this EIS show the location of the seismic lines proposed for 2011. Water depths in the Project Area range from less than 50 m to 3,500 m, and lines range from the closest point, ~22 km from the mainland of Greenland (about 12 km from the closest offshore island), to the maximum offshore point of ~365 km, the outer Greenlandic EEZ boundary. The great majority of the survey acquisition (roughly 90%) is more than 50 km from any shoreline.

1.1 Purpose of the Project

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 5

The overall purpose of the Project is to conduct a marine 2-D seismic, gravity and magnetic data acquisition program located offshore of Northeast Greenland focused on the areas from North Denmarkshavn Salt Basin to Northeast Greenland Volcanic Province and eastward into Thetis Basin. The survey overlaps portions of both the East Greenland and North Greenland BMP licence Regions, though the great majority is in the North Region.

The aim of the 2011 study is to continue to collect seismic data, supplementing GXT‘s 2009 and 2010 programs, to reveal the large scale region-wide geological profile. As with the 2009 and 2010 surveys, the 2011 Project is a Basin Span survey. GXT‘s world-wide Span surveys examine very broad and deep geological formations in and around basin areas using advanced geophysical techniques. They provide information on the geologic evolution, deep basin architecture, and the depositional and structural histories of an entire region. The Northeast Greenland 2009, 2010 and 2011 surveys are part of GXT‘s Arctic Basin Span programs which have been conducted previously in Arctic waters off Alaska, western Canada and Norway. Surveying these ultra-deep formations allows for a better evaluation of the evolution of the geological basin areas, including identifying source rocks, migration pathways, and play types. These programs are not designed to identify specific potential drilling locations.

1.2 Recent Studies and Assessments

The physical oceanography and biological environment of Northeast Greenland have been reviewed as part of a detailed and comprehensive Preliminary Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (PSEIA) of expected activities for the KANUMAS East area (Boertmann et al. 2009a). Funded by the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, and prepared by the National Environmental Research Institute (NERI / DMU) and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (GINR), the PSEIA covers the offshore waters and coastal areas from the eastern Kangerlussuaq Fjord northwards to Amdrup Land (68ºN and 81ºN). All but 5 km of GXT‘s proposed 2011 survey lines (part of one line north of 81ºN ) fall within the KANUMAS East PSEIA assessment area (See Figure 1.)

The environment of the area for this present survey is well described in the KANUMAS East assessment area PSEIA and was also summarized in the GXT EIAs for the 2009 and 2010 2- D surveys in the east and north Greenland Regions (GXT 2009; GXT 2010). The proposed 2011 seismic program occurs entirely within the GXT Study Area applied in the 2010 EIA (shown in Figure 1). For both the 2009 and 2010 survey Applications, comprehensive project-specific environmental assessments were prepared, and reviewed and approved by BMP/NERI.

In the following Section, the physical and biological environments are summarized and largely referenced to the KANUMAS East PSEIA. Section 3 then provides the assessment of potential Project impacts. The section following (Section 4) contains a summary of the environmental protection plan and mitigations, which follow the current BMP/NERI‘s Seismic Guidelines (Boertmann et al. 2010).

Source references for the EIA citations are included at the end of this EIA in Section 5.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 6

Figure 1. GXT NE Greenland 2011 Seismic Program and Study Areas (including areas referenced in the text)

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 7

2 Project Area Environment (Physical, Biological and Human Use)

Because the Project Area environment is well described in several available studies, such as Mosbech et al. (2000), Jensen and Christiansen (2003), Hvidegaard et al. (2008), Boertmann et al. (2009a; 2009b), key features only are presented here. However, a more detailed technical description is also included in Appendix 4 of GXT‘s 2011 Application.

2.1 Physical Oceanography

2.1.1 Currents The dominant current of east Greenland is the cold East Greenland Current which transports massive amounts of cold Arctic water and pack ice southward from the Arctic Ocean. As the current flows south, it encounters the warmer, more saline Irminger Current, a branch of the Gulf Stream, between Iceland and Greenland. Mixing of the two currents causes the East Greenland Current to lose its characteristic polar current traits along the southernmost part of the west coast. The distribution of marine species in Greenland is greatly influenced by the mixing of the currents. The current system of Greenland is also important in the transportation and distribution of sea ice. The East Greenland Current leads the so-called East Greenland Drift Ice (multi-year drift ice of polar origin) from the Arctic Ocean southward.

2.1.2 Ice Sea ice is very important to Greenland ecosystems because of several factors including the distribution and migration of animals, particularly those that need open water to forage or, in the case of marine mammals, breathe. The ice also provides a platform for seals, Atlantic walrus, polar bear and marine birds.

The sea ice around Greenland is dynamic and varies annually and locally in distribution and shape depending on localized wind and current conditions. The ice conditions on the east coast can be severe with dense ice cover during most of the summer period. The temporary or permanent open areas, such as leads and polynyas (open water areas that form within pack ice in almost the same place and time each year), found within sea ice are important productive areas for a variety of marine life. Leads open and close due to changing water levels and are found in coastal areas and around grounded icebergs. Polynyas are important wintering areas for several Arctic marine mammals and birds. The Northeast Water Polynya, which occurs in the northeast waters by Norøstrundingen, is one of the largest polynyas in Greenland waters (Jensen and Christensen 2003).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 8

2.2 Biological Environment

2.2.1 Primary Production, Zooplankton and Marine Invertebrates Primary production off Northeast Greenland (phytoplankton, ice algae embedded in fast or pack ice, and benthic algae) varies geographically with water depth and extent of ice cover. Overall, primary productivity is low in Northeast Greenland because large areas are dominated by heavy ice conditions throughout most summers. Areas near the sea ice edge are biologically more important because they become very productive in terms of nutrient concentrations for other species during the spring thaw. The situation for zooplankton is similar, and are likely most concentrated within polynyas.

Crustaceans compose the largest group of marine invertebrates in Greenland with ~800 species including ecologically important ones, such as copepods and krill, and commercial species, such as pink shrimp (northern shrimp; Pandalus borealis) and snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Molluscs and polychaetes are the next largest groups with 282 and 252 species, respectively.

2.2.2 Ice Fauna and Flora The drifting ice in Northeast Greenland provides habitat for a specialized ecosystem for organisms collectively referred to as ―ice fauna and flora‖. These organisms can form communities that consist of algae living in or on the ice, of small crustaceans (e.g., copepods and amphipods), and of two fish species, namely polar cod (Boregadus saida) and Arctic cod (Arctogadus glacialis), though little is known about these communities in the Northeast Greenland area.

2.2.3 Fish Available data suggests that fish diversity in Northeast Greenland waters is lower than in subarctic or boreal regions. The species identified are largely belong benthic-dwelling families, such as Cottidae (sculpins), Zoarcidae (eelpouts), and Liparidae (snailfishes), of low economic value, but high ecological value as food for many Arctic seabirds and marine mammals. Important fish species are described in detail in Section 4.5 of Boertmann et al. (2009a). For species of commercial interest, no major spawning grounds have been identified in east Greenland waters, and sand lance is noted as the only important fish species that spawns in offshore areas during the summer in these waters. Research to date suggests that localized spawning areas with high concentrations of eggs and larvae near the surface are not likely to occur in the area.

2.2.4 Marine-Associated Birds More than 230 occur in Greenland, with about 75 species occurring regularly, including 58 breeding and 17 non-breeding species. West Greenland‘s bird life is much better known than other regions of the country. This is largely because most of Greenland‘s human population live here. Appendix 1 and 2 of this EIA and Appendix 4 of GXT‘s 2011 Application has more information about the bird species that regularly occur in Northeast Greenland and summarizes their abundance and general distribution. Boertmann et al. (2009a) provided descriptions of important and critical marine habitats for marine-associated birds in the

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 9

KANUMAS East assessment area. The areas summarized include breeding colonies, polynyas, other open water (e.g., river outlets, straits, etc), undisturbed areas (for moulting ducks), and the Greenland Sea marginal ice zone.

There are currently 14 Important Bird Areas (IBAs), as designated by the international bird protection organization BirdLife International, in the KANUMAS East assessment area (Boertmann et al. 2009a; see Figure 2). Of these 14 IBAs, one occurs in the GXT 2011 Study Area and seven others occur within 35 to 113 km of the Study Area. Two of these have also been designated as Ramsar sites. A number of regulations, largely concerning mineral exploration, are currently in place for Greenland‘s Ramsar sites, which include:

 A prohibition of travel within 5 km of a murre site during the breeding season;  A restriction on helicopters and fixed wing aircraft;  A ban on hunting or travel within the Ramsar sites additionally designated entirely or partially as nesting bird reserves; and,  A ban on travel within 500 m of a Ramsar site that is also, in its entirety, designated a nesting bird reserve.

The Ivory Gull is currently listed as Vulnerable on Greenland‘s Red List. Greenland is an international stronghold for the species but the full extent of the breeding population is poorly known. In 2007 and 2008, aerial surveys for seabirds and marine mammals off east and Northeast Greenland, in addition to land surveys and satellite tracking, resulted in locating 35 Ivory Gull breeding sites, including 20 new sites (Gilg et al. 2009). Most of these sites are located in northeasternmost Greenland, including the northern part of the Study Area. See Appendix 1 for a status listing of relevant birds.

2.2.5 Marine Mammals Boertmann et al. (2009a) provide a detailed review of marine mammals which occur in the KANUMAS East assessment area. The authors noted that 19 marine mammal species occur in the assessment area including the polar bear, walrus, four species of seal, and possibly 13 species of cetaceans. Boertmann et al. (2009a) provide descriptions of periods of occurrence, main habitat, distribution, protection and exploitation, Greenland Red List status, and importance of the assessment area to the marine mammal species (see Section 4.7 in Boertmann et al. 2009a). No specific areas have been afforded special status but important ecological areas (as identified by Boertmann et al. 2009a and 2010) are discussed below.

While six species of toothed whales (odontocetes) may occur in the Study Area, only the narwhal is listed as being common in the KANUMAS East assessment area. A significant portion of the global population occurs in the assessment area and the species is a resource for east Greenland communities. This species is also considered a VEC in this EIA. Narwhals usually occur in groups ranging in size from a few individuals to more than 100 and generally occupy relatively shallow summer grounds in fjords and coastal areas (Dietz et al. 1994). Narwhals occur in the wide drift ice belt offshore during the winter. Prior to entering fjords in summer, narwhals tend to congregate along the fast ice edges in spring, waiting for the fjords to open up. Prior to freeze-up of coastal areas in autumn, narwhals migrate to wintering and feeding grounds in deep and densely ice covered waters (Boertmann et al. 2009a).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 10

Figure 2. The Locations of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Ramsar sites within the KANUMAS East Assessment Area. Numbers in the figure correspond to the IBAs listed in Appendix 2 to this EIA.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 11

Figure 3. Narwhal Summering Areas in and near the Study Area.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 12

Narwhal protection zones in east Greenland have been designated for the period of 1 July to 30 September, though based on limited information regarding narwhal distribution (Figure 3 shows narwhal summering areas, based on Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2009b and NERI unpublished data; Figure 4 shows the protection zones based on Boertmann et al. 2010). No narwhals were observed during the 2009 or 2010 GXT seismic surveys off Northeast Greenland (Jones et al. 2009, Mactavish and Lang 2011).

Six species of baleen whales (mysticetes) may occur in the Study Area but little is known about the distribution and abundance of these species in the waters off Northeast Greenland. Bowhead whales were considered a VEC in the PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a) because the species is considered Critically Endangered and it likely occurs regularly (possibly year- round) in the KANUMAS East assessment area, albeit in low numbers (perhaps a few tens). The remaining five species of baleen whales, all rorquals, are present in the Study Area only during summer. Rorquals migrate north to the North Atlantic in the spring and return south to wintering areas in the fall. Very little information is available regarding these species in the Study Area, but sightings have been most common in drift ice clearings or at the edge of fast ice.

Critical bowhead areas, including potential feeding areas, in Northeast Greenland have not been identified because sightings have been few and very dispersed (Boertmann et al. 2009a); however, precautionary protection zones in east Greenland have been designated (see Figure 4, based on Boertmann et al. 2010).

Bowhead whales were not observed during the 2009 GXT seismic survey off Northeast Greenland (Jones et al. 2009). One cetacean sighting observed within the ice fields was categorized as a single unidentified whale during the 2010 GXT seismic survey off Northeast Greenland, but it is suspected that this cetacean was a bowhead whale based on the habitat (pack ice) and on the features observed during the sighting (Mactavish and Lang 2011).

Pinnipeds. Four species of seals (or phocids) are expected to occur in the Study Area including ringed, bearded, harp and hooded seals. Harp seals are most common, followed by hooded seals, ringed seals and bearded seals. Harp and hooded seals are highly migratory species that breed on pack ice off Greenland‘s west and east coasts. Large aggregations of the two species generally whelp and moult in the same areas on the ice off east and Northeast Greenland. Harp seals typically whelp from March to April and moult in late April. Whelping for hooded seals occurs from late March to early April while moulting occurs from June to early July. After whelping and moulting are completed, individuals of both species disperse into open waters. Ringed and bearded seals occur along all of Greenland‘s coasts and are commonly associated with sea ice. Unlike harp and hooded seals, these species do not form large whelping and moulting aggregations. The main breeding habitat for ringed seals is considered to be coastal fast ice and consolidated drift ice. From late March to April, the pups are born in lairs made in snowdrifts.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 13

Figure 4. Bowhead and Narwhal Protection Zones in and near the Study Area.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 14

During the 2009 GXT seismic survey off of Northeast Greenland from August through September, there were 16 sightings (18 individuals) of hooded seals, two sightings (two individuals) of ringed seals, and one sighting each of a harp seal and a bearded seal. During the 2010 GXT seismic survey off of Northeast Greenland from July through September, there were 64 sightings (91 individuals) of hooded seals, 15 sightings (15 individuals) of ringed seals, five sightings (six individuals) of harp seals, and three sightings (three individuals) of bearded seals (Mactavish and Lang 2011). The majority of observed seals during the 2009 and 2010 seismic programs could not be identified to the species level (58 sightings of 65 individuals in 2009 and 99 sightings of 145 individuals in 2010; Jones et al. 2009, Mactavish and Lang 2011).

The biology and ecology of the Atlantic walrus in Northeast Greenland is reviewed for the KANUMAS East assessment area in Section 4.7 of Boertmann et al. 2009a). Boertmann et al. (2009a) suggest that close to 1,000 walrus comprise the east Greenland subpopulation; it is listed as Near Threatened (Boertmann 2008). The Atlantic walrus generally occurs north of ~63ºN, but principally north of ~73ºN. As described by Boertmann et al. (2009a), the most important areas in Northeast Greenland are (1) the haul-out areas and their surrounding waters, (2) the coastal summer concentration areas, and (3) the winter concentration areas. Walruses can also occur several hundred kilometres offshore from April to August. Mating occurs in winter with an apparent peak in January to April.

No walruses were observed during GXT‘s 2009 seismic survey offshore of Northeast Greenland (Jones et al. 2009), but four sightings of single walruses were observed during the 2010 GXT seismic survey (Mactavish and Lang 2011). Several protection zones for walruses exist off east Greenland during 1 June to 30 September, although the Northeast Water Polynya is considered a year-round protection zone (see Figure 5, based on Boertmann et al. 2010).

Polar Bears. The polar bear occurs regularly along the entire east coast of Greenland, but the size of this population is unknown (Boertmann et al. 2009a). During summer, polar bears can be found widely distributed in offshore pack ice and prefer areas with dense ice and ice edges. Some bears may also be found associated with the remnants of landfast ice or on land during the minimal ice conditions in summer and early fall (Born and Wiig 1995 in Boertmann et al. 2009a). In autumn female bears move to coastal areas where they dig a burrow in snow. This maternity den is where the cubs are born in later winter (Boertmann et al. 2009a).

Polar bear sightings were widespread off of Northeast Greenland during NERI aerial surveys in 2008 (Boertmann et al. 2009b). There were also four sightings (of four individuals) and 21 sightings (24 individuals) during the 2009 and 2010 GXT seismic surveys, respectively, off of Northeast Greenland (Jones et al. 2009, Mactavish and Lang 2011). The biology and ecology of polar bears in Northeast Greenland is extensively reviewed for the KANUMAS East assessment area (see Section 4.7 in Boertmann et al. 2009a).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 15

Figure 5. Walrus Protection Zones in and near the Study Area

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 16

2.2.6 Threatened Species Three species of marine mammals and nine species of marine-associated bird species that occur in the KANUMAS East assessment area are listed on the Greenland red list (Boertmann 2008; Boertmann et al. 2009a). In addition, there are seven marine mammals that are currently categorized as Data Deficient or Not Applicable, but may become red-listed when additional information is available. The Data Deficient or Not Applicable species include bearded seal, blue whale, killer whale, white-beaked dolphin, narwhal (east Greenland population), sperm whale, and northern bottlenose whale. Appendix 3 to GXT‘s EIA provides details on relevant species.

Table 1. Greenland Red-listed Marine-associated Species Occurring in the KANUMAS East Assessment Area

Critically Near Endangered Vulnerable Species/Subspecies/Population Endangered Threatened (EN) (VU) (CR) (NT) Polar Bear X Walrus X Bowhead Whale X Great Northern Diver X Light Bellied Brent X Sabines Gull X Ross‘s Gull X Black-legged Kittiwake X1 Ivory Gull X Arctic Tern X1 Brünnich‘s Guillemot X Atlantic Puffin X

Note: 1Applies to the entire Greenland population and red-listed because the west Greenland population is decreasing, a trend not apparent in east Greenland. Source: Boertmann (2008) and Boertmann et al. (2009a). The red list was prepared using regional guidelines issued by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2001 and 2003. The Greenland red list did not assess marine fish or invertebrates.

In addition to red-listed species, there are marine-associated species with more than 20% of the global population occurring in Greenland. These species include polar bear, Pink-footed Goose, Light Bellied Brent, Barnacle Goose, Red Knot, Black Guillemot, and Little Auk.

Twenty-three species of marine fish occurring in Greenland waters have been assessed by IUCN with 13 species considered Data Deficient or Least Concern. With the exception of Atlantic cod, the globally threatened fish species are unlikely to occur in the Study Area. No invertebrate species occurring in Greenland marine waters were listed as globally threatened by IUCN.

Within the KANUMAS East assessment area, there are several hotspots for threatened species, particularly at the mouth of Scoresby Sund, the entrance to Dove Bugt, and the islands of Henrik Krøyer Holme. Polynyas occur at these hotspots (see Figure 45 in Boertmann et al. 2009a). Dove Bugt and the islands of Henrik Krøyer Holme occur within or near the Study Area.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 17

2.2.7 Protected Areas and Areas of Interest

National Park. The world‘s largest national park, encompassing an area of 956,000 km2, is located in Northeast Greenland. The Northeast Greenland National Park includes the entire northeastern coastline and adjacent interior sections of Greenland. The area is sparsely populated and is composed largely of the Greenland Ice Cap though large ice-free areas occur along the coast and in the north. In addition to a variety of terrestrial mammals, including 40% of the world population of muskox, the park is inhabited by polar bear, walrus, ringed seal, bearded seal, harp seal, hooded seal, narwhal, and beluga. Several species of birds, including Common Loon, Barnacle Goose, Pink-footed Goose, Common Eider, and King Eider, breed in the park (Jensen and Christiansen 2003; WWF 2008). Other protected areas in Northeast Greenland include Important Bird Areas and Ramsar sites, discussed above.

It should also be noted that given the nature of 2-D seismic surveys, the seismic vessel will only occur in a given area for a limited period, and in the case of GXT‘s 2011 project, will only occur there during August to October, thereby, minimizing the potential for affecting marine mammals in such sensitive areas and during the winter.

2.2.8 Subsistence Hunting and Fisheries

Compared to other regions in Greenland, very little hunting and fishing occurs in and near the Study Area. This is largely attributed to the low number of human inhabitants on the east Greenland coast. In 2006, the human population residing in the KANUMAS East assessment area numbered 529 persons with all living in the town of Scoresbysund (Ittoqqortoormiit) and the surrounding settlements (see Figure 1). There are also several military and research outposts located north of Scoresby Sound though the number of year-round permanent resident is generally low (typically 2 to 12 inhabitants).

In 2004, there were registered 23 occupational hunters and 125 leisure hunters (Aastrup et al. 2005 in Boertmann et al. 2009a; Statistics of Greenland 2008). Some hunters from southeast Greenland may venture in the southernmost portion of the KANUMAS East assessment area; however, it is unlikely these hunters travel north of 73ºN and as such, are not expected to occur in or near the survey area. Besides low human population numbers, hunting is likely uncommon in Northeast Greenland because certain species, such as walrus and narwhal, are protected within the boundaries of the Northeast Greenland National Park. Also, all seabird colonies and their immediate surroundings are protected from disturbance. Hunters have historically travelled far north into the National Park to hunt polar bears in early spring; however, this activity has apparently ceased in recent years (Aastrup et al. 2005 in Boertmann et al. 2009a).

While fishing is very important in other areas of Greenland, the waters off east Greenland have only been fished commercially since the Second World War (Vihjálmsson et al. 2010). The main reason for this is the rough bottom topography as well as the speed and irregularity of the ocean currents, especially near the edge of the continental shelf. These conditions make fishing in east Greenland waters difficult for most harvesters, except for those using large vessels with robust fishing gear. The major commercial fisheries of east Greenland waters target Greenland halibut, Atlantic cod, redfish (Sebastes spp.), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), and pink shrimp (Boertmann et al. 2009a; Vihjálmsson et al. 2010). With the exception of pink shrimp since the 1980s, the fisheries off

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 18

east Greenland have almost exclusively been conducted by foreign fleets (Vihjálmsson et al. 2010). Boertmann et al. (2009a) noted that the only species of commercial interest off Northeast Greenland is the Greenland halibut. This fishery occurs on the east Greenland coast occurs almost exclusively in open water from Denmark Strait southward. In Northeast Greenland, catches are generally small and largely confined to the southernmost part of the KANUMAS East assessment area near Scoresby Sund. Arctic char is largely fished near inhabited areas in Greenland, typically between June and September.

Other species that may be caught occasionally, mainly for domestic use, include spotted wolffish (Anarchichas minor), Greenland shark (Microcephalus somniosus), Greenland halibut, shorthorn sculpin (Myxocephalus scorpius), and polar cod (Sandell and Sandell 1991 in Boertmann et al. 2009a; Petersen 1993 in Boertmann et al. 2009a). The fisheries for these species within the 2011 survey area are likely to be minor to none.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 19

3 Impact Assessment

3.1 Impact Assessment Methods

This Environmental Impact Assessment uses the methods presented in the Preliminary Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (PSEIA) for the KANUMAS East area of Greenland (Boertmann et al. 2009a) and also incorporates relevant guidance from the Application Guidelines (BMP 2011), the Seismic Guidelines (Boertmann et al. 2010), Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in the Arctic: Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (FMOTE 1997), and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Responsible Authorities Guide (CEAA 1994). It applies the same approach and methodologies used in GXT‘s 2009 and 2010 Northeast Greenland survey environmental assessments.

The assessment process includes:

 a description of the proposed project (Section 1, above);  identification of spatial and temporal boundaries;  identification of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs);  overview of the project environment, with emphasis on key VECs;  assessment of impacts;  preparation of an interaction matrix  assessment of interactions  identification of impacts  development of mitigation measures  impact summary;  assessment of cumulative impacts; and  development of environmental protection plan / mitigations (presented in Section 3 and summarized in Section 4).

3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

For the purposes of this EIA, the following spatial and temporal boundaries are defined. These are the same defined for GXT‘s 2009 and 2010 survey assessments since the relevant parameters have not changed.

Temporal—the temporal boundaries of the Project are July to October 2011.

Project Area—the ‗Project Area‘ is defined as the area of the ―footprint‖ of the seismic lines plus an additional area (~5 km) around the outer perimeter of these lines to accommodate the ships‘ lead in requirements and turning radii .

Affected Area—the ‗Affected Area‘ varies according to the specific vertical and horizontal distributions and sensitivities of the VECs of interest and is defined as that area within which effects (physical or important behavioural ones) have been reported to occur. It is likely that most potential effects will be confined within the Project Area because the actual effects on animals are caused by the operating array at a particular time. At each point in time, the array

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 20

ensonifies a particular area around the array and potentially affects animals in that area. The array then moves along the seismic line and affects new areas while the previously affected areas returns to normal and any effects may be reversed. In the assessment that follows, we have used an area referred to as ‗spatial extent‘. This is the area where impacts on VECs may occur at any point in time. As noted, this area is dynamic because it ―moves along‖ with the seismic source vessel within the Project Area.

Study Area—an area around the Project Area large enough to encompass effects reported in the literature. Because belugas in the Canadian Beaufort have been shown to avoid seismic operations by 10-20 km (Miller et al. 2005), this EIA considers an area ~ 20 km around the outer perimeter of the proposed survey lines (see Figure 1). (Though the overall 2011 survey ―footprint‖ is smaller, the same Study Area used in 2010 is used here for consistency of the assessment.)

KANUMAS East Assessment Area—when considering cumulative effects, we have considered a broader or regional area whose boundaries were defined as the ―assessment area‖ for the larger KANUMAS East PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a) (see Figure 1). Cumulative effects assessment would also include the GXT Study Area which extends northward of the KANUMAS East assessment area.

3.3 Identification of Potential Impacts

This EIA focuses on the potential impacts that result from the interactions between project activities and Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). As defined in the PSEIA, VECs can be ―a species, a population, biological events or other environmental features that are important to the human population (not only economically), have a national or international profile, can act as indicators of environmental change or can be the focus of management or other administrative efforts.‖ The VECs selected here are species and faunal groups which potentially can be impacted by seismic exploration activities in the Study Area.

An interaction matrix was prepared that identified all possible Project activities that could interact with any of the VECs. This matrix is used only to identify potential interactions; they make no assumptions about the actual or potential effects of the interactions.

Interactions were then evaluated for their potential to cause effects. In instances where the potential for an effect of an interaction was deemed impossible or extremely remote, these interactions were not considered further. In this way, the assessment focused on key issues and the more substantive potential environmental effects. Although the likelihood of a significant fuel spill is remote, information pertaining to potential effects of accidents and malfunction (primarily the release of hydrocarbons) has been provided.

An interaction was considered to be a potential effect if it could change the abundance or distribution of VECs, or change the prey species or habitats used by VECs. The potential for an effect was assessed by considering:  the location and timing of the interaction;  the literature on similar interactions and associated effects;  when necessary, consultation with other experts; and  results of similar effects assessments and especially, monitoring studies done in the Arctic, notably the Beaufort Sea.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 21

A Level 1 Interaction Matrix (Table 2) is provided below.

Table 2. Potential Interactions (Level 1 Matrix) between the Project and VECs

Project Activity

VEC Sanitary/ Vessel/Icebreaker: Vessel Accidental Airgun Array Domestic Noise / Disturbance Lights Spills Wastes Bowhead Whale X X X X X Narwhal X X X X X Walrus X X X X X Seals 1 X X X X X Polar Bear X X X X X Sea-associated Birds X X X X X

Fish X X X X X

Zooplankton X X X X Invertebrates X X X X Note: Accidental spills refers to the release of fuel (or other hydrocarbons); see Section 3.12. 1 Combines ringed, bearded, hooded, and harp seals.

The selection of VECs closely follows those selected for assessment under seismic programs in the PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a). An important factor considered in the assignment of impact significance is the official status of the VEC. For example, particular attention is paid to species considered to be ‗at risk‘ under the Greenland Red List (Boertmann 2008) which are likely to occur in the Study Area, and VECs that have identified protected areas within the Study Area. There is little hunting or commercial harvesting activity in the Study Area and as such, this is not considered further in the EIA.

3.4 Impact Definitions and Evaluation of Impact Significance

It is important that the terminology used to describe potential impacts be clear and easily understood. Words such as minor, moderate, and significant or insignificant are subjective and their meaning differs depending on the context in which they are used and the experience of the reader. Therefore, precise definitions for the ranking of potential impacts have been provided and used in this EIA. The impact definitions used in this EIA are based on those outlined in CEAA (1994) and subsequent CEAA-compliant EAs prepared by LGL Limited1. More specifically the terminology of magnitude, spatial (or geographic) extent, and duration, has been used.

Where possible, the assessment technique and terminology provided in the PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a) are considered in the assessment. The PSEIA specifically includes consideration of the risk of impact on critical habitat, the level of impact (individual vs. population), and the risk of long-term population impacts. The assessment of significance of

1 The following criteria have not been specifically included in this assessment are frequency of occurrence, ecological, socio-cultural and economic context, reversibility, and likelihood of occurrence.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 22

the potential effects of the proposed project on environmental components is made considering the application of mitigation measures (see Environmental Protection Plan). The assessment of residual impacts, including mitigation measures, is summarized in Table 3.

3.4.1 Magnitude of Impacts Magnitude describes the nature and extent of the environmental effects for each activity. It is a challenge to define magnitude since it is unclear which ―biological‖ (and in some cases, ―socio-economic‖) measures should be included in the definition. After careful consideration, we have decided to use definitions similar to those used in the Devon seismic EA for the Canadian Beaufort (IEG 2001) and in recent EAs conducted for seismic programs in Atlantic Canada (e.g., Moulton et al. 2003). The magnitude of impacts can be rated as:

Major: An impact on a VEC is rated major if it is judged to result in a 10%, or greater, change in the size or health of a population, or the carrying capacity of its habitat. A change in a population can result from an absolute reduction in population size or from displacement of animals to areas outside the area of consideration. Moderate: An impact on a VEC is rated moderate if it is judged to result in a 1% to 10% change in the size or health of a population, or the carrying capacity of its habitat. Minor: An impact on a VEC is rated minor if it is judged to result in a less than 1% change in the size or health of the population or the carrying capacity of its habitat. Negligible Impact: Negligible impacts would result in no to very minimal effects to a VEC.

It should be noted that changes as low as 1%, or even 10%, cannot be measured in practice. However, these levels are used so that the reader has a clear indication of the expected magnitude of potential impacts.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 23

Table 3. Summary of Potential Impacts, Proposed Mitigation, and Predicted Residual Impacts for the Project Area VECs

Impact Definition Ratings Level of Predicted Confidence VEC / Interaction Potential Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Spatial in Magnitude Duration Impact Extent Prediction Ramp-up of airgun array following detailed BMP/NERI advice. [1]Hearing damage. Masked Delayed start of airguns if whale [1] < 1 km2 communication. sighted in safety zone. Array to 1-10 km2; [1] Minor; [2] Bowhead Whales x Short- Not [1] High; [2] [2]Disturbance including shutdown (500 m in Protected [2] 11-100 Minor to Seismic Noise term significant Medium avoidance of seismic ship and Zones; 200 m elsewhere). Widely km2 to 101- Moderate alteration of migration route. spaced lines in sensitive areas. 1,000 km2 Additional marine mammal watch from icebreaker. Boats will maintain constant course & speed when possible. Widely Bowhead Whale x Disturbance including Negligible to Short- Not spaced lines in sensitive areas. 11-100 km2 High Vessel Noise avoidance. minor term significant Additional marine mammal watch from icebreaker. Ramp-up of airgun array following detailed BMP/NERI advice. Delayed start of airguns if whale [1]Hearing damage. [1] na, sighted in safety zone. Array [1]Negligible, Narwhal x Seismic [2]Disturbance including [2]11-100 [1] na, [2] Not [1] High; [2] shutdown (500 m in Protected [2] Minor to Noise localized avoidance of km2 to 101- short-term significant Medium Zones; 200 m elsewhere). Widely Moderate seismic ship. 1,000 km2 spaced lines in sensitive areas. Additional marine mammal watch from icebreaker. Boats will maintain constant course & speed when possible. Widely Minor to Not Narwhal x Boat Noise Temporary disturbance. spaced lines in sensitive areas. 11-100 km2 short-term Medium Moderate significant Additional marine mammal watch from icebreaker.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 24

Impact Definition Ratings Level of Predicted Confidence VEC / Interaction Potential Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Spatial in Magnitude Duration Impact Extent Prediction Ramp-up of airgun array following detailed BMP/NERI advice. Delayed start of airguns if whale [1]Hearing damage (seismic). sighted in safety zone. Array [1] na, [2] [1]Negligible, [2]Disturbance including [1] na, [2] Not [1] High; [2] Walrus x Seismic Noise shutdown (500 m in Protected <1 km2 to [2] Minor to localized avoidance (of short-term significant Medium Zones; 200 m elsewhere). Widely 11-100 km2 Moderate seismic ship). spaced lines in sensitive areas. Additional marine mammal watch from icebreaker. Boats will maintain constant course & speed when possible. Minimize [1] < 1 km2; Minor to Not Walrus x Boat Noise Temporary disturbance. time spent near summering areas. [2] 101- short-term High Moderate significant Additional marine mammal watch 1,000 km 2 from icebreaker.

[1]Hearing damage. Ramp-up of airgun array. Additional [1] na, [2] [1]Negligible, [2]Disturbance including [1] na, [2] Not Seals x Seismic Noise marine mammal watch from <1 km2 to [2] Minor to High localized avoidance of short-term significant icebreaker. 11-100 km2 Moderate seismic ship.

Boats will maintain constant course & speed when possible. Additional Not Seals x Boat Noise Temporary disturbance. na Negligible na High marine mammal watch from significant icebreaker.

[1]Hearing damage (seismic). Ramp-up of airgun array. Additional [1]Negligible, Polar Bear x Seismic [2]Disturbance including [1] na, [2] 1- [1] na, [2] Not marine mammal watch from [2] Negligible High Noise localized avoidance (of 10 km2 short-term significant icebreaker. to Minor seismic ship).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 25

Impact Definition Ratings Level of Predicted Confidence VEC / Interaction Potential Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Spatial in Magnitude Duration Impact Extent Prediction

Boats will maintain constant course & speed when possible. Additional Not Polar Bear x Boat Noise Temporary disturbance. na Negligible na High marine mammal watch from significant icebreaker. [1] Hearing damage Ramp-up of airgun array. Boats will Sea-associated Birds x (seismic). [2] Disturbance maintain constant course and speed. Short- Not na Negligible High Seismic and Boat Noise including localized avoidance Not near IBA, etc. Aircraft (if used) term significant (of seismic vessel) will avoid important bird areas.

Zooplankton x Seismic Short- Not Physical damage. None < 1 km2 Minor High Noise term significant

Macroinvertebrates x Physical damage, behavioural <1 km2 to Short- Not Ramp-up of airgun array. Minor High Seismic Noise disturbance 11-100 km2 term significant [1] Hearing damage. Masked [1] < 1 km2; communication. [2] Short- Not Fish x Seismic Noise Ramp-up of airgun array. [2] 101- Minor High Disturbance including term significant 1,000 km 2 avoidance of seismic ship <1 km2 to Short- Not Fish x Boat Noise Localized avoidance None (not likely in survey area) 101-1,000 Minor Medium term significant km2 Notes: na = not applicable

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 26

3.4.2 Spatial Extent The spatial or geographic extent of impacts refers to the specific area (km2) affected by the project activity, which may vary depending on the activity and the relevant VEC. Spatial extent can be categorized as:

 < 1 km2  1-10 km2  11-100 km2  101-1,000 km2  1,001-10,000 km2  >10,000 km2

It should be noted that an area of 100 km² is a circle with a radius of 5.6 km around the airgun array. A circular area of 1,000 km² would have a radius of about 17.8 km and an area of 10,000 km² would have a radius of about 56 km around the array. The PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a) uses ―local‖ to describe a spatial extent of <100 km², ―regional‖ for larger areas, including the entire KANUMAS East Assessment Area, and national and global spatial extents.

3.4.3 Duration of Impacts Duration refers to the time period impacts are expected to persist. Duration categories include:

 Immediate: Impact duration is limited to less than two days.  Short-term: Impact duration is longer than two days but less than one year.  Medium-term: Impact duration is one year or longer but less than ten years.  Long-term: Impact duration extends ten years or longer.

The PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a) uses ―immediate‖, ―short term‖, and ―long term‖, as indicators of duration; specific definitions are not provided.

3.4.4 Significance of Impacts Significant environmental effects are those that are considered to be of sufficient magnitude, duration, and spatial extent to cause a change in the VEC that will alter its status or integrity beyond an acceptable level, even after mitigation measures are applied. Establishment of the criteria is based on professional judgment, but should be transparent and repeatable. In this EIA, a significant effect is defined as:

Having a major magnitude; or a moderate magnitude for a duration of greater than one year and over a spatial extent greater than 100 km2.

An effect can be considered significant (negative by definition), not significant, or positive. For this assessment, impacts are judged assuming the implementation of project mitigation measures, i.e., an assessment of residual impacts.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 27

3.4.5 Level of Confidence An assessment of scientific certainty (low, medium, and high levels of confidence) will be provided based on our confidence in the scientific information available when we have judged an impact as having a particular adverse impact on a VEC.

 Low: Based on incomplete understanding of cause-effect relationships and/or incomplete data specific to project area.  Medium: Based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships using data from elsewhere or incompletely understood cause-effect relationships using data specific to project area.  High: Based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships and data specific to project area.

The PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a) use terms such as ―most likely‖ and ―most probably‖ to reflect the level of certainty in the assessment.

3.5 Potential Impact of Project Activities

This assessment of the potential impacts of project activities on VECs is based on recent field studies of similar seismic operations in Northeast Greenland, the Alaskan and Canadian Beaufort Sea (including GXT‘s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010 programs in the Canadian Beaufort Sea) and on an extensive review of the available literature on the subject. Residual impacts (those impacts that result after implementation of mitigation) resulting from the proposed project are identified in terms of their scope and significance for each VEC.

It should be noted that, in terms of whales, seismic operations in ice appear to be less likely to encounter them, particularly when the survey is operating deeper into ice covered areas. This is suggested by the lack of observation in such areas during GXT‘s two previous Northeast Greenland surveys and GXT‘s 2010 in-ice survey in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, all of which were conducted with marine mammal observers on board the ships.

To further ensure the accuracy of the assessment predictions that no effects will be significant with mitigations in place, GXT will apply enhanced mitigation measures for the 2011 program, over those applied in previous years, particularly within the Protection Zones (for walrus, narwhal and bowhead). For example, as described in Section 3.6 below, as a further cautionary approach, GXT will increase the shutdown zone implemented during its 2009 and 2010 seismic programs from 200 m to 500 m around the seismic source for bowhead whale, northern right whale, beluga, narwhal, or walrus in all protection areas/zones. Further, in all areas, GXT will maintain an increased marine mammal watch from the icebreaker. This should extend the ability to detect whales / walruses in the approaching waters a further 1000 m or more and to alert the seismic ship MMSOs. These are in addition to previously stated / implemented measures, such as avoidance of the ice edge by 10 km in the Hovgaard - Île de France region.

3.5.1 Underwater Sound Most treatments of the effects of underwater sound are based on the Source:Path:Receiver concept. In the present case, the sound source is an airgun array that generates short pulses

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 28

that contain large amounts of underwater sound. A seismic pulse is created by a burst of compressed air released from each airgun that makes up the array. Sound from the array radiates outward and travels through the water as pressure waves. Approximately 90% of the sound energy is focused downward with some travelling radially in the horizontal plane. Water is an efficient medium through which sounds can travel long distances. The receiver of these sounds is a marine animal of interest (i.e. VECs). The sounds received depend upon how much propagation loss occurs between the source and the receiver. Propagation loss is much higher in shallow water due to attenuation.

The ability of the receiver to detect these signals depends upon the hearing capabilities of the species in question and on the amount of natural ambient or background noise in the sea around the receiver. The sea is a naturally noisy environment and this noise can "drown out" or mask weak signals from distant sources.

Pressure waves from airguns used in seismic exploration have slower rise times than traditional explosives and therefore cause much less injury to animals in water. Single airguns produce downward-directed pulses that last only 10-20 ms, with only one strong positive and one strong negative peak pressure (Caldwell and Dragoset 2000).

Current seismic data acquisition practices utilize arrays of airguns to achieve the penetration requirements needed to illuminate the geologic subsurface. The distribution of the airgun elements within the array forms a geometry that increases the efficiency of the total energy source by directing its output downward into the subsurface by means of constructive interference of the signals from the individual guns. This happens at the expense of the amount of energy that propagates laterally due to geometric destructive interference. Approximately 90% of the useful energy is focused downward; the predominant energy is at low frequencies.

3.5.2 Effects of Sound on Marine Animals Appendix 4 of GXT‘s Application (Volume 2) contains more detailed information about sound fundamentals, sound exposure measurement, and the effects of underwater sounds on marine animals.

Sounds produced by airgun arrays are lower in frequency than those at which toothed whales (such as narwhals), seals and walrus have optimal hearing, but are probably within the best hearing range of baleen whales (such as bowheads). Data on the specific hearing capabilities of polar bears are limited. However, polar bears‘ usual behaviour (e.g., remaining on the ice, at the water surface, or on land) reduces or avoids their exposure to underwater sounds.

Recent reviews of the effects of sound from seismic surveys, and sources of man-made noise in general, on marine mammals can be found in several recent sources. There are four types of potential effects of seismic sounds on marine mammals considered in the following sections. These include:

1. temporary reduction in hearing sensitivity, evident as Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS); 2. permanent hearing impairment, evident as Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS); 3. masked communication, and

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 29

4. changes in behaviour and distribution of the animals that are of sufficient magnitude to be ―biologically significant‖.

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) is the mildest form of hearing impairment that occurs when exposure to a strong sound results in a non-permanent elevation of the hearing threshold. TTS is common in humans. While experiencing TTS, a sound must be louder in order to be heard. TTS is not considered an injury (Southall et al. 2007). Recent preliminary simulation modeling suggested that some baleen whales whose closest point of approach to a seismic vessel is 1 km or more could experience TTS or even PTS (Gedamke et al. 2008). In practice during seismic surveys, few if any cases of TTS are expected in baleen whales given the strong likelihood that baleen whales would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be a possibility of TTS. For odontocetes, it is expected that—for impulse sound—the onset of TTS would occur at a lower cumulative sound exposure levels given the assumed greater auditory effect of broadband impulses with rapid rise times.

There are no available data on TTS in polar bears. However, TTS is unlikely to occur if they are swimming at the water surface or on ice, given the pressure release and Lloyd‘s mirror effects at the water‘s surface. In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been measured. Initial evidence from more prolonged (non-pulse) exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbour seals in particular) incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al. 1999, 2005; Ketten et al. 2001).

The U.S National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 1995, 2000) has concluded that whales should not be exposed to impulse noise at received levels exceeding 180 dB re 1 Pa (rms). The corresponding limit for seals has been set at 190 dB. These exposure criteria used by NMFS were intended as a precautionary estimate below which physical injury would not occur from airgun pulses. There was no empirical evidence about whether higher levels of pulsed sound would cause hearing or other injuries.

Permanent Threshold Shift is the result of physical damage to a marine mammal‘s hearing apparatus can occur if it is exposed to sound impulses that have high peak pressures, especially if they have very short rise times, or if the animal is exposed to long periods of high noise levels. Such damage can result in a permanent decrease in functional sensitivity of the hearing system at some or all frequencies. When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, while in other cases, the animal is unable to hear sounds at specific frequency ranges.

Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS do not cause permanent auditory damage in terrestrial mammals, and presumably do not do so in marine mammals. However, very prolonged exposure to noise strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to noise levels well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS. Some factors that contribute to onset of PTS are  exposure to single very loud noises,  repetitive exposure to loud sounds that individually do not cause PTS, and  health of the receiver‘s ear (e.g., recurrent ear infections).

Sound impulse duration, peak amplitude, and rise time are the main factors thought to determine the onset and extent of PTS. Based on existing data, Ketten (1995) has noted that

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 30

the criteria for differentiating the sound pressure levels that result in PTS (or TTS) are location and species-specific.

On an SEL (Sound Exposure Level, a standard means of quantifying received sound) basis, Southall et al. (2007:441-4) estimated that received levels would need to exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for cetaceans (like bowhead whales) they estimate that the PTS threshold might be a cumulative SEL (for the sequence of received pulses) of ~198 dB re 1 μPa2 ∙ s.2 Southall et al. (2007) also note that, regardless of the cumulative received energy (SEL), there is concern about the possibility of PTS if a cetacean or pinniped received one or more pulses with a very high peak pressure. Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that impulse sounds might cause immediate PTS if the received peak pressure were 6 dB (or more) above than the TTS threshold as measured on a peak-pressure basis (Southall et al. 2007). They conclude that PTS might occur if cetaceans (as exemplified by belugas and bottlenose dolphins) and pinnipeds (as exemplified by the harbour seal) were exposed to peak pressures exceeding 230 or 218 dB re 1 μPa (peak), respectively. A peak pressure of 230 dB re 1 μPa (3.2 bar · m, 0- pk) would only be found within a few meters of the largest airguns used in most airgun arrays (Caldwell and Dragoset 2000). A peak pressure of 218 dB re 1 μPa could be received somewhat farther away.

Masking. Masking effects by pulsed sounds on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are few specific data on this. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. Most studies that have examined the potential adverse effects of masking caused by anthropogenic underwater sounds have involved exposure of marine mammals to sounds that are often continuous or nearly continuous, and are not airgun pulses. Such sounds will mask (i.e., reduce) the effective communication or echolocation distance of a marine mammal only if the anthropogenic sound source overlaps the sound signal in time and frequency. If little or no overlap occurs between the sound and the frequencies used, communication and echolocation are not expected to be disrupted or masked. As previously discussed, most energy in sound pulses emitted by seismic airgun arrays is at low frequencies, with strongest spectrum levels below 200 Hz, considerably lower spectrum levels above 1,000 Hz, and smaller amounts of energy emitted up to ~150 kHz. These low frequencies are mainly used by mysticetes, but generally not by odontocetes and pinnipeds. Strong anthropogenic sounds are presumed not to interfere with signalling of marine mammals that are using frequencies outside the range of the anthropogenic sounds. Furthermore, the discontinuous nature of seismic pulses makes significant masking effects unlikely even for mysticetes.3

Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the smaller odontocetes, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses plus the fact that sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds. This

2 This is based on the evidence from Finneran et al. (2002) that the TTS threshold in a beluga exposed to a watergun pulse is about 186 dB re 1 μPa2 · s (flat weighted), or 183 dB re 1 μPa2 · s after discounting the low- frequency components that are not heard well by odontocetes; and on evidence that the PTS threshold, on an SEL basis, would be at least 15 dB higher than the TTS threshold (Southall et al. 2007). 3 Near the source, the predominant part of a seismic pulse is about 10–20 ms in duration and the interpulse interval for GXT’s 2011 program will be ~18 s, which is a longer quiet interval than for most surveys. Other sounds are audible in the gaps except perhaps in the unusual situation where there is strong reverberation of sound that persists for much of the gap between received pulses. GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 31

is particularly likely in the case of GXT‘s proposed seismic program, where seismic pulses would occur ~ every 18 seconds.

Changes in Behaviour and Distribution. There have been studies of the behavioural responses of several types of marine mammals to airgun pulses. However, information is lacking for many species. Detailed studies of short-term responses (or lack thereof) have been done on humpback, gray, bowhead and sperm whales, and on ringed seals. Less detailed data are available for some other species of baleen whales and small toothed whales. The proposed monitoring program will provide additional data on marine mammal response to seismic activities. As suggested in the PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a) and Boertmann et al. (2010), the marine mammal species most vulnerable to seismic survey noise in the KANUMAS East assessment area are narwhals, bowhead whales, and walruses. The authors indicate that there is some risk that these species could be displaced from critical habitat. Particular concern was also suggested for walrus which haul out in coastal areas. Following the guidance in Boertmann et al. (2009a and 2010), the assessment of seismic noise on marine mammals focuses on bowhead whales, narwhals, and walruses.

Behavioural reactions of marine mammals to a sound are difficult to predict. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, weather, and many other factors.

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 significant to the individual, the stock, or the species as a whole. On the other hand, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on the animals could be significant.

3.6 Effects on Marine Mammals (Seismic Array)

3.6.1 Narwhals During summer, narwhals generally occupy relatively shallow waters in fjords and coastal areas. Two summering areas (and protection zones) have been identified in or near the Study Area; one is in the northern portion of the Project Area (Northeast Water Polynya) where ~ 60 km of a seismic line is planned and the other identified summering area occurs shoreward of Store Koldewey Island in Dove Bugt (see Figure 3 below, and Boertmann et al. 2009a). Narwhals could be encountered during the seismic program, particularly in shallower waters and along ice edges, though none were seen by GXT MMSOs in 2010 or 2009. The species is gregarious, usually occurring in groups from a few individuals to more than 100 so it is possible that large groups may be seen from the seismic vessel.

To the best of our knowledge there are no published data on the responses of narwhals to seismic surveys. Despite the relatively poor low-frequency hearing thresholds of small- and medium-sized odontocetes (like narwhals), they should often be able to hear pulses from airgun arrays operating many tens of kilometres away (Richardson et al. 1995; Richardson and Würsig 1997). Few studies similar to the more extensive baleen whale/seismic pulse work have been reported for odontocetes, and none similar in size and scope to the studies of humpback, bowhead, and gray whales. However, there are recent systematic studies on sperm whales (e.g., Gordon et al. 2006; Madsen et al. 2006; Winsor and Mate 2006; Jochens et al.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 32

2008; Miller et al. 2009), and there is an increasing amount of information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys based on monitoring studies (e.g., Smultea et al. 2004; Moulton and Miller 2005; Bain and Williams 2006; Holst et al. 2006; Stone and Tasker 2006; Potter et al. 2007; Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008; Weir 2008; Barkaszi et al. 2009; Richardson et al. 2009).

Seismic operators and MMOs regularly see dolphins and other small odontocetes near operating airgun arrays, but in general there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to show some limited avoidance of operating seismic vessels, on the order of 1 km or less (e.g., Moulton and Miller 2005; Holst et al. 2006; Weir 2008; Richardson et al. 2009; see also Barkaszi et al. 2009). Some dolphins (and Dall‘s porpoises) seem to be attracted to the seis- mic vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel even when large arrays of airguns are active (e.g., MacLean and Koski 2005; Moulton and Miller 2005). Nonetheless, small toothed whales often tend to head away, or to maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel, when a large array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (see Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 2008).

The beluga, the closest odontocete relative of narwhals, may be a species that (at least at times) shows long-distance avoidance of seismic source vessels (see Miller et al. 2005). Aerial surveys conducted in the southeast Beaufort Sea in summer found that sighting rates of belugas were significantly lower at distances 10–20 km compared with 20–30 km from an operating airgun array (Miller et al. 2005). The low number of beluga sightings by marine mammal observers on the vessel seemed to confirm there was a strong avoidance response to the 2,250 in3 airgun array. More recent seismic monitoring studies in the same area have confirmed that the apparent displacement effect on belugas extended farther than has been shown for other small odontocetes exposed to airgun pulses (e.g., Harris et al. 2007). It is uncertain how narwhals will react to seismic surveys. For the purposes of this assessment, we have (conservatively) assumed that they will react on a similar scale as did belugas in the Canadian Beaufort Sea.

Assessment of Impacts. The Seismic Guidelines (Boertmann et al. 2010, Section 6.1.2, Figure 3) maps important narwhal (and other species) protection areas in Northeastern Greenland waters (reproduced in Figure 4, below). These Guidelines state: ―Narwhals occur in these areas throughout the open water season, and in the Northeast Water probably throughout the year. … Seismic activities in the narwhal protection zones of East Greenland should be avoided or of limited extend (a few widely spaced (>10 km) lines). If such limited seismic surveys are planned in the protection zones a detailed shooting program is subject to approval by BMP, and if approved, impact studies on the narwhals shall be considered.‖

GXT‘s survey area overlaps a small portion of the narwhal summering area in the Northeast Water Polynya, and the western ends of several of GXT‘s pre-plot lines are within the northern narwhal/bowhead protection zone (Figure 4). Nearly all are more than 10 km apart (several are much more than this), though portions of 2 or 3 of these lines are between 8 km and 10 km distant from each other in the area. However, given the realities of surveying in these northern areas, it is unlikely that GXT will be able to do all of these lines, and specific ice conditions in the area at the time will determine the actual limitations. (For instance, in previous years GXT has permitted lines in the new narwhal/bowhead protection zone between Hovgaard Island and Île de France but has never been able to do acquisition there because of ice/weather. Project-wide it is estimated that – in a good ice year – only about 50% of the pre-plots would be acquired.) Given that the GXT survey is a large regional 2-D

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 33

survey with very long acquisition lines (most in this are generally east-west in orientation, and 200 – 300 km long) unlike a locally focused 3-D survey, the actual time spent in the area with an active array will be relatively short on any one occasion, and there may be many hours to several days between the acquisition of these segments. There is a potential for encountering narwhal within the Project Area. However, narwhals are known to avoid the area around vessels, particularly icebreakers (Richardson et al. 1995). This avoidance greatly reduces the potential for hearing impacts on these whales.

In any case, as advised by NERI and the BMP in 2010, when working in this area the survey ships will avoid the seaward edge of the landfast (permanent / persistent) ice between Hovgaard ∅ and Île de France by a distance of at least 10 km.

As specified in Boertmann et al. 2010, the airgun array will be ―ramped up‖ gradually to full power whenever airgun operations start. Hence, any narwhals (or other species) near the array when it starts can move away before being exposed to full power airgun pulses. Also, ramp-up will not begin if any narwhal is detected within a 500 m radius zone of the array 30 minutes prior to ramp-up (or 60 minutes in deeper waters).

Although no shutdown for marine mammals is required, GXT will implement a shutdown if a bowhead whale, northern right whale, beluga, narwhal, or walrus is observed within or about to enter within a 500m radius of the seismic source when operating in any designated Protection Zone or within a 200 m radius in all other areas. Also, in addition to the MMSOs on the seismic ship, GXT will utilize on-watch personnel on the icebreaker bridge to sight and record marine mammals, and to relay this information immediately to the MMSOs on the seismic ship.

Further, if recommended by BMP/NERI, GXT will reduce its overall acquisition in the Narwhal/ Bowhead Protection zone by line 240 km compared to the amount proposed. This is equivalent to reducing every second line by 25 km within the area, though the actual location of the line reductions would likely be dictated by ice conditions at the time.

Given these enhanced mitigations, and that narwhals will likely avoid the icebreaker vessel, GXT‘s seismic program is predicted to cause negligible impacts on narwhal hearing (see Table 3).

As noted in the PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a), there is a risk that narwhal may be displaced from areas where they concentrate during summer. In particular, displacement from the Northeast Water Polynya summering area may occur. It is expected that this displacement, should it occur, would be temporary. GXT is expected to operate the airgun array only ~6 - 8 hours in the summering area as shown in Figure 3.

Given narwhal reactions to icebreakers (see below), it is likely that whales will avoid the seismic operations particularly when the airgun array is operational. Although there are no specific data available on narwhal reactions to seismic survey sound, beluga whales in the Canadian Beaufort Sea have been shown to avoid an area 10-20 km from an operating offshore seismic ship where received sound levels from airgun pulses were estimated to be ~150 to 130 dB re 1 Pa (rms). It is uncertain at what received sound level narwhals in the Study Area may react to seismic surveys. Narwhals are generally believed to be sensitive to noise from seismic surveys (Boertmann et al. 2009a). Marine mammal response to sound is

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 34

highly variable and can depend on the activity an animal is engaged in at the time of exposure.

It is likely that narwhals will avoid the immediate area around the active airgun array. Behavioural impacts (i.e., disturbance and displacement) should be minor to moderate, short- term, and may occur over a spatial extent ranging from 11-100 km2 to 101-1,000 km2. Therefore, no significant behavioural impacts are expected and there is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2010). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as medium.

3.6.2 Bowhead Whales Bowhead whales are expected to occur in the Study Area during GXT‘s seismic program, although only small numbers occur off Northeast Greenland. These whales seem to occur most often along ice edges or the marginal ice zone, though few have been seen during GXT‘s Northeast Greenland surveys. It is possible that bowheads which occur in the Study Area during summer engage in foraging but this is not known with certainty.

In the Canadian Beaufort Sea, bowhead whales on their summering grounds showed no obvious reactions to pulses from seismic vessels at distances of 6 to 99 km and received sound levels of 107–158 dB on an approximate rms basis (Richardson et al. 1986); their general activities were indistinguishable from those of a control group. Bowheads usually did show strong avoidance responses when seismic vessels approached within a few kilometres (~3–7 km) and when received levels of airgun sounds were 152–178 dB (Richardson et al. 1986, 1995; Ljungblad et al. 1988; Miller et al. 2005). They also moved away when a single airgun fired nearby. In one case, bowheads engaged in near-bottom feeding began to turn away from a 30-airgun array with a source level of 248 dB at a distance of 7.5 km, and swam away when it came within about 2 km. Some whales continued feeding until the vessel was 3 km away. Recently, drawing on data collected by DFO during GXT‘s western Canadian seismic surveys, Harwood et al. (2010) have found that ―While limited in scope, existing research results obtained while seismic or drilling operations were underway have shown no marked or measurable effects on either the behaviour or distribution of these species [bowhead whales, beluga whales and ringed seals] by offshore industrial operations in the [Canadian Beaufort Sea] to date. Differences in behaviour and distribution have been recorded, but were localized and temporary.‖

The results of a seismic monitoring program conducted in the nearshore waters of the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the summers of 2001 and 2002 (Miller and Davis 2002; Miller and Moulton 2003; Miller et al. 2005) partially supports the findings of the aforementioned study. Lower sighting rates and greater sighting distances during periods of seismic operations vs. periods when no airguns were operating suggested that bowheads did usually avoid close approach to the area of seismic operations. However, the still substantial number of sightings during seismic periods and the relatively small (600 m), but significant difference, in sighting distances suggest that the avoidance was localized and relatively small in nature. Bowheads at the average vessel-based sighting distance (1,957 m) during line seismic would have been exposed to sound levels of about 170 dB re 1 Pa (rms). Similarly, preliminary analyses of recent data from the Alaskan Beaufort Sea indicate that bowheads feeding during late summer and autumn also did not display large-scale distributional changes in relation to seismic operations (Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 35

Sighting distances during non-seismic (average 2,873 m) and seismic (average 2,903 m) periods were very similar for bowhead whales during GXT‘s 2006 seismic monitoring program in the Canadian Beaufort Sea (Harris et al. 2007). During GXT‘s 2007 seismic monitoring program in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, bowheads were sighted closer to the vessel during non-seismic periods (average 1,527 m) than during seismic periods (average 1,976 m). Average sighting distance was greatest when the full array was active (average 2,109 m) (Harris et al. 2008). These results support the monitoring results from 2001 and 2002 and suggest that bowheads avoid airgun noise, at least in a localized area.

Migrating bowhead whales seem more responsive to noise pulses from a distant seismic vessel than are summering bowheads. In 1996–98, a partially-controlled study of the effect of Ocean Bottom Cable (OBC) seismic surveys on migrating bowheads was conducted in late summer and autumn in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 1999). Aerial surveys showed that some westward-migrating whales avoided an active seismic survey boat by 20-30 km, and that few bowheads approached within 20 km. Received sound levels at those distances were only 116–135 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Some whales apparently began to deflect their migration path when still as much as 35 km away from the airguns. At times when the airguns were not active, many bowheads moved into the area close to the inactive seismic vessel. Avoidance of the area of seismic operations did not persist beyond 12–24-h after seismic shooting stopped. These and other data suggest that migrating bowhead whales are more responsive to seismic pulses than were summering bowheads. Analysis of recent data on traveling bowheads in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea also showed a stronger tendency to avoid operating airguns than was evident for feeding bowheads (Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009). During GXT‘s 2010 Beaufort Sea in ice survey (similar to the 2011 Greenland survey), very few bowheads were seen compared to the ice-free areas in the southern Beaufort.

Assessment of Impacts. The Seismic Guidelines (Boertmann et al. 2010, Section 6.2.1) states ―The Northeast Water Polynya and the waters off the ice edge between Île de France and Amdrup Land are important habitats for bowhead whales in summer and early autumn. The protection zone for this species is similar to the protection zone for narwhals and so are the regulations: Seismic activities shall be avoided or of limited extend (a few widely spaced (>10 km) lines). If limited seismic surveys are planned within the protection zone a detailed shooting program is subject to approval by BMP, and if approved, impact studies on the whales shall be considered.‖

As noted above for narwhal, parts of several of GXT‘s pre-plot lines are within the northern narwhal/bowhead zone (Figure 4) but are generally widely spaced. Also, as advised by NERI and the BMP in 2010, when working in this area the survey ships will avoid the seaward edge of the landfast (permanent / persistent) ice between Hovgaard ∅ and Île de France by a distance of at least 10 km. Also, as noted for narwhals, if requested by BMP/NERI, GXT will reduce its overall acquisition in the Narwhal/ Bowhead Protection zone.

Further, bowhead whales are expected to move away as the operating airgun array approaches, and to remain outside the zone where received sound levels are 180 dB re 1 Pa (rms) or higher. Pre-watch and ramp-up procedures will be used, as will shutdowns for bowheads and other species, as described above for narwhal (a 500 m shutdown safety zone will be applied in the Protection Areas, and additional watch from the icebreaker.)

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 36

Given these enhanced mitigation measures and that bowheads will likely avoid at least the immediate area around the seismic array, GXT‘s seismic program is predicted to cause minor and short-term impacts on bowhead hearing over a spatial extent ranging from <1 km2 to 1- 10 km2 (see Table 3). Therefore, no significant hearing impairment or other physiological effects on bowheads are expected. The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

Bowheads may migrate through the Study Area and/or spend time foraging in the area. Based on monitoring studies in the Beaufort Sea, the degree of avoidance seems to be dependent upon the activity the whales are engaged in. Bowheads in feeding areas typically exhibit localized avoidance whereas migrating bowheads exhibit larger scale avoidance. GXT‘s 2-D SPAN seismic program has widely spaced survey lines which extend over a large area, therefore, the seismic vessel will operate in a given area for only a short period. This should minimize potential impacts of bowheads that may be concentrated in a localized area.

It is predicted that behavioural impacts of airgun sounds on bowheads would be minor to moderate, short-term, and may occur over a spatial extent ranging from 11-100 km2 to 101- 1,000 km2 (Table 3). Therefore, no significant behavioural impacts are expected and there is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2010). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as medium.

3.6.3 Walruses Boertmann et al. (2009a) note that the walrus is considered a sensitive species because the population is dependent on relatively few and localized benthic feeding areas. Within GXT‘s Project Area, walrus (likely females and young) are expected to occur primarily in coastal waters (typically <100 m) near Kilen, Hovgaard Ø, and Amdrup Land where they likely forage on bivalves. Two primary male walrus haul-out sites are located at Sandøen and Lille Snenæs which are located about 40 km - 50 km from the Project Area. Walruses using these haul-out sites may occur at summering and feeding areas associated with sites that border the GXT survey area, although the Northeast Water Polynya may be used year-round. Areas associated with feeding and haul-outs have also been designated as protection zones for walruses from 1 June to 30 September, although the Northeast Water Polynya remains a year- round protection zone (see Figure 5; Boertmann et al. 2010).

There are few data available on walrus responses to seismic surveys. Monitoring data collected during seismic programs in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea during 2006-2008 suggest that Pacific walrus exhibit localized avoidance of active airguns (Haley et al. 2009). Walrus sighting rates decreased as sound levels from the seismic source vessel increased. The authors warn that these results may be biased by a large group (169 of 571 sightings) of walruses which were seen during a 24-hour period when no airguns were operating. Most walruses observed from the seismic source vessel showed no obvious reaction to airgun operations and closest points of approach did not differ significantly relative to sound levels (Haley et al. 2009).

Assessment of Impacts. The Seismic Guidelines (Section 6.3.2) state, ―Specific walrus protection zones are designated on Figure 3, and the protection period is from 1 June to 30 Sept., when open water is present at the coasts. However the Northeast Water is a year round habitat and here the protection period is the entire year. … Seismic activities in these walrus

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 37

protection zones shall be avoided or of limited extend (a few widely spaced (>10 km) lines). If such limited seismic surveys are planned in the protection zones a detailed shooting program is subject to approval by BMP, and if approved, impact studies on the walruses shall be considered.

Figure 5 indicates GXT‘s proposed 2011 lines in relation to the identified walrus protection zones. Relatively small portions of three of GXT‘s pre-plot lines enter any of these areas (a total 15 km in the southernmost zone and ~100 km in the north). Except where the two lines intersect in the north, these lines are not within 10 km of each other, or any other nearby lines. In the south, the one line (1150) that extends into the southern Walrus Protection Zone (15 km) is lines is approximately 68 km from the next nearest line to the north, and is thus within NERI‘s precaution that any lines in the area should be ―of limited extend (a few widely spaced (>10 km) lines)‖. The same is the case or the two northern nines.

Given this, and since walruses will likely avoid at least the immediate area around the seismic array (and vessels), and that ramp-up will be used, GXT‘s seismic program is predicted to cause negligible impacts on walrus hearing (see Table 3).

Some walruses will likely avoid the operating airgun array by distances of up to several hundred metres. However, some walruses may remain in close proximity to the seismic source vessel; in the Chukchi Sea many walruses were observed within 500 m of the source vessel when the airgun array was active and received sound levels exceeded 160 dB re 1uPa rms (Haley et al. 2009). It is possible that there would be short-term behavioural responses such as interruption of foraging dives. In the Chukchi Sea, there was no indication that Pacific walrus behaviour was affected by seismic surveying; however, effects on foraging were not specifically examined (Haley et al. 2009). Given the design of the GXT SPAN seismic program, as noted, the seismic vessel is expected to operate in the vicinity of a given walrus areas for short time periods only and they will be of limited extent and greater than 10 km apart (see Boertmann et al. 2010). The behavioural impacts of seismic and related underwater sounds on walruses could be minor to moderate, short-term, and may occur over a spatial extent ranging from <1 km2 to 11-100 km2. Therefore, no significant behavioural impacts are expected and there is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2010). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as medium.

3.6.4 Seals Harp, hooded, ringed and bearded seals are expected to occur in coastal and offshore waters of GXT‘s Project Area. Concentration areas for seals have not been identified in the Project Area for these species during the period when seismic operations are expected to occur (July to October). Available data indicate that ringed seals show less reaction to seismic sounds than do bowhead and beluga whales. There are few data available for bearded and harp seal response to seismic survey sound but both species have been observed from seismic vessels. Monitoring work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 (Harris et al. 1997, 1998, 2001; Lawson and Moulton 1999; Moulton and Lawson 2000a,b, 2002) as well as the Canadian Beaufort Sea and Alaskan Chukchi Sea in 2006-2009 (e.g., Miller and Davis 2002; Miller et al. 2005; Reiser et al. 2009) has provided considerable information regarding the behaviour of seals exposed to seismic pulses.

In these studies, the numbers of seals sighted from the source vessel were sometimes lower when the airguns were operating than when the vessel was moving without airguns operating.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 38

Seals sighted from the source vessel were located at significantly greater distances when an airgun array was firing than during periods with no guns operating. Overall, avoidance reactions were apparently limited to a radius of no more than a few hundred metres, and many of the seals well inside that distance showed no evidence of either avoidance or behavioural reactions. However, recent vessel-based monitoring suggested that phocid seals were seen less frequently while airguns were operating than when airguns were silent, and observers on seismic vessels saw seals less frequently than did observers on nearby vessels without airguns (Reiser et al. 2009). These results are indicative of a tendency for phocid seals to exhibit localized avoidance of the seismic source vessel when airguns are firing.

Preliminary results of a radio telemetry study by Thompson et al. (1998) suggested that more pronounced (but short-term) behavioural changes can occur in harbour seals and gray seals exposed to airgun pulses. They stated that normal foraging dives were interrupted and that avoidance reactions usually occurred. The seals returned to their previous foraging areas after airgun operations ceased. These preliminary results suggest that seal reactions to airgun pulses may be more pronounced than can be documented by visual observations at the surface.

Assessment of Impacts. Most seals are expected to avoid close approach to the airgun array. If seals are exposed to close approach to the airgun array, any effects would most likely be limited to mild TTS, from which seals would recover. Also, seals that are hauled out on ice floes would be unaffected by underwater sound unless they dove in response to the oncoming vessels. Given this, plus the small proportion of the population that would occur close enough to the airgun array to incur hearing impairment, impacts of seismic sound sources on seal hearing would be negligible.

Some seals likely will avoid the operating airgun arrays by distances of up to a few hundred metres. However, some seals are expected to remain in close proximity to the seismic source vessel. It is possible that there would be short-term behavioural responses such as interruption of foraging dives. The behavioural impacts of seismic and related underwater sounds on seals could be minor to moderate, short-term, and may occur over a spatial extent ranging from <1 km2 to 11-100 km2. Therefore, no significant behavioural impacts are expected and there is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2010). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

3.6.5 Polar Bears Airgun effects on polar bears have not been studied. However, polar bears on the ice would be unaffected by underwater sound. Sound levels received by polar bears in the water would be attenuated because polar bears generally swim with their heads out of the water or at the surface and polar bears do not dive much below several metres. Received levels of airgun sounds are reduced near the surface because of the pressure release effect at the water‘s surface (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson et al. 1995). Recent measurements of the in-air hearing of polar bears suggest bears have best hearing sensitivity for sounds with frequencies between 11.2-22.5 kHz (Nachtigall et al. 2007). Their hearing is presumably adapted for in-air hearing, and—even when submerged—they may not be very sensitive to underwater sound. There are few published data available for polar bear responses to seismic surveys. Polar bears may occur in the offshore pack ice in the GXT Study Area, particularly in areas with dense ice and ice edges.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 39

Assessment of Impacts. Given the small proportion of the polar bear population involved, and that bears generally swim with their head out of water, impacts of seismic sound sources on polar bear hearing are predicted to be negligible. Similarly, impacts of airgun array sound on polar bear behaviour are predicted to be negligible to minor, short-term, and 1-10 km2 (see Table 3). Therefore, no significant behavioural impacts are expected and there is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2010). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

3.7 Effects on Marine Mammals (Vessel and Ice Breaker Traffic)

Reactions of whales to vessels often include changes in general activity (e.g., from resting or feeding to active avoidance), changes in surfacing-respiration-dive cycles, and changes in speed and direction of movement. Responses to vessel approaches tend to be reduced if the animals are actively involved in a specific activity such as feeding or socializing (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995). Past experiences of the animals with vessels are important in determining the degree and type of response elicited from a whale-vessel encounter. Whales react most noticeably to erratically moving vessels with varying engine speeds and gear changes, and to vessels in active pursuit, none of which apply to the seismic program.

Icebreakers pushing ice radiate noise ~10-15 dB stronger than when they are underway in open water, mostly due to strong propeller cavitation (Richardson et al. 1995). In quiet ambient conditions in fast ice areas, peak noise levels from icebreakers may exceed the ambient noise level up to 300 km from the icebreaker (Davis et al. 1990). Off NE Greenland, the ambient noise in areas of moving pack ice will be higher and the energy required by an icebreaker to move ice pans will be lower. Therefore, peak noise levels from icebreakers may not exceed ambient levels at distances up to 300 km. Narwhals (and particularly beluga) are known to exhibit long distance avoidance of ships.

3.7.1 Narwhal As previously discussed, narwhals are expected to occur in the Project Area, particularly in the Northeast Water Polynya. It is uncertain how narwhals will react to the seismic and icebreaker vessels. Some narwhals have moved long distances away (many km) from icebreakers (see Richardson et al. 1995, p. 257). After initially being displaced in response to relatively low levels of noise from the ship (94-105 dB), narwhals sometimes returned 1-2 days later when icebreaker noise levels where still 120 dB.

In the Canadian High Arctic, Finley et al. (1990) studied the reactions of closely related beluga whales at ice edges to the sound of approaching ships. The whales were waiting for the ice edge to break up so they could continue their migration to summering areas. The whales made possible alarm vocalizations when the ships were 80 km distant, and showed strong avoidance reactions when the ships were 35-50 km away. Similar observations have been reported independently by Cosens and Dueck (1988). However, belugas in the Beaufort Sea have not been observed to react to ships or ship sounds at such long distances. Harwood et al. (2005) suggested that belugas likely avoided ice breakers in deep-water regions of the Canadian Beaufort when belugas were expected to be in that area.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 40

Assessment of Impacts. As noted in the PSEIA (Boertmann et al. 2009a), there is a risk that narwhal may be displaced from areas where they concentrate during summer. In particular, displacement from the Northeast Water Polynya summering area may occur. It is expected that this displacement, should it occur, would be temporary. The seismic vessel and icebreaker are expected to occur in the area of the Northeast Water Polynya for only a few days, if acquisition proceeds according to GXT‘s planned schedule, and lines in important areas to the south are widely spaced.

It is likely that narwhals will avoid the immediate area around the seismic vessel and icebreaker. Behavioural impacts (i.e., disturbance and displacement) should be minor to moderate, short-term, and may occur over a spatial extent ranging from 11-100 km2 to 101- 1,000 km2. Therefore, no significant behavioural impacts are expected and there is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2010). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as medium.

3.7.2 Bowhead Whales Bowheads may swim away from approaching vessels when they come within 2-4 km. If a vessel approaches within several hundred metres, the response usually is conspicuous. The whales typically swim at a higher speed than they normally travel, either attempting to ―outrun‖ the vessel or changing direction to swim perpendicularly away from the vessel's path (Richardson et al. 1985a,b, 1995; Richardson and Malme 1993). In contrast, if the vessel travels slowly, bowhead whales often are more tolerant of the approaching vessel, and may show little or no reaction even when the vessel is within several hundred metres. This is especially so when the vessel is not directed toward the whale and when there are no sudden changes in direction or engine speed (Wartzok et al. 1989; Richardson et al. 1995). Bowhead response to icebreakers is uncertain. During GXT‘s seismic program, both vessels will be operating at a consistently slow speed.

Assessment of Impacts. Bowhead whales are expected to avoid vessels that are underway, including the icebreaker and the seismic vessel when it is not operating an airgun array. The effects of vessel traffic on bowheads are expected to be negligible to minor, short-term, and may occur over a spatial extent of 11-100 km2 (see Table 3). Impacts on whales can be reduced if the vessels steer a straight course and maintain a constant speed whenever possible, both of which will be normal operating conditions for the seismic source vessel and icebreaker involved with the Project. Therefore, no significant behavioural impacts are expected and there is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2010). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

3.7.3 Walrus As previously noted, Boertmann et al. (2009a) suggested that the walrus is a sensitive species because the population is dependent on relatively few and localized benthic feeding areas. Some of these feeding and summering areas occur within and near GXT‘s Project Area.

The reactions of walruses to icebreaking tend to occur at longer distances than their reactions to ships in open water. Fay et al. (1984) reported that female and young walruses which were on the ice entered the water and swam away when the icebreaker was 0.5-1 km away and

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 41

males did so when the ship was 0.1-0.3 km away. The authors noted that some walruses scrambled onto the ice when a ship breaking ice moved towards them. Brueggeman et al. (1992) found that based on aerial survey results, walruses hauled out on ice, tended to avoid the area within ~10-15 km of the icebreaker.

Assessment of Impacts. Given the design of the GXT SPAN seismic program (see Figure 5), the seismic vessel and ice breaker are expected to operate in the vicinity of important walrus areas for short time periods only, on widely spaced lines. Most operations will occur in deeper offshore waters. The behavioural impacts of vessel traffic and related underwater sounds on walrus could be minor to moderate, short-term, and may occur over a spatial extent ranging from <1 km2 to 101-1,000 km2. Therefore, no significant behavioural impacts are expected and there is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a, 2010). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

3.7.4 Seals Few authors have described the responses of pinnipeds to boats, and most of the available information concerns pinnipeds hauled out on land or ice. Ringed and bearded seals hauled out on pack ice often dove into the water when an icebreaker breaking ice approached within 0.9 km (Brueggeman et al. 1992). Similarly, ringed and harp seals within 1 km of an icebreaker often dove into the water but seals 1-2 km away mostly stayed on the ice (Kanik et al. 1980). During the 2009 GXT seismic program off Northeast Greenland, 59 sightings were of seals initially observed on ice; 25% (15 sightings) of those subsequently dove into the water as the vessels approached (Jones et al. 2009). In areas of open water ringed and bearded seals are commonly observed close to vessels (e.g., Harris et al. 1997, 1998, 2001, 2007, 2008). Inuvialuit hunters in the Canadian Beaufort Sea have indicated that during seal hunting, they often create underwater noise, to attract ringed seals to their boat, noting that seals are ―curious‖ (LGL 2008). Ringed seals have also been seen feeding among overturned ice floes in the wake of icebreakers (Brewer et al. 1993).

Assessment of Impacts. Some seals are likely to avoid the icebreaker when it is breaking ice by ~ 1 km whereas seals may occur within a few tens of metres of the seismic and icebreaker vessel when these vessels are not engaged with activating the airgun array or breaking ice. Some ―curious‖ seals are likely to swim toward vessels. Given that seals are expected to be widely dispersed in the Project Area and that any displacement will be temporary and in a small area, the impact of vessel traffic on seals is expected to be negligible (see Table 3).

3.7.5 Polar Bears Like seals, polar bears exhibit variable responses to boats. Some seem to approach vessels while others exhibit avoidance (e.g., Harwood et al. 2005). Polar bears show either no or very limited reactions to icebreakers (Richardson et al. 1995). The impact of vessel traffic on polar bears is expected to be negligible (see Table 3).

3.8 Effects on Marine-associated Birds

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 42

3.8.1 Potential Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds There are few data on the effects of underwater sound on birds. Stemp (1985) made observations on the reactions of birds to seismic exploration programs in southern Davis Strait over three summer periods. No mortality or effects on distribution were detected in 1982, the only year when an airgun-based program was conducted. Evans et al. (1993:8) made observations from operating seismic vessels in the Irish Sea. They noted that when seabirds were near the seismic boats, "there was no observable difference in their behaviour, birds neither being attracted nor repelled by seismic testing".

A study on the effects of underwater seismic surveys on moulting Long-tailed Ducks in the Beaufort Sea showed little effect on their 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 they were limited in their ability to detect subtle disturbance effects and recommended studies on other species to fully understand the potential effects of seismic testing. This lack of overt response may be at least partly related to the fact that received levels of underwater sound from airguns are greatly reduced at and immediately below the surface as compared with levels deeper in the water (Greene and Richardson 1988).

Boertmann et al. (2009a) indicate that seabirds are generally not considered to be sensitive to seismic surveys, because they are readily able to avoid the seismic sound source. The authors suggest caution is warranted in coastal waters where the presence of vessels may disturb breeding and moulting concentrations of birds.

Assessment of Impacts. The presence of the survey vessel and icebreaker and perhaps the ramp-up period for the airguns will displace birds from the immediate program area. Thus, any effects of seismic survey sound on birds in the Project Area are expected to be negligible.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 43

3.8.2 Potential Effects of Vessel and Icebreaker Traffic

Waterbirds may be affected by vessel traffic in various ways. In extreme responses, some studies have shown that individuals displaced from habitat by vessel activity do not return (Green Heron Butorides virescens: Kaiser and Fritzell 1984; waterfowl: Knapton et al. 2000; Kenow et al. 2003). However, limited vessel traffic resulted in only short-term displacement of a seabird (Kittlitz‘s Murrelet, Brachyramphus brevirostris) in southeast Alaska (Agness et al. 2008).

Assessment of Impacts. The closest 2011 survey line is roughly 8 – 10 km from the closest coastal islands, more than 40 km from the closest IBA, and more than 60 km from the nearest Ramsar site (Figure 2). Sea-associated birds encountered during the seismic program are expected to be temporarily displaced by vessels that are underway, including the seismic vessel when it is not operating the airgun array. Because the vessels will be making way at a constant, low speed, the affected area will be limited to the immediate vicinity of each vessel and the effects on birds within that area will be localized and temporary. Because the vessels will be unlikely to return along the same survey-lines on the same day, affected birds in a given area will be unlikely to be disturbed more than once. In addition, it is unlikely that birds will be attracted to vessel lights (particularly given the extended periods of daylight). Bird strandings on ships have not been an issue in recent seismic programs in the Beaufort Sea (LGL Ltd., unpubl. data). The effects of vessel traffic on sea-associated birds are expected to be negligible.

3.9 Effects on Zooplankton

In the following sections, zooplankton refers to the small invertebrates generally less than 1 mm in body size that float freely throughout the water column. The potential impacts of ichthyoplankton (i.e., eggs and larvae) of macroinvertebrates and fish are addressed in Sections 3.10 and 3.11, respectively.

Few studies examining the effects of seismic sound on zooplankton have been conducted to date (DFO 2004; Payne 2004). Of the studies that have been completed, the data provided are generally insufficient to evaluate the potential effects on planktonic organisms that might be caused by exposure to seismic sound under field operating conditions (DFO 2004). It is generally accepted that zooplankton cannot actively move away from the airgun source used during seismic surveys. Zooplankton may sustain lethal injuries within 2 m of the sound source while sub-lethal injuries may occur within 5 m (Østby et al. 2003 in Boertmann et al. 2009a). No studies examining the effects of seismic sound on zooplankton located further from the sound source were found. Boertmann et al. (2009a) noted that only limited data concerning zooplankton densities in the KANUMAS East assessment area exist and assumed that densities were not higher than in other areas of Greenland where seismic surveying has occurred. Based on this assumption, the authors suggested that the impacts of seismic activity on zooplankton would likely be negligible in the KANUMAS East assessment area.

Assessment of Impacts. The proposed seismic program for 2011 is predicted to have minor impacts on the zooplankton VEC over a short-term duration in an area < 1 km2. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed program on the zooplankton VEC are predicted to be not significant (Table 3). There is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 44

nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

3.10 Effects on Macroinvertebrates

3.10.1 Sound Detection Because they lack air filled cavities and are often the same density as seawater, marine macroinvertebrates detect underwater acoustics differently than some fish. Rather than being pressure sensitive as some fish appear to be, marine macroinvertebrates appear to be sensitive to particle displacement. However, their sensitivity to particle displacement and hydrodynamic stimulation seem poor compared to fish. Crustaceans appear to be most sensitive to sounds of low frequency (i.e., <1,000 Hz) (Budelmann 1992; Popper et al. 2001).

Lovell et al. (2005) found, via the auditory brainstem response (ABR) technique, that the prawn, Palaemon serratus, responds to sounds ranging in frequency from 100 to 3,000 Hz. They also showed that the statocyst of P. serratus is sensitive to the motion of water particles displaced by low frequency sounds with a hearing acuity similar to that of a generalist fish. Measured threshold rms SPLs ranged from 106 dB re 1 µPa @ 100 Hz to 131 dB re 1 µPa @ 3,000 Hz.

As with fishes, there are three categories of potential effect of exposure to seismic on aquatic macroinvertebrates. They include (1) physical, (2) physiological, and (3) behavioural. The three categories should not be considered as independent of each other. They are certainly interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain physiological and behavioural changes could potentially lead to the ultimate pathological effect on individual animals (i.e., mortality). A wide range of macroinvertebrates occur in Greenland waters and possibly the Study Area. Some examples of macroinvertebrates include crustaceans, molluscs, polychaetes, bryozoans, sponges, cnidarians, echinoderms, tunicates, sea spiders, sea anemones, corals, and many others.

3.10.2 Potential Effects of Seismic Survey Sound

Physical Effects. To date, there have not been any well-documented cases of acute aquatic macroinvertebrate mortality as a result of exposure to seismic sound under normal seismic operating conditions. Sub-lethal injury or damage has been observed but generally as a result of exposure to very high received levels of sound, higher than would be expected in the field under normal seismic operating conditions (Pearson et al. 1994). Possible effects on eggs and larvae have been demonstrated in experimental exposures but only when the eggs and larvae were exposed very close to the seismic sources and the received pressure levels were very high (Pearson et al. 1994; Christian et al. 2003, 2004). Limited information has not indicated any chronic mortality as a direct result of exposure to seismic (LaBella et al. 1996; McCauley et al. 2000a,b; Christian et al. 2003, 2004; DFO 2004).

Physiological Effects. Primary and secondary stress responses of aquatic macroinvertebrates after exposure to seismic energy all appear to be temporary in any studies done to date (McCauley et al. 2000a,b ; Christian et al. 2003, 2004; Payne et al. 2007). The times necessary for these biochemical changes to return to normal are variable depending on

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 45

numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus (Lagardère 1982).

Behavioural Effects. The full determination of behavioural effects of exposure to seismic is difficult. There have been well-documented observations of aquatic macroinvertebrates exhibiting behaviour that appeared to be in response to exposure to seismic (i.e., startle response, change in swimming direction and speed, change in vertical distribution), but the ultimate importance of these behaviours is unclear (McCauley et al. 2000a,b). Some studies indicate that such behavioural changes are temporary while others imply that marine animals might not resume pre-seismic behaviours / distributions for a number of days (Christian et al. 2003). There have been anecdotal reports of decreased snow crab and northern shrimp catches in waters off Newfoundland shortly after exposure to seismic but there is no evidence to support those reports. Other studies have concluded that exposure to seismic did not alter catch rates (Andriguetto-Filho et al. 2005). As is the case with physical and physiological effects of seismic on aquatic macroinvertebrates, available information is relatively scant and often contradictory.

Assessment of Impacts. There is little evidence to suggest that exposure to typical seismic surveying activity has any acute physical and physiological impact on macroinvertebrate animals. Effects have been noted after exposure to very high levels of seismic under conditions that would not occur naturally. These effects under extreme conditions have been noted mostly with egg and larval stages of macroinvertebrates. It appears that some macroinvertebrates will alter behaviour to avoid a seismic source by moving away in either or both the horizontal and vertical planes (e.g., squid, shrimp). These distributional shifts are temporary.

The proposed seismic program for 2011 is predicted to have minor impacts on the macroinvertebrate VEC, including eggs and larvae, over a short-term duration over a spatial extent ranging between < 1 km2 to 11-100 km2. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed program on the macroinvertebrate VEC would be not significant (Table 3). There is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

3.11 Effects on Fish

Exposure to seismic pulses sometimes elicits behavioural reactions by fish, but there is limited information on the effect of noise-induced behavioural changes on fish. Most of the available information indicates that effects of underwater sounds on fish are transitory. Thus, obvious changes in behaviour may have inconsequential biological effects on the fish. Current research indicates that effects on fish behaviour should translate into negligible impacts on individuals and populations.

3.11.1 Hearing in Fish Fish species are generally divided into two groups – hearing specialists and hearing generalists (see reviews by Popper et al. 2003; Ladich and Popper 2004; Hastings and Popper 2005; Popper 2009; Popper and Hastings 2009a,b). Hearing specialists have special adaptations that enhance their hearing bandwidth and sensitivity (i.e., lower their hearing threshold). Hearing specialists can typically detect signals up to 3,000 to 4,000 Hz with thresholds that are 20 dB lower than the fishes without specializations for sound detection

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 46

(i.e, generalists). 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 180 kHz (Dunning et al. 1992; Nestler et al. 1992; Mann et al. 2001). Studies on Atlantic cod, a non-clupeiform fish, suggested that this species could detect ultrasound at almost 40 kHz (Astrup and Møhl 1993). The majority of fishes are hearing generalists and have a hearing bandwidth range from below 100 Hz to ~2 kHz.

The hearing bandwidth range for many fish species within the Study Area is not currently known. A summary of available information pertaining to fish audiograms was published by Nedwell et al. (2004). Included in this summary paper were audiograms for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). While this anadromous fish does not occur in the Study Area, the salmonid Arctic char does occur in southern portions of the Project Area, typically within 25 km of shore when summer marine feeding areas are occupied (Jensen and Christiansen 2003). Nedwell et al. (2004) reported a minimum threshold SPL of 95 dB re 1 µPa (unknown metric) at 100-200Hz for Atlantic salmon. Thresholds were measured over a frequency range of 30 to 350 Hz. Knudsen et al. (1992, 1994) reported that juvenile Atlantic salmon exhibited avoidance responses to non-seismic sound at 10 Hz but not at 150 Hz.

It is important to note that data on hearing capabilities exist for approximately 100 of the 27,000 or more extant species of fish; therefore, extrapolation of hearing capabilities between different species must be done with extreme caution (Hastings and Popper 2005). Though hearing capabilities are known for relatively few fish, particularly those that occur in the Project Area, the majority of fish species with known hearing abilities are capable of detecting a range of sounds, including those produced during seismic surveys.

3.11.2 Potential Effects of Seismic Survey Sound It has been shown that exposure to seismic sound sometimes elicits behavioural reactions by fish, but information on the effect of sound-induced behavioural changes on fish remains limited. Most of the available information suggests that effects of underwater sounds on fish are transitory, and, therefore, obvious changes in behaviour may have inconsequential biological effects on the fish. Current research suggests that effects on fish behaviour likely translate into negligible impacts on individuals and populations.

There are three categories of potential effects of exposure to seismic on fishes. They include (1) physical, (2) physiological, and (3) behavioural. Physical effects include lethal and sub- lethal damage, physiological effects include temporary primary and secondary stress responses, and behavioural effects refer to changes in exhibited behaviours. The three categories should not be considered as independent of each other. They are certainly interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain physiological and behavioural changes could potentially lead to the ultimate physical effect on individual animals (i.e., mortality).

Physical Effects. To date, there have not been any well-documented cases of acute post- larval fish mortality as a result of exposure to seismic sound under normal seismic operating conditions. Sub-lethal injury or damage has been observed but generally as a result of exposure to very high received levels of sound, higher than would be expected in the field under normal seismic operating conditions (Enger 1981; McCauley et al. 2000a,b, 2003; Amoser and Ladich 2003; Smith et al. 2004; Popper et al. 2005). Fish that had exhibited temporary threshold shift as a result of exposure to seismic sound (Popper et al. 2005) were

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 47

also examined for evidence of physical damage to the ear region (Song et al. 2008). No evidence of physical damage was found. Acute mortality of eggs and larvae have been demonstrated in experimental exposures but only when the eggs and larvae were exposed very close (1-3 m) to the seismic sources and the received pressure levels were presumably very high (Kostyuchenko 1973; Dalen and Knudsen 1987; Holliday et al. 1987; Matishov 1992; Booman et al. 1996; Dalen et al. 1996). A recent study by Payne et al. (2009) exposed fertilized capelin (Mallotus villosus) eggs and monkfish (Lophius americanus) larvae to seismic sound from a single airgun and subsequently examined and monitored for possible effects of the exposure. Approximate received SPLs measured in the capelin egg and monkfish larvae exposures were 199 to 205 dB re 1 µPap-p and 205 dB re 1 µPap-p, respectively. The capelin eggs were exposed to either 10 or 20 airgun discharges, and the monkfish larvae were exposed to either 10 or 30 discharges. No statistical differences in mortality/morbidity between control and exposed subjects were found at 1 to 4 days post- exposure in any of the exposure trials for either the capelin eggs or the monkfish larvae. Limited information has not indicated any chronic mortality as a direct result of exposure to seismic.

Physiological Effects. Primary and secondary stress responses of fish after exposure to seismic energy all appear to be temporary in 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 (Sverdrup et al. 1994; McCauley et al. 2000a,b).

Behavioural Effects. The full determination of behavioural effects of exposure to seismic is difficult. There have been well-documented observations of fish exhibiting behaviour that appeared to be in response to exposure to seismic (i.e., startle response, change in swimming direction and speed, change in vertical distribution) (Blaxter et al. 1981; Schwarz and Greer 1984; Løkkeborg 1991; Pearson et al. 1992; Skalski et al. 1992; Engås et al. 1996; McCauley et al. 2000a,b; Wardle et al. 2001; Hassel et al. 2003; Slotte et al. 2004; Broeger et al. 2006; Payne et al. 2008; Popper and Hastings 2009a,b) but the ultimate importance of these behaviours is unclear. Some studies indicate that such behavioural changes are very temporary while others imply that fish might not resume pre-seismic behaviour/distributions for a number of days. As is the case with physical and physiological effects of seismic on fish, available information is relatively scant 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.

Assessment of Impacts. As previously mentioned, there is little evidence to suggest that exposure to typical seismic surveying activity has any acute physical and physiological impact on fish. Effects have been noted after exposure to very high levels of seismic under conditions that would not occur naturally. It appears that some fish will alter behaviour to avoid a seismic source by moving away in either or both the horizontal and vertical planes. These distributional shifts appear to be temporary.

The proposed seismic program for 2011 is predicted to have minor impacts on the fish VEC, including eggs and larvae, over a short-term duration in area spatial extent ranging between < 1 km2 to 101-1,000 km2. Therefore, the predicted impacts of the proposed program on the fish VEC would be not significant (Table 3). There is no risk of long-term population impacts

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 48

given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

3.11.3 Potential Effects of Vessel and Icebreaker Sound on Fish

Underwater sound generated by marine vessels is continuous but of somewhat lower level than other anthropogenic sound sources. Sound generated by marine vessels within the Project Area could potentially have behavioural effects on fish but such effects would be temporary and similar to the effects of sound generated by other marine vessels not associated with the Project (e.g., research vessels, fishing vessels). The loudest sound levels from marine vessels may result from large icebreakers, particularly when they operate in ramming mode (Boertmann et al. 2009a). The peak sound levels of icebreaking may then exceed the ambient sound level up to 300 km from the sound source (Davis et al. 1990). No studies were found that examine the effects of icebreaking sound on fish.

Assessment of Impacts. Vessel noise, including icebreaker noise, is predicted to have minor impacts on the fish VEC over a short-term duration in an area <1 km2 to 101-1,000 km2. Therefore, the impacts of underwater sound generated by Project marine vessels on the fish VEC are not significant (Table 3). There is no risk of long-term population impacts given the temporary nature of the seismic program (Boertmann et al. 2009a). The level of confidence associated with this prediction is judged as high.

3.12 Accidental Events

For the purposes of this EIA, a worst case scenario approach was used as the basis for assessing the impacts of an accidental event (i.e. a fuel spill) during GXT‘s proposed seismic program. The fuel capacity of the Polar Explorer is 650,000 litres and the fuel capacity of the Vladimir Ignatyuk is 1,918,560 litres, though typically less is carried. A worst-case scenario spill would result in a spill of 1,918,560 litres of fuel during a vessel collision at sea. (Response considerations and procedures for other types of accidental events are included in the Project Safety Plan in Application Volume 2, Appendix 3.)

3.12.1 Probability of Occurrence

Fuel spills have occurred in the seismic industry but not to GXT. Such a spill is considered to be highly unlikely. For example, no such spills occurred in the Canadian Beaufort Sea during the 1970s and 1980s or 2000s when some 100,000 km of seismic surveys were conducted.

3.12.2 Mitigation

Fuel is contained in 16 separate tanks onboard the Vladimir Ignatyuk. The maximum single tank size is 264,880 litres. Numerous preventative measures and plans will be in place to avoid any fuel spillage or any other accidental events during the GXT seismic program. Plans and measures include: spill prevention plans and ship-board oil pollution prevention plans, crew training, adherence to the safety management procedures including proper bunkering procedures, oil pollution drills and other safety plans to prevent or respond to accidents. (See

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 49

Section 5.1 of the GXT Application and Appendix 3, Safety Plan.)

Also, most of the survey will occur in an offshore area away from the Greenland coast and as such will avoid sensitive areas outlined in Boertmann et al. (2009a; see Figure 7.6, below).

If a fuel spill did occur, oil spill kits (kits built for Arctic operations) are aboard both ships and both can be applied. These measures will further reduce the likelihood of an event and/or assist in mitigation if a spill should occur. For a spill, personnel would also follow the Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response 1998) prepared for the Arctic Council, as well as each vessels‘ Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP). See Application Volume 2, Appendix 3 (Safety Plan) and Appendix 3-17 to 3-22.

3.12.3 Residual Risk

A major spill of fuel is very unlikely but if one did occur, depending upon location, at least some cleanup is possible. However, Boertmann et al. (2009a) note that ―Adding to the severity of an oil spill in the assessment area is the general lack of response methods to recover oil from icy waters. Another important factor in this respect is the remoteness, inaccessibility and lack of infrastructure in the region.‖

3.12.4 Potential Environmental Effects

In the worst case scenario up to 1,918,560 L of fuel could be lost if all fuel compartments on the Vladimir Ignatyuk ruptured. Such a spill would likely form a diminishing surface slick. It is such a slick that has the most potential to harm wildlife. The oil that disperse in the water column would be diluted to low levels that would not be harmful to fish and invertebrates although there could be some very limited mortality of animals near the surface at the spill site just after the spill occurred. Such mortality would be small and would have no effect on the viability of the populations in that area. This topic was reviewed by Sprague et al. (1982) and Thomson et al. (1981). Boertmann et al. (2009a) noted that adult fish occupying coastal habitats, where oil may become trapped within bays and inlets, may be more sensitive to oil spills than those in the open ocean. The authors suggested that Arctic char, a common and important species in the KANUMAS East assessment area, would be vulnerable under such conditions. Refuelling is planned to occur in port, but if any at-sea fuel transfers do occur during GXT‘s program, it will be in offshore areas away from the Greenland coast. Effects of a spill during fuel transfer on fish, zooplankton, and macroinvertebrate VECs are judged to be not significant. There is no risk of long-term population impacts (Boertmann et al. 2009a).

The known effects of oil on marine mammals have been reviewed by Engelhardt (1983, 1985), Geraci and St. Aubin (1990) and Richardson et al. (1989). In general, the main effect of oil on marine mammals is to destroy the insulating capability of the fur of mammals that rely on fur for insulation. In the Arctic, all whales and seals rely on a layer of blubber, rather than fur, for insulation. During GXT‘s seismic program, the only species that would be vulnerable to effects on insulation is the polar bear which suffer reduced insulation capabilities if oiled. Also, bears ingest oil when trying to clean their fur and the ingested oil can make them very sick and cause mortality (Engelhardt 1981; Øritsland et al. 1981). Thus, the only effect of the spill examined here would occur if a polar bear happened to be in the

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 50

area and happened to become oiled. Mortality might occur. Given that polar bears will be widely dispersed in the Project Area and that GXT will not refuel in or near the Northeast Water Polynya, such mortality is within the annual levels of natural and hunting mortality for this stock of polar bears. It is also possible that marine mammals may be susceptible to the effects of inhaling fuel or its vapours (Matkin et al. 2008). Boertmann et al. (2009a) note that ―It is difficult to assess the impacts of an oil spill on seals and whales in the [KANUMAS east] assessment area. There is at least a risk for major impacts on individuals if oil is trapped in a polynya or along an ice edge, where also marine mammals assemble.‖ Given that GXT will not refuel in polynyas, the risk of impacting large numbers of marine mammals is minimized, and the effects of an accidental release of fuel are judged to be not significant.

The main concern about an oil spill is the resulting surface slick that could contaminate birds that landed on it or swam through it. Even very small amounts of oil are enough to breakdown the insulation capability of the feathers and cause the bird to die in cold waters. Spills can cause large bird mortalities if they occur near large concentrations of birds or near large nesting colonies (Joensen 1972; Campbell et al. 1978). Boertmann et al. (2009a, see Section 11.2.6) review the effects of oiling on seabirds and present times and areas where seabirds may be most sensitive to a spill in Northeast Greenland. During summer seabirds will be assembled near the breeding colonies and large numbers of birds, most notably eiders are known to moult in coastal waters. In late summer, large Svalbard populations of Little Auks and Thick-billed Murres migrate through the KANUMAS East assessment area, along with a significant part of the breeding population of the threatened Ivory Gull (from north Greenland, Svalbard and Arctic Russia). If these birds land in spilled fuel near the time of an accidental release, large numbers of birds could experience mortality. GXT will not refuel near the sensitive areas outlined in Figure 6. Given this mitigation measure, the magnitude of potential impacts is reduced. However, much is not known about the offshore distribution of some bird species. Significant impacts on certain seabird species could occur if a spill coincided in time and space with large groups of seabirds in offshore waters.

Figure 6 shows areas as identified in Boertmann et al. (2009a); designations should be considered preliminary (taken from Figure 51 in Boertmann et al. 2009a).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 51

Figure 6. Oil Spill Sensitive Areas for July to September

3.13 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects refer to the impacts on the environment that result from combined activities of GXT‘s proposed seismic program as well as other activities that may occur in Northeast Greenland. Relative to other areas of the Arctic where seismic survey programs occur, there are few other activities which can contribute to cumulative effects on VECs. In 2011, some cruise ships and fishing activity are expected, and the Danish Continental Shelf Project is planned to occur north of GXT‘s Project Area.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 52

3.13.1 Tourism Tourism is a growing industry in Greenland, particularly in the KANUMAS East assessment area (Boertmann et al. 2009a). Included in the tourism industry are cruise ships visits that may occur in any ice free waters during the summer (Boertmann et al. 2009a). In Greenland, the cruise ships largely frequent coastal areas where major attractions include wildlife sightings (e.g., marine mammals, birds), scenic views, and visits to inhabited areas. On the east coast, the cruise ships that arrive from Svalbard move southwards along the outer coast and in the fjord lands while those from the south, namely Tasiilaq or Iceland, mainly visit the town of Scoresbysund (Ittoqqortoormiit) and the adjacent fjord land. The number of cruise ship visits to the Scoresbysund area has increased from three in 2002 to 14 in both 2006 and 2007. Over that time period, the number of passengers has increased from <100 to ~1,000. Some cruise ships frequent the waters of the National Park but most areas are only accessible for a short time period because of sea ice. The number of cruise ship visits to the Project Area in 2011 is unknown but expected to be much lower than the number of visits to the Scoresbysund area.

3.13.2 Fishing Activity As described above, very little fishing activity occurs in the waters off Northeast Greenland. A limited Greenland halibut commercial fishery occurs in the southern portion of the KANUMAS East assessment area and outside of the Project Area. Some Arctic char fishing may occur in coastal areas. This limited fishing activity suggests that very few, if any, fishing vessels will occur within or adjacent the Project Area during the seismic survey.

3.13.3 Research Cruises

TUNU-MAFIG Program. In recent years, fish surveys have been conducted in Northeast Greenland waters during the TUNU-MAFIG Program (2002 to 2012) which is headed by the University of Tromsø in Norway. The program is part of the International Polar Year initiative and involves eight nations and roughly 35 scientists and research students. The program is largely addressing questions related to the diversity of genes, species, and communities in Arctic marine ecosystems, in particular the little studied marine fishes of Northeast Greenland between 69°N to 79°N (the National Park). A minor part of the research is allocated for studies of benthos and plankton communities and seal physiology. Fish surveys are typically conducted in September and October and involve sampling stations distributed from the innermost part of Northeast Greenland fjords to the continental slope (Christiansen 2003, 2005; Christiansen et al. 2008; J. Christiansen, pers. comm. 2010). Four research cruises (TUNU-MAFIG I-IV in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010, respectively) have been completed to date (Christiansen et al. 2008). No research cruises are planned for 2011. A fifth and final research cruise (TUNU-V) is planned for 2012 (J. Christiansen, pers. comm. 2010).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 53

Danish Continental Shelf Project. The Danish Continental Shelf Project (DCSP) (see www.A76.dk) has been conducting research cruises in recent years to acquire data to document possible claims for an extended continental shelf (beyond 200 n.mi.) in areas north, northeast, and south of Greenland. The area of interest off Northeast Greenland is bordered by the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of Svalbard (Norway) to the north, Jan Mayen (Norway) to the south, and Greenland to the west. Refraction and reflection seismic data was collected in the area in 2002 while multibeam bathymetric and seismic data were collected at the end of the LOMROG cruise in 2007 (http://a76.dk/greenland_uk/east_uk/index.html). For 2011, the Continental Shelf Project has planned a cruise using the icebreaker Oden in an area off Northeast Greenland. The cruise will acquire seismic refraction and reflection data using an array of ~ 2000 cu. in. along three seismic lines, as well as multibeam bathymetric data along the East Greenland Ridge and the continental slope along the shelf south of the Ridge. Its focus will be generally eastward from the EEZ boundary, between ~74o and 78o N though some acquisition will be inside the EEZ in some areas. The Oden will leave Longyearbyen on Svalbard on 17 August 2011 and will be back in Longyearbyen by about 9 September (pers. comm. Christian Marcussen, GEUS, May 2011).

Although GXT‘s acquisition is within the EEZ and primarily away from this area, there is a potential for sound overlap if the two projects are in the same general area at the same time. It will therefore be necessary to communicate and coordinate with the Continental Shelf Project. GXT has met with relevant GEUS personnel (February 2011) to present information about its survey and GXT will continue to coordinate with them.

3.13.4 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts With the avoidance of overlap between GXT‘s survey and the DCSP work, and in the absence of other activities, the impacts of the proposed GXT seismic project (relating to underwater sound and presence of vessels) are expected to be, at most, short-term and minor to moderate based on an assessment of VECs (Table 3). The cumulative effects on VECs of all of the expected activities are expected to be negligible to minor for most parts of Northeast Greenland. There is a possibility that seismic surveys, as part of the Danish Continental Shelf Project, will be conducted off Northeast Greenland. If two concurrent seismic surveys do occur off Northeast Greenland, it is expected that the two seismic vessels will not operate close enough concurrently to affect VECs particularly since they would have to stay apart far enough not to cause mutual acoustic signal interference. Therefore, there will be no synergistic cumulative effects on VECs. Cumulative impacts are judged to be not significant.

3.14 Data Gaps and Potential Research

Section 8 of the Seismic Guidelines (Boertmann et al. 2010) notes several areas for possible future research, including the potential for non-standard sound transmission conditions resulting from the more strongly stratified water columns that might be expected in Arctic areas. They note, ―It is therefore difficult to base impact assessments on simple transmission loss models (spherical or cylindrical spreading) and to apply assessment results from southern latitudes …. For example, the sound pressure may be very strong in convergence zones far (> 50 km) from the sound source, and this is particularly evident in stratified Arctic waters.‖ The same section also notes, ―Direct measurements around an operating airgun array in the arctic

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 54

are missing and future research should focus on this issue.‖

During the Canadian regulatory process for GXT‘s 2010 in-ice seismic program in the Arctic waters of the Canadian Beaufort Sea (modeled on GXT‘s Northeast Greenland surveys), GXT commissioned JASCO Research Ltd. (www.jasco.com) to model its planned seismic array, a somewhat larger sound source (4450 cu. in. vs the 4330 array used off Greenland). The work also involved direct measurement of the array in the Beaufort Sea during the 2010 survey (Sound Source Verification).

JASCO‘s modeling, analysis and report preparation are still under way (as of May 2011), but GXT is prepared to share results from that research with NERI when it is completed.

In terms of discussions and information from JASCO to date, their modeling has not noted instances of convergence zones resulting from the array at great distances (e.g. > 50 km) from the source. They have indicated that water depths and bottom type (including the presence of permafrost) appear to have the greatest influence on propagation loss.

It is also of note that many of the studies used as background information in this EIA were conducted in the U.S. and Canadian Arctic were sound transmission has been shown to be enhanced by such features as subsea permafrost and possibly water column stratification. GXT recognizes that underwater sound propagation can vary widely from region to region. However, the effects predictions are based on the best available scientific information and are considered valid, applying enhanced mitigations described above.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 55

4 Environmental Management and Mitigations Summary

This section summarizes GXT‘s plan for mitigating, monitoring and otherwise managing potential environmental effects that might result from the Project (detailed above) with particular reference to the Seismic Guideline requirements (Boertmann et al. 2010). Other aspects of GXT‘s overall environmental management and protection plans, including those for accidental events, are described in GXT 2011 Application Section 5.1 (Safety and Emergency Response) and Appendices under the headings Waste Management and Sewage Pollution Prevention, Air Pollution Prevention, Oil Pollution Prevention and Spill Response, Other Emergency Response, and Safety and Emergency Training (see Section 4.6, below, for waste management and pollution prevention).

GXT‘s mitigation and monitoring are designed to conform to the requirements and advice set out in Boertmann et al. (2010) and in the Application Guidelines (Section 7.1 – 7.7) with respect to protection of the natural environment and environmental monitoring. As described above in Section 3, no significant residual effects were identified during the preliminary environmental impact assessment for this Project with planned mitigations in place.

To make sure that all personnel are aware of the environmental issues and mitigations that will be applied for the 2011 survey, GXT environmental and Project management personnel had meetings with the seismic survey vessel crew and managers in Munkebo, Denmark, in early July 2011 to ensure full compliance.

4.1 Best Technology and Best Practices

The Project has been planned to use the technology best suited to the requirements of the data to be collected, the working environment and the protection of safety, while minimizing the potential for environmental risks from its use. For instance, the sound source is a compressed air array (no explosives will be used); the array power is the lowest practicable to achieve the data results required; the seismic streamer is solid core which minimizes the potential for cable leaks; there is strict control of waste and emissions; and onboard fuel is separated into multiple compartments. Descriptions of other technology used and practices applied to ensure Project safety (and thus to prevent accidents which could have environmental consequences) are contained in Section 5 of GXT‘s 2011 Application.

The Project Safety Plan (Appendix 3 of the Application) also contains ION/GXT‘s QHSE Policy and ISS Marine Environmental Guidelines with which all project vessels and contractors must comply. The following sections describe other environmental best practices GXT will employ during the 2011 Northeast Greenland Project.

4.2 Marine Mammals and Seismic Array Operations

The mitigations / precautions related to the operation of the seismic sound source array (airguns) during the survey follows the guidance provided in the most recent BMP/NERI Seismic Guidelines (Boertmann et al. 2010). GXT will follow the Best Practices as described in Boertmann et al 2010. These are also consistent with ―JNCC guidelines for minimising the risk of injury and disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys‖ (Joint Nature

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 56

Conservation Committee, August 2010). Specifically, GXT will adhere to the following practices:

 The airgun array will not be larger than needed for the survey.  A safety zone of 500 m from the airgun array will be applied.  GXT‘s MMSOs will conduct a pre-shooting search before commencement of any use of the airguns. If waters are less than 200 m deep, this search will be 30 min. If waters are more that 200 m deep, it will be conducted for 60 min. If marine mammals are spotted within the safety zone, the ramp-up procedure will be delayed 20 minutes, from the time when the animal has left the safety zone (or the ship has moved so far that the animal is outside). The pre-shooting search can be initiated before the end of a survey line, while the airguns are still firing.  The array will not be started at full power. Individual airguns will be added one by one or else, output of each airgun slowly increased by manipulation of pressure (ramp-up procedure).  The ramp-up procedure will occur over a period of about 20 min and can occur while the survey ship is en route to the starting point of the transect line.  Ramp-up will not be initiated if marine mammals are inside the array or within the safety zone (500 m) of the array. If marine mammals are discovered within this safety zone during the ramp-up procedure, the airguns shall be turned off, and a new ramp- up procedure initiated when the mammal has left the safety zone - i.e. at least 20 min. after the last sighting. If proper ramp-up cannot be performed for technical or other reasons, other measures should be taken to assure that no animals are within the safety zone at start up.  If the array is shut down for any reason while on the transect line it can be re-initiated at full power given that the silent break is not longer than 5 min. Otherwise a full ramp-up procedure should be followed.  The array will be shut down completely between lines, if the transit time is longer than the time it takes to conduct a ramp-up and a full ramp-up will be initiated prior to arrival at the next line. If transit time is less than 20 min the array can be operated during transit, preferably at reduced power output.  Two MMSO will be posted on the Polar Explorer and at least one will be continuously on the look out particularly for whales during the preshooting search and when airguns are operated.  Observation of marine mammals during shooting and inside the safety may not lead to shutdown.  A log of marine mammal observations will be kept on the ship and reported as part of the cruise report.  Airguns will not be used outside the transect lines, except in the cases mentioned above (ramp-up prior to arrival and on short transit lines) and for strictly necessary testing purposes. Testing the array at full power will be initiated with a ramp-up procedure as above.  GXT will implement a shutdown if a bowhead whale, northern right whale, beluga, narwhal, or walrus is observed within or about to enter within a 500 m radius of the seismic source within any of the designated Protection Zones and within a 200 m radius in all other areas.

Although BMP/NERI does not require shutdowns for marine mammals entering the safety zone after the array is at full power, a 200 m shutdown was required during the 2009 NE

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 57

Greenland survey, and continued to be implemented (voluntarily) for the 2010 survey (see Section 3.6).

GXT‘s MMSOs who will be implementing these procedures during the 2011 survey are highly qualified and have extensive experience implementing similar procedures in many jurisdictions. In addition, as described earlier, GXT environmental and Project management personnel had meetings with the seismic survey vessel crew and managers in Munkebo, Denmark, in early July 2011 to ensure full understanding of these requirements and the need for full compliance.

4.3 Fishing Activities

Fishing (or other activities) will not be prevented or unnecessarily impeded by GXT‘s survey (see Section 3.13) Fishing activities will be given priority if encountered. As stated in Section 4.1 of GXT‘s 2011 Application, acquisition will be coordinated with any other activities in the area to avoid disruption. However, given the very low level of fishing activity (and other marine activity) expected in the seismic survey area it is not expected that any potential for interference will occur.

4.4 Important Wildlife Areas and Protection Zones

The important wildlife areas and sensitive zones (Boertmann et al. 2010, Chapter 6) in the vicinity of the 2011 survey lines are discussed and mapped in Section 3, above, as are the mitigations to be put in place related to them. These are areas for seabirds, narwhals, bowhead whales and walruses, and sensitive areas in relation to fuel spills.

4.5 Monitoring

4.5.1 Fisheries The 2011 Application Guidelines state (Section 7.5) that ―The licensee shall, upon BMP request, include one or more Fishery Liaison Officers (FLO) in the operation. The FLO must be approved by the BMP and shall serve as an advisory observer and communicator in matters related to fishery. BMP may impose specific requirements on the FLO‘s qualifications, including, for example that he must be speaking Greenlandic in order to communicate with local fishery actors.‖ However, it is not anticipated that a Fisheries Observer will be required considering the location of GXT‘s 2011 Northeast Greenland survey. Nevertheless, it is understood that GXT will place a FLO onboard if so requested and will bear all associated costs. If a FLO is required, a logbook of observations will be kept using the template in Appendix H of the Application Guidelines, and will be submitted to the BMP (with a copy to GXT) within 2 weeks of the termination of the exploration activity.

4.5.2 Marine Mammals GXT will have two MMSOs (Biological Observers) aboard the Polar Explorer at all times during the seismic program a (as per Section 5.3 of Boertmann et al. 2010). Details about the MMSOs‘ qualifications have been provided to NERI (same MMSOs as in 2010). The seismic guidelines state:

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 58

At least two Marine mammal and seabird observers (MMSOs) shall be on board the seismic vessels operating in Greenland waters in order to observe continuously when operating the airguns. They shall be especially trained in observation methodology and seismic mitigation.

The MMSOs have two tasks. Firstly, they have to watch systematically for marine mammals before start-up and during seismic survey in order to mitigate and observe safety distances to whales and seals.

Secondly, the MMSOs shall collect data on abundance and distribution of seabirds and marine mammals through systematic surveys. This task shall be carried out both during times when seismic survey is conducted, and when sailing in transit.

The latter task is not secondary to the former, and considerable effort should be spent on the systematic surveys.

The purpose of the second task is to improve the knowledge on temporal and spatial distribution of marine mammals and seabirds in the West [and Eastern] Greenland waters, which generally is low. The collected data will be included in the NERI- databases of background information. The information in these databases will constitute the basis for future EIA-work by NERI and is moreover available to the companies which shall operate in Greenland waters and prepare EIAs of their activities. Data have to be collected according to NERI standards to fit into the databases, and guidelines to observation methodology will be provided when a seismic survey is approved by BMP.

The MMSOs will monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessel. They will be responsible for monitoring marine mammals and delaying start of the airguns if a cetacean is seen inside the 500 m zone during the 30 minutes prior to ramp-up (60 minutes in deeper waters). GXT monitors will follow specific monitoring and data collection protocols as advised by BMP/NERI (those protocols described in the 2010 Manual for seabird and marine mammal surveys on seismic vessels in Greenland). A log of marine mammal observations will be kept and reported as part of the cruise report.

As noted above, although no shutdown for marine mammals is required, GXT will implement a shutdown if a bowhead whale, northern right whale, beluga, narwhal, or walrus is observed within or about to enter within a 500 m radius of the seismic source in all Protection Zones and within 200 m in all other areas. In addition, further observations for marine mammals will be maintained by bridge personnel on the icebreaker, as described above. GXT will bear all costs associated with the MMSOs‘ participation in the Project.

Seabirds. GXT‘s MMSO will place a particular focus on observing and recording seabird sighting data during the 2011 survey, as in 2010. GXT MMSOs will use NERI Field Recording and Data Entry sheets/database forms, and will follow the latest NERI/BMP procedures described in the most recently available manual for seabird and marine mammal surveys on seismic vessels in Greenland.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 59

4.6 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention

The Polar Explorer and the Vladimir Ignatyuk have Shipboard Garbage Management Plans that are issued in accordance with the requirements of MARPOL Annex V. Both plans include the following components: Garbage Record Book; Incinerator Management; Designated Persons and Duties; Procedures for Collection, Storage and Processing garbage. No non-degradable materials will be disposed of in the area.

Both the Polar Explorer and the Vladimir Ignatyuk both have sewage treatment plants that comply with MARPOL Annex IV of the International Convention of for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Both sewage treatment plants of meet the effluent standards as provided in resolution MEPC.2 (VI).

Both vessels have a MARPOL International Air Pollution Certificate. The Polar Explorer certificate was issued under the provisions of the Protocol of 1997 as amended by resolution MEPC.176(58) in 2008. The Vladimir Ignatyuk certificate was issued on the Protocol 1997 to amend the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 related thereto and as amended by Resolution MEPC.132(53).

Both vessels have MARPOL International Oil Pollutions Prevention Certificates issued under the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978. Both vessels have a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan issued in accordance with the Requirements of Regulation 26 Chapter IV of MARPOL 73/78 International Convention amended in 1999. The Field Guide for Oil Spill in Arctic Waters, a program by the Arctic Council will be used in the event of an oil spill. The vessels will conduct drill using these guidelines.

GXT‘s vessels will only use diesel and gasoil with a sulphur content less than 1.5 % (weight). Heavy fuel oil and oil with a sulphur content >1.5 % should will not be used.

4.7 Other Environmental Conditions

The BMP‘s Application Guidelines (Section 7.7) also note requirements related to other environmental conditions and considerations:

 When acquiring seismic data, the operation shall be conducted in accordance with the Best Practices listed in NERI Report No. 785, Chapter 5 concerning acquisition of seismic data.  All non-degradable materials and structures shall be removed upon termination of the operation, unless BMP approves otherwise (see 4.5.3, above).  Discharge of waste water and kitchen waste shall be in compliance with the provisions of Annex IV and Annex V of the MARPOL Convention (see 4.5.3, above).  Hunting and fishing is not permitted in connection with exploration activities, unless specific permission is given by the Greenland Government.  BMP may when approving specific exploration activities require the licensee to perform further impact studies and / or limit the operation to certain periods or from certain areas.  Vessels engaged and machinery used in the exploration activities should only use diesel and gasoil with a sulphur content less than 1.5 % (weight). Heavy fuel oil and oil with a sulphur content >1.5 % should not be used (see 4.5.3, above).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 60

.

GXT will comply with each of these requirements (as described above) and has briefed Project personnel about these and all other environmental commitments and requirements during in-person start up meetings before acquisition (during early July 2011). GXT project vessels will also comply with all parts of Landstings-forordning No. 4 of 3 November 1994 on the protection of the marine environment that apply to the GXT project area and vessels.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 61

5 References / Citations

Abgrall, P., V.D. Moulton and W.J. Richardson. 2008. Updated review of scientific information on impacts of seismic survey sound on marine mammals, 2004-present. LGL Rep. SA973-2. Rep. from LGL Limited, St. John's, NL and King City, ON, for Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Science Branch, Ottawa, ON. 28 p. + appendices. Agness, A.M., J.F. Piatt, J.C. Ha, and G.R. VanBlaricom. 2008. Effects of vessel activity on the near- shore ecology of Kittlitz‘s Murrelets (Brachyramphus brevirostris) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Auk 125: 346-353. Amoser, S. and F. Ladich. 2003. Diversity in noise-induced temporary hearing loss in otophysine fishes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(4): 2170-2179. 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. Cont. Shelf Res. 25: 1720-1727. Árnason, Ú., K. Bodin, A. Gullberg, C. Ledje, and S. Mouchaty. 1995. A molecular view of pinniped relationships with particular emphasis on the true seals. J. Molecular Evol. 40: 78-85. Astrup, J. and B. Møhl. 1993. Detection of intense ultrasound by the cod Gadus morhua. J. Exp. Biol. 182: 71-80. 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. Working Paper SC/58/E35 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, IWC Annual Meeting, 1-13 June, St. Kitts and Nevis. 13 p. Barkaszi, M.J., D.M. Epperson, and B. Bennett. 2009. Six-year compilation of cetacean sighting data collected during commercial seismic survey mitigation observations throughout the Gulf of Mexico, USA. p. 24-25. In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Canada, Oct. 2009. 306 p. Berta, A., R. Racicot and T. Deméré. 2009. The comparative anatomy and evolution of the ear in Balaenoptera mysticetes. p. 33. In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306 p. Birchard, E.C. and R. Nancarrow. 1986. The Minuk I-53 Artificial Island oil spill. p. 375-378. In: Proceedings 9th Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, 10-12 June 1986, Edmonton. Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Blackwell, S.B., C.R. Greene, T.L. McDonald, C.S. Nations, R.G. Norman, and A. Thode. 2009a. Beaufort Sea bowhead whale migration route study. Chapter 8. In: D.S. Ireland, D.W. Funk, R. Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski (eds.). 2009. Joint Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, open water seasons, 2006-2007. LGL Alaska Rep. P971-2. Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc. (Anchorage, AK) et al. for Shell Offshore Inc. (Anchorage, AK) et al. 485 p. plus appendices. Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, A.M. Thode, K.H. Kim, C.R. Greene, and M.A. Macrander. 2009b. Effects of seismic exploration activities on the calling behavior of bowhead whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. p. 35. In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Canada, 12-16 Oct. 2009. 306 p. Blaxter, J.H.S., J.A.B. Gray and E.J. Denton. 1981. Sound and startle responses in herring shoals. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK 61: 851-869. BMP (Government of Greenland Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum). 2003. Seismic survey standards for offshore West Greenland May 2003. 24 pp.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 62

BMP (Government of Greenland Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum). 2011. BMP Guidelines for application, execution and reporting of offshore hydrocarbon exploration activities (excluding drilling) in Greenland May 2011. 15 pp. Boertmann, D., A. Mosbech, D. Schiedek, and K. Johansen (eds.). 2009a. The western Greenland Sea. A preliminary strategic impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the KANUMAS East area. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. NERI Technical Report No. 719. 246 pp. Boertmann, D., K. Olsen, and R.D. Nielson. 2009b. Seabirds and marine mammals in Northeast Greenland, aerial surveys in spring and summer 2008. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. NERI Tech. Rep. No. 721. 50 p. Boertmann, D., M. Flemming, and J. Durinck. 2009c. Bowhead whales in East Greenland, summers 2006-2008. Polar Biol. 32: 1805-1809. Boertmann, D., Tougaard, J., Johansen, K. & Mosbech, A. 2010. Guidelines to environmental impact assessment of seismic activities in Greenland waters. 2nd edition. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 42 pp. – NERI Technical Report no.785. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR785.pdf Boertmann, D. 2008. Grønlands Rødliste – 2007. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet, og Grønlands Hjemmestyre. 156 pp. (Danish with English summary). Boertmann, D. 1994. An annotated checklist to the birds of Greenland. Meddr. Grønland, Bioscience 38. Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren, and K. Toklum. 1996. Effecter av luftkanonskyting på egg, larver og yngel. Fisken Og Havet 1996(3): 1-83 (Norwegian with English summary). Born, E.W., R. Dietz, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, and L.Ø. Knutsen. 1997. Historical and present distribution, abundance and exploitation of Atlantic Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus L.) in eastern Greenland. Meddr. Grøenland Bioscience 46. 73 pp. 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: 2469-2484. Brandt, A. 1997. Abundance, diversity and community patterns of epibenthic- and benthic-boundary layer peracarid crustaceans at 75 degree N off East Greenland. Polar Biol 17(2): 159-74. Brewer, K.D., M.L. Gallagher, P.R. Regos, P.E. Isert, and J.D. Hall. 1993. ARCO Alaska, Inc. Kuvlum #1 exploration prospect/Site specific monitoring program final report. Rep. from Coastal & Offshore Pacific Corp., Walnut Creek, CA, for ARCO Alaska Inc., Anchorage, AK. 80 p. Broeger, W.A., M.R. Pie, A. Ostrensky, and M.F. Cardoso. 2006. The effect of exposure to seismic prospecting on coral reef fishes. Brazilian J. Ocean. 54: 235-239. Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Green, R.A. Grotefendt, M.A. Smultea, D.P. Volsen, R.A. Rowlett, C.C. Swanson, C.I. Malme, R. Mlawski, and J.J. Burns. 1992. 1991 marine mammal monitoring program (seals and whales) Crackerjack and Diamond prospects Chukchi Sea. Rep. from EBASCO Environmental, Bellevue, WA, for Shell Western E & P Inc. and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Var. pag. Budelmann, B.U. 1992. Hearing in crustacea. p. 131-139. In: D.B. Webster, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper (eds.). The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. Caldwell, J. and W. Dragoset. 2000. A brief overview of seismic air-gun arrays. The Leading Edge 19: 898-902. Campbell, L.H., K.T. Sandring, and C.J. Cadbury. 1978. Firth of Forth oil pollution incident, February 1978. Mar. Poll. Bull. 9: 335-339.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 63

CEA Agency (Canadian Environment Assessment 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. Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, and R.A. Buchanan. 2004. Chronic effects of seismic energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Research Funds Report No. 158. Calgary. 45 p. Christian, J.R., A. Matthieu, D. White, and R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effects of seismic energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Research Funds Report No. 144. Calgary. 106 p. Christiansen, J.S., O.V. Karamushko, S.-E. Fevolden, and K. Præbel. 2008. TUNU-MAFIG: Marine fishes of North East Greenland – diversity and adaptation. ICES CM 2008/B:19. Christiansen, J.S. 2005. TUNU-II Expedition: Marine fishes of NE Greenland – diversity and adaptation. Technical Report, University of Tromsø. 28 p. Christiansen, J.S. 2003. TUNU-I Expedition: The fish fauna of the NE Greenland fjord systems. Technical Report, University of Tromsø. 33 p. Christie, K., C. Lyons, W.R. Koski, D.S. Ireland, and D.W. Funk. 2009. Patterns of bowhead whale occurrence and distribution during marine seismic operations in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. p. 55. In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Canada, 12-16 Oct. 2009. 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, 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. Cosens, S.E. and L.P. Dueck. 1988. Responses of migrating narwhal and beluga to icebreaker traffic at the Admiralty Inlet ice-edge, N.W.T. in 1986. p. 39-54. In: W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffries, J.L. Imm, and S.D. Treacy (eds.), Port and ocean engineering under arctic conditions, vol. II. Geophysical Inst., Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 111 p. Dalen, J. and G.M. Knutsen. 1987. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations. Symposium on Underwater Acoustics, Halifax, 1986. Dalen, J., E. Ona, A.V. Soldal, and R. Saetre. 1996. Seismiske undersøkelser til havs: En vurdering av konsekvenser for fisk og fiskerier. Fisken Og Havet 9. English Summary: 4-6. Davis, R.A., J. Richardson, L. Thiele, R. Dietz, and P. Johansen. 1990. State of the Arctic environment. Report of underwater noise, November 9, 1990. – Finnish Initiative on Protection of the Arctic Environment. DeRuiter, S.L., P.L. Tyack, Y.-T. Lin, A.E. Newhall, J.F. Lynch, and P.J.O. Miller. 2006. Modeling acoustic propagation of airgun array pulses recorded on tagged sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(6): 4100-4114. DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2004. Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Habitat Status Report 2004/003. Dietz, R., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, E.W. Born, and C.M. Glahder. 1994. Occurrence of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) and white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in East Greenland. Meddr. Grønland. Bioscience 39: 69-86. Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2009. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. Biol. Lett. 6(1):51-54. Dunn, R.A. and O. Hernandez. 2009. Tracking blue whales in the eastern tropical Pacific with an ocean-bottom seismometer and hydrophone array. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(3): 1084-1094.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 64

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. Egevang, C., and D. Boertmann. 2001. The Greenland Ramsar sites. A status report. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark, NERI Technical Report No. 346. 96 pp. 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(10): 2238-2249. Engelhardt, F.R. (ed.). 1985. Petroleum effects in the arctic environment. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London. Engelhardt, F.R. 1981. Oil pollution in polar bears: exposure and clinical effects. p. 139-179. In: Proc. 4th Arctic Marine Oilspill Program technical seminar, Edmonton, Alta. Envir. Protect. Serv., Ottawa. 741 p. Engelhardt, F.R. 1983. Petroleum effects on marine mammals. Aquatic Toxicol. 4: 199-217. Enger, P.S. 1981. Frequency discrimination in teleosts - central or peripheral. p. 243-255. In: W.N. Tavolga and A.N. Popper (eds.), Hearing and sound communication in fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York. Evans, P.G.H., E.J. Lewis, and P. Fisher. 1993. A study of the possible effects of seismic testing upon cetaceans in the Irish Sea. Rep. by Sea Watch Foundation, Oxford, to Marathon Oil UK Ltd., Aberdeen. 35 p. Fay, F.H., G.C. Ray, and A.A. Kibal´chich. 1984. Time and location of mating and associated behaviour of the Pacific walrus Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illiger. p. 89-99. In: F.H. Fay and G.A. Fedoseev (eds.). Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Vol 1- Pinnipeds. NOAA Technical Reports NMFS 12., Washington D.C. 104 pp. Finley, K.J., G.W. Miller, R.A. Davis, and C.R. Greene. 1990. Reactions of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to icebreaking ships. In: T.G. Smith, D.J. St. Aubin and J. Geraci (eds.) Advances in research on the Beluga whale, (Delphinapterus leucas). Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 224:97-117. 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. Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schulundt, 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(1): 417-431. Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(4): 2696-2705. FMOTE (Finnish Ministry of the Environment). 1997. Guidelines for environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the Arctic. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. 51 pp. Gautier, D.L. 2007. Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the East Greenland Rift Basins Province. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3077. 4 p. Gearing, P.J. and J.N. Gearing. 1982. Behaviour and fate of No. 2 fuel oil in the water column of controlled ecosystems. Mar. Envir. Res. 6: 115-132. Gedamke, J., S. Frydman, and N. Gales. 2008. Risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys: preliminary results from simulations accounting for uncertainty and individual variation. Intern. Whal. Comm. Working Pap. SC/60/E9. 10 p.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 65

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1990. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego. 282 p. Gilg, O., and E.W. Born. 2005. Recent sightings of the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) in Northeast Greenland and the Greenland Sea. Polar Biol. 28: 796-801. Gilg, O., D. Boertmann, F.R. Merkel, A. Aebischer, and B. Sabard 2009. The status of the endangered Ivory Gull, Pagophila eburnean, in Greenland. Polar Biol. 32: 1275-1286. Glahder, C.M., D. Boertmann, J. Madsen, M. Tamstorf, K. Johansen, J.Hansen, A. Walsh, C. Jaspers, and M. Bjerrum. 2010. Biological baseline study in the Ramsar site ―Heden‖ and the entire Jameson Land, East Greenland. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University. NERI Technical Report No. 769. Available at: http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR769.pdf. Goold, J.C. and R.F.W. Coates. 2006. Near source, high frequency air-gun signatures. Paper SC/58/E30 presented to the IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Annu. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts. Goold, J.C., and P.J. Fish. 1998. Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to dolphin auditory thresholds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 103: 2177-2184. 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. Tech. Soc. J. 37(4):16-34. Gordon, J., R. Antunes, N. Jaquet and B. Würsig. 2006. An investigation of sperm whale headings and surface behaviour before, during and after seismic line changes in the Gulf of Mexico. Intern. Whal. Comm. Working Pap. SC/58/E45. 10 p. Greene, C.R. 1997. An autonomous acoustic recorder for shallow arctic waters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102(5, Pt. 2): 3197. Greene, C.R., Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 1988. Characteristics of marine seismic survey sounds in the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83: 2246–2254. Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman, and W.J. Richardson. 1999a. Bowhead whale calls. p. 6-1 to 6-23. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p. Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman, and W.J. Richardson. 1999b. The influence of seismic survey sounds on bowhead whale calling rates. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(4, Pt. 2): 2280. [Abstract] GXT (GXT Canada Limited). 2009. GXT 2009 2-D seismic survey application for East/North Greenland regions. Prepared by GXT Canada Limited and LGL Limited, St. John‘s, NL. Prepared for the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, Nuuk, Greenland. Vol. 1: Main Application Document. GXT (GXT Canada Limited). 2010. GXT 2010 2-D seismic survey application for East/North Greenland regions. Prepared by GXT Canada Limited and LGL Limited, St. John‘s, NL. Prepared for the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, Nuuk, Greenland. Vol. 1: Main Application Document. Haley, B., J. Beland, D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and D.M. Savarese. 2009. Chukchi Sea vessel-based monitoring program. Chapter 3. In: D.W. Fun, D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigures, and W.R. Koski (eds.). 2009. Joint Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, open water seasons, 2006-2008. LGL Alaska Report P1050-1, Report from LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., LGL Ltd., Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., and JASCO Research, Ltd., for Shell Offshore, Inc., and Other Industry Contributers, and National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 488 p. plus appendices.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 66

Harris, R.E., A.N. Balla-Holden, S.A. MacLean, and W.J. Richardson. 1998. Seals. p. 4-1 to 4-54. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of BP Exploration (Alaska)‘s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1997. LGL Rep. TA2150-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for BP Explor. (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK, and U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 318 p. Harris, R.E., G.W. Miller, and W.J. Richardson. 2001. Seal responses to airgun sounds during summer seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar. Mam. Sci. 17(4): 795-812. Harris, R.E., G.W. Miller, R.E. Elliott, and W.J. Richardson. 1997. Seals. p. 4-1 to 4-42. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Northstar marine mammal monitoring program, 1996: marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of a seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. LGL Rep. TA2121-2. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for BP Explor. (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 245 p. Harris, R.H., A. Lewin, A. Hunter, M. Fitzgerald, A.R. Davis, R.E. Elliott, and R.A. Davis. 2008. Marine mammal mitigation and monitoring for GX Technology‘s Canadian Beaufort Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2007. LGL Rep. TA4460-1-2. Report prepared for GX Technology Corp., Houston, Texas by LGL Limited, King City, Ontario. 100 p. Harris, R.H., T. Elliott, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of marine mammal monitoring and mitigation program, Beaufort Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Report prepared for GX Technology Inc., Houston, Texas by LGL Limited, King City, Ontario. 48 p. Harwood, L.A., F. McLaughlin, R.M. Allen, J. Lillasiak, Jr., and J. Alikamik. 2005. First-ever marine mammal and bird observations in the deep Canada Basin and Beaufort/Chukchi seas: expeditions during 2002. Polar Biol. 28: 250-253. Harwood, L., T. Smith, A. Joynt, D. Kennedy, R. Pitt, S. Moore, and P. Millman. 2010. Potential for displacement of whales and seals by seismic and exploratory drilling activity in the Canadian Beaufort Sea - what have research and observations revealed to date? ( abstract for presentation by Lois Harwood, DFO Canada, to the Canada - US Northern Oil and Gas Research Forum in Calgary, December 2010). Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, S. Løkkeborg, K. Skaar, Ø. Østensen, E.K. Haugland, M. Fonn, Å. Høines, and O.A. Misund. 2003. Reaction of sandeel to seismic shooting: A field experiment and fishery statistics study. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway. Hastings, M.C., and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of sound on fish. California Department of Transportation Contract 43A0139 Task Order 1. 82 pp. Hauser, D.D.W., M Holst, and V.D. Moulton. 2008. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s marine seismic program in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, April–August 2008. LGL Rep. TA4656/7-1. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City., Ont., and St. John‘s, Nfld, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 98 p. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., M.J. Simon, and K.L. Laidre. 2007. Estimates of large whale abundance in Greenlandic waters from a ship-based survey in 2005. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9(2): 95- 104. 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.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 67

Holst, M., and M.A. Smultea. 2008. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory‘s marine seismic program off Central America, February – April 2008. LGL Rep. TA4342-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 133 p. Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005a. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s marine seismic program off the Northern Yucatán Peninsula in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, January–February 2005. LGL Rep. TA2822-31. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish Serv., Silver Spring, MD. Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005b. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s marine seismic program in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean off Central America, November–December 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-30. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. Holst, M., W.J. Richardson, W.R. Koski, M.A. Smultea, B. Haley, M.W. Fitzgerald, and M. Rawson. 2006. Effects of large- and small-source seismic surveys on marine mammals and sea turtles. Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Supplement, Abstract OS42A-01. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD. Holst, M., W.J. Richardson, W.R. Koski, M.A. Smultea, B. Haley, M.W. Fitzgerald, and M. Rawson. 2006. Effects of large- and small-source seismic surveys on marine mammals and sea turtles. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Suppl., Abstract OS42A-01. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD. Hutchinson, D.R., and R.S. Detrick. 1984. Water gun vs. air gun: a comparison. Mar. Geophys. Res. 6(3): 295-310. Hvidegaard, S.M., R. Forsberg, S. Hanson, H. Skourup, and L.T. Pedersen. 2008. Sea ice conditions off NW and NE Greenland from satellite measurements, airbourne, and in-situ data. Contract Report for Greenland Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum. 60 pp. IEG (Inuvialuit Environmental and Geotechnical Inc.). 2001. Project Description for the proposed Anderson Resources Ltd. Summer 2001/2002 marine seismic program. Project No. 733-00. Rep. by Inuvialuit Environmental and Geotechnical Inc., Calgary, AB, for Anderson Resources Ltd., Calgary, AB. 185 p. + appendices. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2010. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org Jensen, D.B., and K.D. Christensen. 2003. The biodiversity of Greenland – a country study. Pinngortitalerifik, Grønlands Naturinstitut Technical Report No. 55. 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. MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 345 p. 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. 323 p. Joensen, A.H. 1972. Studies on oil pollution and seabirds in Denmark 1968-1971. Danish Rev. Game Biol. 6: 1-32.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 68

Joint Nature Conservation Committeel. 2010. JNCC guidelines for minimising the risk of injury and disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys. Aberdeen, UK. 16 p. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/JNCC_Guidelines_Seismic%20Guidelines_August%202010.pdf Jones, C.G., D.D.W. Hauser, A.L. Lang, and V.D. Moulton. 2009. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of GX Technology‘s 2009 2-D seismic program offshore of Northeast Greenland. LGL Rep. SA1067. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John‘s, NL, for GX Technology Canada Ltd., Calgary, AB. 33 p + appendices. Jones, D.O.B., B.J. Bett, and P.A. Tyler. 2007. Depth-related changes in the arctic epibenthic megafaunal assemblages of Kangerdlugssuaq, east Greenland. Mar. Biol. Res. 3(4): 191-204. Kaiser, M.S., and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on Green-backed Heron behavior. J. Wildl. Manage. 48: 561-567. Kanik, B., M. Winsby, and R. Tanasichuk. 1980. Observations of marine mammal and sea bird interaction with icebreaking activities in the High Arctic July 2-12, 1980. Rep. from Hatfield Consultants Ltd., West Vancouver, BC, for Petro-Canada, Calgary, AB. 53 p. Kastak, D., and R.J. Schusterman. 1998. Low-frequency amphibious hearing in pinnipeds: methods, measurements, noise, and ecology. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103(4): 2216-2228. Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C.R. Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary threshold shift in pinnipeds: effects of noise level and duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(5): 3154-3163. Kastak, D., R.J. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold shift induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinniped. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(2): 1142-1148. Kenow, K.P., C.E. Korschgen, J.M. Nissen, A. Elfessi and R. Steinbach. 2003. A voluntary program to curtail boat disturbance to waterfowl during migration. Waterbirds 26: 77-87. Ketten, D.R. 1995. Estimates of blast injury and acoustic trauma zones for marine mammals from underwater explosions. p. 391-406. In: J.A. Kastelein, P.E. Thomas, and P.E. Nachtigall (Eds.), Sensory Systems of Aquatic Mammals. De Spil, Woerden. Ketten, D.R., J. O'Malley, P.W.B. Moore, S. Ridgway, and C. Merigo. 2001. Aging, injury, disease, and noise in marine mammal ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110(5, Pt. 2): 2721. Knapton, R.W., S.A. Petrie, and G. Herring. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point Bay, Lake Erie. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28: 923-930. Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1992. Awareness reactions and avoidance responses to sound in juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J. Fish Biol. 40: 523-534. Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance responses to low frequency sound in downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. J. Fish Biol. 45: 227-233. Koski, W.R., D.W. Funk, D.S. Ireland, C. Lyons, K. Christie, A.M. Macrander, and S.B. Blackwell. 2009. An update on feeding by bowhead whales near an offshore seismic survey in the central Beaufort Sea. Intern. Whal. Comm. Working Pap. SC/61/BRG3. 15 p Kostyvchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea. Hydrobiol. J. 9: 45-48. Kryter, K.D. 1994. The handbook of hearing and the effects of noise. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL. 673p. Kryter, K.D. 1985. The effects of noise on man. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL. 688 p. La Bella, G., S. Cannata, 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. International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment, New Orleans, Louisiana, 9-12 June. p. 227-238.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 69

Lacroix, D.L., R.B. Lancot, J.A. Reed, and T.L. McDonald. 2003. Effect of underwater seismic surveys on molting male Long-tailed Ducks in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 81: 1862-1875. Ladich, F., and A.N. Popper. 2004. Parallel evolution in fish hearing organs. pp. 98-127. In: G.A. Manley, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay (eds). Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System. Springer-Verlag, New York. Lagardère, J.-P. 1982. Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. Mar. Biol. 71(2): 177-185. Larsen, F., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, A.R. Martin, and E.W. Born. 1994. Line-transect estimation of abundance of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in Scoresby Sund and adjacent waters. Meddr. Grønland. Bioscience 39: 87-91. Lawson, J.W. and V.D. Moulton. 1999. Seals. p. 4-1 to 4-69. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical‘s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p. LGL. 2008. Project Description for the proposed GX Technology Beaufort Span 2-D Marine Seismic Program, Open-water Season 2008. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John‘s, NL and King City, ON for GX Technology Canada Ltd. LGL Rep. No. TA4460-2. 165 p. + appendices. Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral responses of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic 41(3): 183-194. Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. ICES CM B:40. 9 p. Lovell, J.M., M.M. Findley, R.M. Moate, and H.Y. Yan. 2005. The hearing abilities of the prawn Palaemon serratus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A 140: 89-100. MacLean, S.A. and W.R. Koski. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory‘s seismic program in the Gulf of Alaska, August–September 2004. LGL Report TA2822-28. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 102 p. Mactavish, B.D. and A.L. Lang. 2011. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of GX Technology‘s 2010 2-D seismic program offshore of Northeast Greenland. LGL Rep. SA1097. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John‘s, NL, for GX Technology Canada Ltd., Calgary, AB. 32 p. 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. 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(6): 3048-3054. 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., E.L. Saulitis, G.M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk, and S. Rice. 2008. Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 356: 269–281.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 70

Mayer, M., and D. Piepenburg. 1996. Epibenthic community patterns on the continental slope off East Greenland at 75ºN. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 143: 151-164. McCauley, R.D, J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Prepared for Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia, 198 p. 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. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental implications. APPEA Journal 2000: 692-708. McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 113: 638-642. McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor array in the Northeast Pacific. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98(2 Pt.1): 712-721. Miller, G.W., and R.A. Davis (eds.). 2002. Marine mammal and acoustic monitoring of Anderson Exploration Ltd‘s open-water seismic program in the southeastern Beaufort Sea. Final report by LGL Limited, King City, ON and JASCO Research Limited, Victoria, B.C. for Devon Canada Corporation, Calgary, AB. 199 p. Miller, G.W,. and V.D. Moulton. 2003. Vessel-based marine mammal monitoring of Devon Canada Corporation‘s 2002 open-water seismic program in the southeastern Beaufort Sea. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Devon Canada Corporation, Calgary, AB. LGL Rep. TA2717. 49 p. Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 to 5- 109. In: W.J. Richardson (ed., 1999), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical‘s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Anchorage, AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. xx + 390 p. Miller, G.W., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Davis, M. Holst, P. Millman, A. MacGillivray, and D. Hannay. 2005. Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals-southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002. P.511- 542. In: S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford, and K. Lee (eds.), Offshore oil and gas environmental effects monitoring/Approaches and technologies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. Miller, P.J.O., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, N. Biassoni, M. Quero, and P.L. Tyack. 2009. Using at- sea experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Res. I 56(7): 1168-1181. Møhl, B. 1968. Auditory sensitivity of the common seal in air and water. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 8(1): 27- 38. 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. Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, W.W.L. Au, M. Breese and S. Vlachos. 2005. Bottlenose dolphins: effects of noise duration, intensity, and frequency. Abstracts of the 16th biennial conference on the biology of marine mammals, San Diego, CA, 12-16 December 2005. Mosbech, A., R. Dietz, and J. Nymand. 2000. Preliminary environmental impact assessment of regional offshore seismic surveys in Greenland. Arktisk Miljo/Arctic Environment. 2nd edition. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark. Research Notes from NERI No. 132.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 71

Moulton, V.D., and G.W. Miller. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring of a seismic survey on the Scotian Slope, 2003. p. 29-40. In: K. Lee, H. Bain, and G.V. Hurley (eds.), Acoustic monitoring and marine mammal surveys in the Gully and Outer Scotian Shelf before and during active seismic programs. Env. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. No. 151. xx + 154 p. Moulton, V.D., and J.W. Lawson. 2000a. Seals, 1999. p. 4-1 to 4-58. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical‘s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2313-4. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Anchorage, AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 155 p. Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2000b. Seals, 2000. p. 4-1 to 4-39. In: W.J. Richardson (ed., 2000), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical‘s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2000: 90-day report. LGL Rep. TA2424-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Anchorage, AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 123 p. Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. p. 3-1 to 3-48. In: W.J. Richardson and J.W. Lawson (eds.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of WesternGeco‘s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2001. LGL Rep. TA2564-4. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont. for Western Geco LLC, Anchorage, AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 95 p. Moulton, V.D., R.A. Davis, J.A. Cook, M. Austin, M.L. Reece, S.A. Martin, A. MacGillivray, D. Hannay, and M.W. Fitzgerald. 2003. Environmental assessment of Marathon Canada Limited's 3-D seismic program on the Scotian Slope, 2003. LGL Rep. SA744-1. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John's, Newfoundland for Marathon Canada Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia. 173 p. Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, M. Amundin, B. Röken, T. Møller, T.A. Mooney, K.A. Taylor, and M. Yuen. 2007. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) hearing measured with auditory evoked potentials. J. Exp. Biol. 210: 1116–1122. Nachtigall, P.E., D.W. Lemonds, and H.L. Roitblat. 2000. Psychoacoustic studies of dolphin and whale hearing. p. 330-363. In: W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay (Eds.), Hearing by Whales and Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York/NY. NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission). 2005. NAMMCO scientific committee working group on the stock status of walruses in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas, Pp. 279- 3008 in NAMMCO Annual Report 2005. 380 pp. Nedwell, J.R., B. Edwards, A.W.H. Turnpenny, and J. Gordon. 2004. Fish and marine mammal audiograms: A summary of available information. Subacoustech Report ref: 534R0214. 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. Nieukirk, S.L., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, R.P. Dziak, and C.G. Fox. 2004. Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(4): 1832-1843. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic-reflection data collection in southern California/Notice of receipt of application. Fed. Regist. 65(60, 28 Mar.): 16374-16379. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1995. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; offshore seismic activities in southern California/Notice of issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization. Fed. Regist. 60(200): 53753-53760. 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.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 72

NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Marine mammal populations and ocean noise, determining when noise causes biologically significant effects. The National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Øritsland, N.A., F.R. Engelhardt, F.A. Juck, R.J. Hurst, and P.D. Watts. 1981. Effect of crude oil on polar bears. Dep. Indian Affairs and Northern Develop. Ottawa, ON. Environ. Stud. 24. 268 p. Payne, J.F. 2004. Potential effect of seismic surveys on fish eggs, larvae, and zooplankton. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2004/125. Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, L. Fancey, D. White, and J. Christian. 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. Payne, J.F., J. Coady, and D. White. 2009. Potential effects of seismic airgun discharges on monkfish eggs (Lophius americanus) and larvae. Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 170. St. John‘s, NL. 35 p. 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., J.R. Skalski, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on behaviour of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49(7): 1343-1356. Piepenburg, F., and M.K. Schmid. 1996. Distribution, abundance, biomass, and mineralization potential of the epibenthic megafauna of the northeast Greenland shelf. Mar Biol 125(2): 321-332. Popper, A.N. 2009. Are we drowning out fish in a sea of noise? Mar. Scient. 27: 18-20. Popper, A.N., and M.C. Hastings. 2009a. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integr. Zool. 4(1): 43-52. Popper, A.N., and M.C. Hastings. 2009b. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J. Fish Biol. 75(3): 455-489. 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. Popper, A.N., R.R. Fay, C. Plat, and O. Sand. 2003. Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of teleost fishes. pp. 3-38. In: S.P. Collin and N.J. Marshall (eds). Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments. Springer-Verlag, New York. 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. Reiser, C.M., B. Haley, J. Beland, D.M. Savarese, D.S. Ireland, and D.W. Funk. 2009. Evidence of short-range movements by phocid species in reaction to marine seismic surveys in the Alaskan Chukchi and Beaufort seas. p. 211. In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Canada, Oct. 2009. 306 p. Richardson, W.J., and B. Würsig. 1997. Influences of man-made noise and other human actions on cetacean behaviour. Mar. Freshwat. Behav. Physiol. 29(1-4): 183-209.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 73

Richardson, W.J., and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioral responses. p. 631-700. In: J.J. Burns, J.J. Montague and C.J. Cowles (eds.), The bowhead whale. Spec. Publ. 2. Soc. Mar. Mamm., Lawrence, KS. 787 p. Richardson, W.J., B. 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(4): 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., C.R. Greene, J.P. Hickie, R.A. Davis, and D.H. Thomson. 1989. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water marine mammals: A literature review. 2nd edition. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Am. Petrol. Inst., Washington, D.C. 385 p. Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 106(4, Pt. 2): 2281. (Abstract) Richardson, W.J., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and M. Cummings. 2009. Responses of cetaceans to large- source seismic surveys by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. p. 213. In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306 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(3): 195-230. Richardson, W.J., R.S. Wells, and B. Würsig. 1985b. Disturbance responses of bowheads, 1980-84. p. 89-196. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Behaviour, 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 U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Reston, VA. 306 p. NTIS PB87-124376. Ridgway, S.H., D.A. Carder, R.R. Smith, T. Kamolnick, C.E. Schlundt, and W.R. Elseberry. 1997. Behavioral responses and temporary shift in masked hearing threshold of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to 1-second tones of 141 to 201 dB re 1 µPa. Tech. Rep. 1751. Tech. Rep. to NRaD, RDT&E Div., Naval Command, Control & Ocean Surveillance Center, San Diego, CA. 27 p. Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, after exposure to intense tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(6): 3496-3508. 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. Sejr, M.K., K.T. Jensen, and S. Rysgaard. 2000. Macrozoobenthic community structure in a high-arctic East Greenland fjord. Polar Biol. 23: 792-801. 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(7): 1357-1365. Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen, and E. Ona. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian coast. Fish. Res. 67: 143- 150. Smith, C.L., and W.G. McIntyre. 1971. Initial aging of fuel oil films on sea water. p. 457-461. In: Proc. Joint Conf. on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills. Amer. Petrol. Instit., Washington, D.C. Smith, M.E., A.S. Kane, and A.N. Popper. 2004. Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in goldfish (Carassius auratus). J. Exp. Biol. 207: 427-435.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 74

Smultea, M.A., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and S. Stoltz. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory's seismic program in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean, April-June 2004. LGL Report TA2822-26. Prepared by LGL Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, ONT, for L-DEO, Columbia University, Palisades, NY. 106 p. Song, J., D.A. Mann, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, and A.N. Popper. 2008. The inner ears of Northern Canadian freshwater fishes following exposure to seismic air gun sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124(2): 1360-1366. 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. Southall, B.L., R.J. Schusterman, D. Kastak, and C. Reichmuth Kastak. 2005. Reliability of underwater hearing thresholds in pinnipeds. Acoust. Res. Lett. Onl. 6(4): 243-249. Sprague, J.B., J.H. Vandermeulen, and P.G. Wells (eds.). 1982. Oil and dispersants in Canadian seas- -research appraisal and recommendations. Envir. Protect. Serv. Rep. Ser. EPS 3-EC-82-2. 185 p. Starmans, A, J. Gutt, and W.E. Arntz. 1999. Mega-epibenthic communities in Arctic and Antarctic shelf areas. Mar. Biol. 135(2): 269-80. Statistics of Greenland. 2008. Kalaallit Ninaat/Grønland 2007. – Naatsorsueqqissartarfik/ Grønlands Statistik. Stemp, R. 1985. Observations on the effects of seismic exploration on seabirds. pp. 217-233. In: G.D. Greene, F.R. Engelhardt, and R.J. Peterson (eds.), Proceedings of workshop on effects of explosives use in the marine environment. Cdn. Oil and Gas Admin., Env. Prot. Branch, Tech. Rep. No. 5. Ottawa. Stone, C.J., and M.L. Tasker. 2006. The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8(3): 255-263. 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. Terhune, J., and S. Turnbull. 1995. Variation in the psychometric functions and hearing thresholds of a harbour seal. p. 81-93. In: R.A. Kastelein, J.A. Thomas, and P.E. Nachtigall (eds.), Sensory Systems of Aquatic Mammals. De Spil Publishers, Woerden, Netherlands. Terhune, J.M., and K. Ronald. 1975. Masked hearing thresholds of ringed seals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 58(2): 515-516. Thompson, P.M., M. Sjöberg, E.B. Bryant, P. Lovell, and A. Bjørge. 1998. Behavioural and physiolog- ical responses of harbour (Phoca vitulina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys. p. 134. In: World Marine Mammal Science Conference abstract volume, Monaco. 160 p. Thomson, D.H., M.A. McLaren, and A.D. Sekerak. 1981. Review of the effects of oil on marine flora and fauna with special reference to arctic regions. Rep. by LGL Limited., for Petro-Canada Exploration Inc., Calgary. 120 p. Tyack, P., M. Johnson, and P. Miller. 2003. Tracking responses of sperm whales to experimental exposures of airguns. p. 115-120. In: A.E. Jochens and D.C. Biggs (eds.), Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico/Annual Report: Year 1. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. Rep. from Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Gulf of Mexico OCS Reg., New Orleans, LA.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 75

Tyack, P.L. 2008. Implications for marine mammals of large-scale changes in the marine acoustic environment. J. Mamm. 89(3): 549-558. Tyack, P.L., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, P.J. Miller, and J. Lynch. 2006. Biological significance of acoustic impacts on marine mammals: examples using an acoustic recording tag to define acoustic exposure of sperm whales, Physeter catodon, exposed to airgun sounds in controlled exposure experiments. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Suppl., Abstract OS42A-02. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD. Vihjálmsson, H., A. Håkon Hoel, S. Agnarsson, R. Arnason, J.E. Carscadden, A. Eide, D. Fluharty, G. Hønneland, C. Hvingel, J. Jakobsson, G. Lilly, O. Nakken, V. Radchenko, S. Ramstad, W. Schrank, N. Vestergaard, and T. Wilderbuer. 2010. Fisheries and aquaculture in the Central North Atlantic (Iceland and Greenland). Section 13.3 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Accessed at: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Fisheries_and_aquaculture_in_the_Central_North_Atlantic_% 28Iceland_and_Greenland%29 von Dorrien, C., M. Schmid, D. Piepenburg, and J. Rust. 1991. Benthos and Fish. p.27-37. In: The expedition ARKTIS VII of RV Polarstern in 1990 (Leg ARK VII/2). Ed. Krause, G. Ber. Polarforsch. 93 –ISSN 0176-5027 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. Cont. Shelf Res. 21(8-10): 1005-1027. Wartzok, D., W.A. Watkins, B. Würsig, and C.I. Malme. 1989. Movements and behaviors of bowhead whales in response to repeated exposures to noises associated with industrial activities in the Beaufort Sea. Rep. from Purdue Univ., Fort Wayne, IN, for Amoco Production Co., Anchorage, AK. 228 p. Weilgart, L.S. 2007. The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management. Can. J. Zool. 85(11): 1091-1116. Weir, C.R. 2008. Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic exploration off Angola. Aquat. Mamm. 34(1): 71-83. Wiig, Ø., L. Bachmann, J.M. Vincent, K.M. Kovacs, and C. Lydersen. 2007. Spitsbergen bowhead whales revisited. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 23: 688-693. Winsor, M.H., and B.R. Mate. 2006. Seismic survey activity and the proximity of satellite tagged sperm whales. Intern. Whal. Comm. Working Pap. SC/58/E16. 8 p. WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2008. Kalaallit Nunaat high arctic tundra (NA1112). Accessed at: http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/na/na1112_full.html.

Personal Communications J. Christiansen Department of Aquatic BioSciences, University of Tromsø C. Egevang Department of Arctic Environment C. Marcussen GEUS A. Mosbech National Environmental Research Institute

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 76

Appendices

.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 77

Appendix 1. Important Bird Areas and Ramsar Sites within the KANUMAS East Assessment Area. Location includes minimum distance (in parentheses) from the approximate centre of the IBA to the Project Area. Grey shading indicates sites which occur well south of the Study Area.

Size Name Location Habitat Importance (ha) 1 Kilen 81º15‘N, 51,300 A flat, gravel plain comprising Non-breeding: 625 Brent Geese (moulting); 2,500 (also Ramsar 13º30‘W polar desert and melt-water rivers, Common Eider and 1,000 King Eider (staging) site) (35.0 km) surrounded on three sides by Breeding: 70 pairs Brent Geese, 35 Ivory Gulls 20-30 glaciers and on the fourth by the Sabine‘s Gulls, 50 Arctic Terns. polar sea. 2 Henrik Krøyer 80º45‘N, 1,000 Three small, low-lying, barren Breeding: 510 Ivory Gulls; possible breeding Ross‘s Holme 13º45‘W islands located in the north-eastern Gulls (within water polynya. Proj. Area) 3 Western part of 77º15‘N, 100,000 Rolling tundra lowland with lakes Non-breeding: 7,000 Pink-footed Geese, significant Germania land 22º0‘W and ponds, situated adjacent to the moulting site. (104.5 Inland Ice between 76°45'N and Breeding: Diverse breeding birds that are restricted in km) 77°35'N. Large expanses of bare Europe to the Arctic/tundra biome (Pink-footed Goose, ground (moraine) occur close to the Barnacle Goose, King Eider, Sanderling, Gray ice sheet. Phalarope and Long-tailed Skua).

4 South coast of 76º50‘N, 35,000 A 5-10 km wide expanse of gravel Non-breeding: Moulting area for 1,500 Pink-footed Germania Land, 19º20‘W moraines and uplifted former sea Geese and 350 Barnacle Geese. and Slaedelandet (44.4 km) floor, separating the large fjord-like Breeding: Diverse breeding birds that are restricted in Lake Saelsøen from Dove Bay. The Europe the Arctic/tundra biome (Barnacle Goose, Long- area is crossed by several rivers, tailed Duck, Gyrfalcon, Red Knot, Sanderling, Gray notably Lakseelven, and there are Phalarope, Long-tailed Skua and Snowy Owl. numerous small lakes and ponds with narrow fringes of vegetation. Arctic tundra grows on the slopes

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 78

Size Name Location Habitat Importance (ha) rising up towards the hinterland. 5 Hochstetter 75º27‘N, 184,800 An extensive area of coastal tundra Non-breeding: Moulting area for 3,000 Pink-footed Forland 20º0‘W with river valleys and wetlands. Geese and 400 Barnacle Geese. (also Ramsar (56.5 km) Breeding: Diverse breeding birds that are restricted in site) Europe the Arctic/tundra biome (Barnacle Goose, King Eider, Long-tailed Duck, Red Knot, Sanderling, Gray Phalarope and Long-tailed Skua. 6 Albrecht Sletten 74º30‘N, 30,000 An extensive area of tundra with Non-breeding: 2,000 Pink-footed Geese moulting. (Storsletten), 20º0‘W several ponds. Breeding: Long-tailed Duck, waders and Long-tailed Wollaston (64.3 km) Skua. Forland 7 Østersletten and 73º34‘N, 55,000 A large, rather dry area of lowland Non-breeding: Moulting area for 350 Barnacle Geese Knudshoved, 20º45‘W traversed by two rivers. The site Hold With Hope (72.6 km) includes the mouth of the Tobias Dal valley. 8 Stordal- 73º30‘N, 90,000 A series of converging, wide Non-breeding: Moulting area for Pink-footed Geese and Moskusoksefjord 22º0‘W glacial valleys in otherwise 440 Barnacle Geese. -Badlanddal- (113.2 mountainous terrain, containing Breeding: Snowy Owl, waders, Long-tailed Skua and Loch Fyne- km) fjords, seasonal stream channels Common Eider Myggbukta and water-bodies, and tundra vegetation overlying thick glacial deposits. Moskusoksefjord and Loch Fyne are long, narrow sea inlets that continue inland as valleys. The site includes Ternholme˜a flat, low-lying island located 2.5 km offshore from Myggbukta. 9 Enhjørningens 71º37‘N, 50,000 Two river valleys situated in Non-breeding: An important moulting and breeding site Dal and Pingel 23º7‘W eastern Scoresby Land, with marsh for Brent Geese (750).

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 79

Size Name Location Habitat Importance (ha) Dal (269.6 and dwarf-shrub heath vegetation. km) 10 Ørsted Dal and 71º40‘N, 40,000 A c.60-km long valley containing Non-breeding: 1,864 Barnacle Geese Coloradodal 23º22‘W marshes, lakes, ponds and gravel Breeding: 60 Pink-footed Geese and 200 Barnacle (271.5 plains, bisecting a plateau (700- Geese. km) 1,000 m) in Scoresby Land 11 Liverpool Land 71º0‘N, 150,000 A rocky coastline with cliffs and Breeding: 3.5 million pairs of Little Auks coast and mouth 21º40‘W small offshore islands (Raffles Ø (Internationally significant numbers). Also 2,000 of Scoresby (293.2 and Rathbone Ø), extending from Brünnich‘s Guillemot. Sund km) 70°30'N to 71°30'N. Scoresby Sund is the mouth of a wide fjord between Liverpool Land coast and Kap Brewster (IBA 042), which remains ice-free for much of the year due to strong tidal currents (i.e. a polynya). The nutrient-rich waters provide excellent feeding for seabirds. Subsistence hunting takes place. 12 Kjoveland 71º22‘N, 15,000 An area of tundra and dwarf-shrub Non-breeding: 621 moulting Barnacle Geese 24º47‘W heath situated in western Jameson (330.8 Land, containing lakes, rivers and km) several marshes. Subsistence hunting takes place. 13 Heden 71º0‘N, 252,400 Situated in the western part of Non-breeding: Very important numbers of moulting (also Ramsar 24º7‘W Jameson Land, this site comprises Pink-footed Geese (5,300) and Barnacle Geese (1,750). site) (344.2 flat tundra (mainly dwarf-shrub km) heath and grassland) and areas of Note: In 2010 there is a proposal to add Ørsted Dal to bare ground interspersed with the Ramsar site to compensate for mining activities to many rivers, lakes and ponds. The take place at Gurreholm located within the Heden

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 80

Size Name Location Habitat Importance (ha) primary habitats for geese are areas Ramsar site (Glahder et al. 2010). The Ørsted Dal area of marsh and wet grassland will include 4,700 moulting Barnacle Geese (an adjacent to lakes and streams, and additional 7%) of the breeding population of Greenland coastal saltmarshes. Barnacle Geese to the Ramsar site. 14 Kap Brewster 70º10‘N, 20,000 Rocky coastline and cliffs located Breeding: Internationally significant numbers of and Volquart 23º22‘W on the south shore of Scoresby breeding Little Auk (999,999). Brünnich‘s Guillemot Boon's coast (406.5 Sund (IBA 043), extending from (15,000) and Black-legged Kittiwake also breed. km) 22°W to 25°W. Subsistence hunting takes place Source: BirdLife International website (www.birdlife.org/datazone/sites/index.html?action=SitHTMFindResults.asp&INam=&Reg=7&Cty=85). Accessed 3 March 2010.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 81

Appendix 2. List of Marine-Associated Birds and Summary of their Distribution and Abundance in Northeast Greenland

Greenland Species Scientific Name Occurrence in Northeast Greenland Red List Status Gaviidae Red-throated Diver Gavia stella Widespread, sparse breeder LC Great Northern Diver Gavia immer Sparse breeder NT Procellariidae Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis A few colonies, common offshore in summer LC Sulidae Northern Gannet Morus bassanus Rare offshore, summer NL Anatidae Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus Breeder, Common moulting LC Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Breeder, rare NL Canada Goose Branta Canadensis Rare LC Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis Common breeder. LC Brent Goose Branta bernicla Former breeder, now rare migrant NT Common Teal Anas crecca Rare summer NL Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Rare summer LC Common Eider Somateria mollissima Common breeder. Uncommon winter. LC King Eider Somateria spectabilis Common breeder LC Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histronicus Rare summer NL Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Common widespread breeder LC Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Rare breeder NL Charadriiformes Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula Common breeder LC Red Knot Calidris canutus Locally common breeder LC Sanderling Calidris alba Common breeder LC Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritime Scarce breeder NL Dunlin Calidris alpina Common breeder LC Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Rare breeder NT GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 82

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Common breeder LC Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Scarce breeder LC Grey Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius Uncommon breeder LC Laridae Pomarine Skua Stercorarius pomarinus Locally common summer visitor NL Arctic Skua Stercorarius parasiticus Common breeder LC Long-tailed Skua Stercorarius longicaudus Common breeder NL Great Skua Stercorarius skua Uncommon offshore NL Lesser black-backed Gull Larus fuscus Rare breeder, increasing LC Herring Gull Larus argentatus Rare summer vagrant NL Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides Summer and autumn vagrant LC Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Widespread/common to sparse breeder LC Great black-backed Gull Larus marinus Annual summer vagrant NL Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Only a few colonies VU Ross‘s Gull Rhodostethia rosea Rare visitor VU Several breeding colonies; uncommon summer visitor in most Sabine‘s Gull Xema sabini NT coastal areas Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea Locally common migrant and summer visitor; breeds in north. VU Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Widespread; sparse and locally common breeder NT Alcidae Brünnich‘s Guillemot Uria lomvia A few large colonies near Scoresby Sund VU Razorbill Uria aalge A few records near Scoresby Sund LC Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle Common breeder LC Little Auk Alle alle Huge colonies near Scoresby Sund LC Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica One small breeding colony NT Source: Boertmann (1994, 2008); Boertmann et al. (2009a). NL = Not Listed; LC = Least Concern; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 83

Appendix 3: Overview of Marine Mammals Occurring in the KANUMAS East Assessment Area. Modified from Boertmann et al. (2009a).

Distribution Greenlan and Assessment area Common Period of Protection/ d Red Scientific Name Main habitat occurrence in importance to Name occurrence exploitation List assessment population status1 area Mainly ice Polar bear Ursus maritimus Whole year Widespread Hunting regulated VU High covered waters Low numbers, Walrus Odobenus rosmarus Whole year Coastal waters Hunting regulated NT High very localised Whelp on drift Hunting Hooded seal Cystophora cristata Mar to Oct Numerous LC High ice unregulated Whelp on drift Hunting Harp seal Phoca groenlandica Mar to Oct Numerous LC High ice unregulated Both in coastal Widespread in Hunting Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus Whole year and offshore DD High low numbers unregulated waters Whole area, Common and Hunting Ringed seal Phoca hispida Whole year LC High usually in ice widespread unregulated Bowhead Whole Marginal ice Widespread, Balaena mysticetus Protected (1932) CR High whale year? zone few Balaenoptera Minke whale Jun to Oct Ice free waters Unknown2 Hunting regulated LC Potentially medium acutorostrata Balaenoptera Sei whale Jun to Oct Ice free waters Unknown2 Protected DD Potentially medium borealis Balaenoptera Blue whale Jul to Oct Ice free waters Unknown2 Protected (1966) DD Potentially medium musculus Balaenoptera Fin whale Jun to Oct Ice free waters Unknown2 Hunting regulated LC Potentially medium physalus

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 84

Distribution Greenlan and Assessment area Common Period of Protection/ d Red Scientific Name Main habitat occurrence in importance to Name occurrence exploitation List assessment population status1 area Humpback Megaptera Jun to Oct Ice free waters Unknown2 Protected (1986) LC Potentially medium whale novaeangliae Outside the ice Hunting Pilot whale Globicephala melas Jun to Oct Unknown2 LC Probably low covered areas unregulated White-beaked Lagenorhynchus Outside ice Hunting Jun to Oct Unknown2 NA Probably low dolphin albirostris covered areas unregulated Mainly ice free Hunting Killer whale Orcinus orca Jun to Aug waters, whole Unknown2 NA Unknown unregulated area Delphinapterus Fjords and Hunting Beluga Summer Very rare CR Low leucas shallow waters unregulated Fjords, ice Hunting Narwhal Monodon monoceros Whole year Common DD High edges unregulated Physeter Deep waters, Sperm whale May to Nov Unknown Protected (1985) NA Probably low macrocephalus southern part Northern Deep waters Hyperoodon bottlenose May to Nov only, mainly in Probably rare Unregulated NA Probably low ampullatus whale south Modified from Boertmann et al. (2009a)

1 Red-list status from Boertmann et al (2009a). NA=Not Applicable; DD=Data Deficient; LC=Least Concern; VU=Vulnerable; NT=Near Threatened; CR=Critically Endangered. 2 No or limited data available for the KANUMAS East assessment area, but species is abundant in neighbouring Norwegian and/or Icelandic waters.

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 85

GXT NE Greenland 2011 Marine Survey Program EIA 86