CA PDF Page 15 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Humpback whales are seasonally present within the Bay of Fundy; they migrate to the Bay for feeding in the late spring, and remain until late fall (Ingram et al. 2007). They are also primarily found in the lower portion of the Bay of Fundy, with some individuals observed in the upper Bay (Figure 11-5; NOAA 2012). The minimum population estimate for the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy was 823 individuals in 2008 (NOAA 2012).
Minke whales found in the Bay of Fundy are considered to be part of the Canadian East Coast stock with an estimated abundance of 20,741 individuals in 2007 (NOAA 2013a). They are typically observed in the Bay from July to September, with some individuals remaining year round (Lien 2001). They are usually concentrated in the lower Bay (Ingram et al. 2007), with some observations occurring in the upper Bay (Figure 11-6).
Atlantic white-sided dolphin and harbour porpoise, both toothed whales, are found-year round in the Bay of Fundy. Harbour porpoise has a wider distribution within the Bay of Fundy than Atlantic white-sided dolphin, although both species have concentrations in the lower part of the Bay (Figure 11-7 and Figure 11-8). The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy harbour porpoise stock was estimated to have 79,883 individuals in 2011 (NOAA 2013b). The highest densities of harbour porpoises are observed during the summer (July and August) when feeding (Trippel et al. 1999), while densities decrease during the winter as many individuals migrate south to the eastern coast of the US (NOAA 2013b). Individuals have been observed in the upper Bay of Fundy and along the south and west shores of Nova Scotia, but numbers are much higher in the lower Bay of Fundy (COSEWIC 2006; Palka 2000). Atlantic white-sided dolphin densities in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy are higher in the summer and lower in the winter when the species move south down the northeastern seaboard of the United States (Northridge et al. 1997). They have been sighted throughout the Bay of Fundy, although concentrated in the lower half of the Bay and have an abundance estimate of 48,819 individuals in 2011 (NOAA 2013c).
Harbour seals are the only pinniped species commonly found within the RAA, with highest abundances in the summer, but are present year-round (Jacobs and Terhune 2000; Rosenfeld et al. 1988; NOAA 2014). They are found throughout the Bay of Fundy, including near industrialized sites, with the highest abundance in the lower Bay of Fundy and moderate abundance in the upper Bay (Stobo and Fowler 1994). The best Canadian estimate of abundance is approximately 10,000 animals, based on summing other population estimates (COSEWIC 2007a).
Marine mammal species, including SARA-listed species that are most likely to occur in the RAA are listed in Table 11-2.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-15
CA PDF Page 16 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
11-16 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
! !
! ! CA PDF Page 17 of 68
r Grand Lake r ve UV2 ive i R R k 2 Réserve nationale n o UV Réserve nationale de a o t p o ap r c 2 de faune de Shepody,/ N B o UV faune du Marais n a m Anthonys e o Shepody r
B Y r John Lusby/ M
o O e Cove is Riv a
h s National c ca John Lusby Marsh o lle be Po tt Riv c S e er a
A n Wildlife Area n n t S n National Wildlife Area
th r Ke R o iv n R
ys eam a B i e 7 n i v
ro Parc r
UV t o e k J r o national du H h é n er b ± iv Canada Fundy/ e R R r i d t v UV1 n er o Fundy National UV3 m am Park of Canada r e H v Havre de Saint John / r i e v R iver i ay R Saint John Harbour e i fw R l al n u o h H lm S F a o S x
NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK / g R
i Répartition du rorquali à bosse
Baie Mispec / B v e ! N Deep (aux 10 km² ) / Humpbackr Whale Mispec Bay NEW BRUNSWICK e Saint John River 2
r UV Cove e Distribution (per 10 km² ) M p ! ag is a R g i u ve a r MispecMAINE Point d ! avi c B R on i n v L e e y r p Kennebecasis River R r i e ve a r u !
N R
e i Saint v w e R r John ive r ")")99 Complexe maritime de Saint John / Saint John MarineTerminal Complex St.C r o ix R i A v 1 v e UV o r er n Riv R au iv Zone de protection marine de l'estuaire re e pe r as de la Musquash / Musquash Estuary G Marine Protected Area UV1 ")9 Île Deer
Island UV12
MAINE r
e
v
i R Complexe du terminal maritime Baie de Fundy / Bay of Fundy Île Cambobello x de Saint John / Saint John Marine u
a Island t Terminal Complex
i c S
P N
h
a
e r
r 14 a b UV !
d r
o i ! s o e r k e B e Riv r lis R o o k i p o v a e n r Île An UV10 Grand Manan Island W Go es ld t R R i v i e ve r 103 r UV B 8 ea UV L r R aH iver a ve M R artins Île i R ve i r ver Machias Seal Island Parc national et Lieu historique national Sissiboo R du Canada Kejimkujik/ iver Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site of r e S v a i Canada lte UV1 R r r e M s v e l d B i w
r o S
ay o Riv k e r NOUVELLE-ÉCOSSE / Lake
Rossignol r
e k
v NOVA SCOTIA o i o Stoney Brook r 0 8 16 24 32 R B M C t s e n l r e s y e o y Rive Kilomètres / Kilometres m d W r l B a e R r S i o v a e d r R UV101 iv er
QC NB ME Secteur d'intérêt / PE Area of Interest Répartition du rorqual à bosse dans la baie de Fundy, de 1966 à 2013 / Humpback Whale Distribution in the Bay of Fundy, 1966 - 2013 NS
Sources: Données sur le projet fournies par TransCanada Pipelines Limited. Données de base fournies par les gouvernement du Canada et du Nouveau-Brunswick. Données sur les mammifères marins fournis par Halpin et al. (2009), SeaMap du SIBO, Hyrenbach et al. (2006), Khan et al. (2010), Kenney (2005), PSeaMap du SIBOalka (2007), Robbins et al. (2012), Environnement Canada (2014), Pêches et Océans Canada (2014), Right Whale Consortium (2014), et Smedbol et al., 2005. /
Sources: Project data provided by TransCanada Pipelines Limited. Base data provided by the Government of Canada and New Brunswick. Marine mammal data provided by Halpin et al. (2009) (OBIS- SEAMAP), Hyrenbach et al. (2006), Khan et al. (2010), Kenney (2005), Palka (2007), Robbins et al. (2012), Environment Canada (2014), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2014), Right Whale Consortium (2014), and Smedbol et al. (2005). 11-5 ! !
! ! CA PDF Page 18 of 68
r Grand Lake r ve UV2 ive i R R k 2 Réserve nationale n o UV Réserve nationale de a o t p o ap r c 2 de faune de Shepody,/ N B o UV faune du Marais n a m Anthonys e o Shepody r
B Y r John Lusby/ M
o O e Cove is Riv a
h s National c ca John Lusby Marsh o lle be Po tt Riv c S e er a
A n Wildlife Area n n t S n National Wildlife Area
th r Ke R o iv n R
ys eam a B i e 7 n i v
ro Parc r
UV t o e k J r o national du H h é n er b ± iv Canada Fundy/ e R R r i d t v UV1 n er o Fundy National UV3 m am Park of Canada r e H v Havre de Saint John / r i e v R iver i ay R Saint John Harbour e i fw R l al n u o h H lm S F a o S x
NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK / g R
i i
Baie Mispec / B v e ! N Répartition du petit rorqual (aux 10 km² ) / Deep r Mispec Bay NEW BRUNSWICK e Saint John River 2 r Minke Whale Distribution (per 10 km² ) UV Cove e M p ! ag is a R g i u ve a r MispecMAINE Point d ! avi c B R on i n v L e e y r p Kennebecasis River R r i e ve a r u !
N R
e i Saint w v e R r John ive r 9 Complexe maritime de Saint John / ")")9 Saint John MarineTerminal Complex St.C r o ix R i A v 1 v e UV o r er n Riv R au iv re e Zone de protection marine de l'estuaire pe r as de la Musquash / Musquash Estuary G Marine Protected Area UV1 ")9 Île Deer 12
Island UV
MAINE r
e
v
i R Complexe du terminal maritime Baie de Fundy / Bay of Fundy Île Cambobello x de Saint John / Saint John Marine u
a Island t Terminal Complex
i c S
P N
h a
e r
r 14 a b UV !
d r
o i ! s o e r k e B e Riv r lis R o o k i p o v a e n r Île An UV10 Grand Manan Island W Go es ld t R R i v i e ve r 103 r UV B 8 ea UV L r R aH iver a ve M R artins Île i R ve iv Machias Seal r er Island Parc national et Lieu historique national Sissiboo R du Canada Kejimkujik/ iver Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site of r e S v a i Canada lte UV1 R r r e M s v e l d B i w
r o S
ay o Riv k e r NOUVELLE-ÉCOSSE / Lake
Rossignol r
e k
v NOVA SCOTIA o i o Stoney Brook r 0 8 16 24 32 R B M C t s e n l r e s y e o y Rive Kilomètres / Kilometres m d W r l B a e R r S i o v a e d r R UV101 iv er
QC NB ME Secteur d'intérêt / PE Area of Interest Répartition du petit rorqual dans la baie de Fundy, de 1971 à 2013 / Minke Whale Distribution in the Bay of Fundy, 1971 - 2013 NS
11-6 ! !
! ! CA PDF Page 19 of 68
r Grand Lake r ve UV2 ive i R R k 2 Réserve nationale n o UV Réserve nationale de a o t p o ap r c 2 de faune de Shepody,/ N B o UV faune du Marais n a m Anthonys e o Shepody r
B Y r John Lusby/ M
o O e Cove is Riv a
h s National c ca John Lusby Marsh o lle be Po tt Riv c S e er a
A n Wildlife Area n n t S n National Wildlife Area
th r Ke R o iv n R
ys eam a B i e 7 n i v
ro Parc r
UV t o e k J r o national du H h é n er b ± iv Canada Fundy/ e R R r i d t v UV1 n er o Fundy National UV3 m am Park of Canada r e H v Havre de Saint John / r i e v R iver i ay R Saint John Harbour e i fw R l al n u o h H lm S F a o S x
NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK / g R
i i
Baie Mispec / B v e ! N r Mispec Bay NEW BRUNSWICK e Saint John River 2
r UV e Répartition du dauphin à flancs blancs M p ! ag is a R (aux 10 km² ) /Atlantic White - Sided g i u ve a r Dolphin Distribution (per 10 km² ) MispecMAINE Point d ! avi c B R on i n v L e e y r p Kennebecasis River R r i e ve a r u !
N R
e i Saint w v e R r John ive r Complexe maritime de Saint John / ")9 Saint John MarineTerminal Complex St.C r o ix R i A v 1 v e UV o r Zone de protection marine de l'estuaire er n Riv R au iv de la Musquash / Musquash Estuary re e pe r as Marine Protected Area G UV1 ")9 Île Deer 12
Island Baie de Fundy / Bay of Fundy UV
MAINE r
e v
Île i R Complexe du terminal maritime
Campobello x de Saint John / Saint John Marine u
a Island t Terminal Complex
i c S
P N
h a
e r
r 14 a b UV !
d r
o i ! s o e r k e B e Riv r lis R o o k i p o v a e n r Île An UV10 Grand Manan Island W Go es ld t R R i v i e ve r 103 r UV B 8 ea UV L r R aH iver a ve M R artins Île i R ve iv Machias Seal r er Island Parc national et Lieu historique national Sissiboo R du Canada Kejimkujik/ iver Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site of r e S v a i Canada lte UV1 R r r e M s v e l d B i w
r o S
ay o Riv k e r NOUVELLE-ÉCOSSE / Lake
Rossignol r
e k
v NOVA SCOTIA o i o Stoney Brook r 0 8 16 24 32 R B M C t s e n l r e s y e o y Rive Kilomètres / Kilometres m d W r l B a e R r S i o v a e d r R UV101 iv er
QC NB ME PE Secteur d'intérêt / Area of Interest Répartition du dauphin à flancs blancs dans la baie de Fundy, de 1969 à 2013 / Atlantic White - Sided Dolphin Distribution in the Bay of Fundy, 1969 - 2013 NS
11-7 ! !
! ! CA PDF Page 20 of 68
r Grand Lake r ve UV2 ive i R R k 2 Réserve nationale n o UV Réserve nationale de a o t p o ap r c 2 de faune de Shepody,/ N B o UV faune du Marais n a m Anthonys e o Shepody r
B Y r John Lusby/ M
o O e Cove is Riv a
h s National c ca John Lusby Marsh o lle be Po tt Riv c S e er a
A n Wildlife Area n n t S n National Wildlife Area
th r Ke R o iv n R
ys eam a B i e 7 n i v
ro Parc r
UV t o e k J r o national du H h é n er b ± iv Canada Fundy/ e R R r i d t v UV1 n er o Fundy National UV3 m am Park of Canada r e H v Havre de Saint John / r i e v R iver i ay R Saint John Harbour e i fw R l al n u o h H lm S F a o S x
NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK / g R
i i
Baie Mispec / B v e ! N r Mispec Bay NEW BRUNSWICK e Saint John River 2
r UV e Répartition du marsouin commun M p ! ag is (aux 10 km² ) / Harbour Porpoise a R g iv u e Distribution (per 10 km² ) a r MispecMAINE Point d ! avi c B R on i n v L e e y r p Kennebecasis River R r i e ve a r u !
N R
e i Saint v w e R r John ive r Complexe maritime de Saint John / ")9 Saint John MarineTerminal Complex St.C r o ix R i A v 1 v e UV o r Zone de protection marine de l'estuaire er n Riv R au iv de la Musquash / Musquash Estuary re e pe r as Marine Protected Area G UV1 ")9 Île Baie de Fundy / Bay of Fundy Deer
Island UV12
MAINE r
e v
Île i R Complexe du terminal maritime
Campobello x de Saint John / Saint John Marine u
a Island t Terminal Complex
i c S
P N
h a
e r
r 14 a b UV !
d r
o i ! s o e r k e B e Riv r lis R o o k i p o v a e n r Île An UV10 Grand Manan Island W Go es ld t R R i v i e ve r 103 r UV B 8 ea UV L r R aH iver a ve M R artins Île i R ve i r ver Machias Seal Island Parc national et Lieu historique national Sissiboo R du Canada Kejimkujik/ iver Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site of r e S v a i Canada lte UV1 R r r e M s v e l d B i w
r o S
ay o Riv k e r NOUVELLE-ÉCOSSE / Lake
Rossignol r
e k
v NOVA SCOTIA o i o Stoney Brook r 0 8 16 24 32 R B M C t s e n l r e s y e o y Rive Kilomètres / Kilometres m d W r l B a e R r S i o v a e d r R UV101 iv er
QC NB ME Secteur d'intérêt / Area of Interest PE NS Répartition du marsouin commun dans la baie de Fundy, de 1969 à 2013 / Harbour Porpoise Distribution in the Bay of Fundy, 1969 - 2013
11-8 CA PDF Page 21 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
11.2.2.2 Sea Turtles
Desktop review indicates that the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) has been identified, although rarely, within the Bay of Fundy and the RAA, with no sightings recorded in the marine LAA (Halpin et al. 2009; James et al. 2006; Right Whale Consortium 2014). Within the marine RAA, most sightings have occurred in the lower Bay, primarily around Lighthouse Cove and Long Island, Nova Scotia. Sightings are considered to be rare in the Bay of Fundy as the waters of Atlantic Canada represent the northern reaches of their distribution, which extends to the south-east tip of mainland Newfoundland and Labrador (Halpin et al. 2009; James et al. 2006). Compared to the Bay of Fundy, leatherback sea turtles are more frequently sighted on the Scotian Shelf and outer coast of Nova Scotia (James et al. 2006) with high-use area identified as important habitat are located in the southeastern Gulf of St. Lawrence and off eastern Cape Breton, waters east and southeast of Georges Bank, and in waters south and east of Burin Peninsula, Newfoundland (DFO 2012). There is no designated critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle within the marine RAA. Sea turtle species are not listed in Table 11-2 because they are considered not likely to occur in the RAA.
11.2.2.3 Marine Birds
Existing Conditions
The Bay of Fundy is one of the largest semi-enclosed coastal seas in North America (Environment Canada 2014). The abundant rocky coastlines and rich marine environment of the Bay of Fundy are home to many species of marine birds which are found year-round or seasonally within the RAA. Existing conditions are characterized for marine bird species expected to use habitats below the high water mark, specifically seabirds, waterfowl and shorebirds. SOMC that are found or are likely to be found in the RAA are discussed below.
Seabirds include pelagic birds, which are independent of land for foraging and resting and spend long periods of time away at sea, only returning to the land to breed, and inshore birds, which occupy and forage in relatively shallow waters close to the coast. The large majority of seabirds are colonial and many show remarkable site fidelity, returning to the same breeding site or territory for consecutive years. Pelagic birds including Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), great shearwater (Puffinus gravis) and sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus), parasitic jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus), south polar skua (Stercorarius maccormicki), and Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) and Wilson’s storm-petrel (Oceanites oceanicus) may be irregularly observed between July and early November when food is abundant (Behrens and Cox 2013).
Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) and Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) are present year round, and razorbill (Alca torda) is present in wintering colonies between fall and spring (Behrens and Cox 2013). Other alcids are variable from year to year and include dovekie and common and thick-billed murre.
Northern gannet (Morus bassanus) can be observed during most of the year with the exception of winter. Large flights of hundreds of individuals can be seen during spring and fall migration. Small numbers of migrating common (Sterna hirundo) and Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) may also be observed during August and September.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-21
CA PDF Page 22 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
The RAA is home year-round to large numbers of gulls including herring gull (Larus argentatus), great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), and ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), along with black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) (Behrens and Cox 2013). Other gull species which occur in winter include Iceland (Larus glaucoides) and glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus).
Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) can be observed passing in large flocks of hundreds of birds in September and October, with great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) occurring from November and through winter in small numbers.
Waterfowl are generally classified as being of the order Anseriformes (e.g., geese, swans, ducks, and mergansers), but for the purpose of this report also include loons (i.e., Gaviiformes). Marine waterfowl include species that, outside of the breeding season, are found in the marine environment. There are two marine waterfowl SAR that can be observed in the RAA: harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) and Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica). Harlequin duck is uncommon as a migrant and wintering species. All three species of scoter (black [Melanitta americana], surf [Melanitta perspicillata], and white- winged [Melanitta fusca]) may be observed in the RAA on passage in April and May and between September and November. Common eider (Somateria mollis) is common year-round, and flights of hundreds occur in April. Common loon (Gavia immer) pass through the RAA in steady numbers from late winter through May and from August into December. Red-throated loon (Gavia stellata) may be observed in May and November.
Shorebirds are associated with wetland and coastal environments. The Bay of Fundy provides a resting and foraging stopover for shorebirds during migration. Isolated sand-cobble beaches and large stretches of tidal mud flats offer foraging and roosting opportunities to millions of shorebirds during the fall migration period (Fundy Shorebirds 2006). The most common and numerous species of shorebirds observed during migration in the Bay of Fundy are semipalmated sandpipers (Calidris pusilla) and semipalmated plovers (Charadrius semipalmatus). Winter habitat is sparse for shorebirds in the Bay of Fundy; but flocks of purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima) will use ice-free shorelines along the rocky shores of the Bay of Fundy. Red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) and piping plover (Charadrius melodus) may also occur in the RAA.
Desktop review indicates that six marine bird SOMC may occur within the Project RAA (see Table 11-3). A description of each is provided below.
11-22 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 23 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Table 11-3 Marine Bird Species of Management Concern Known to Occur in the Regional Assessment Area
NBDNR General Common Name Scientific Name SARA1 COSEWIC2 NB SARA Rank3 Status4 ACCDC Rank5 Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Schedule 1, Special Concern Endangered At Risk S1B,S2N (Eastern population) Special Concern Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Schedule 1, Special Concern Special Concern Sensitive S2N (Eastern population) Special Concern Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Schedule 1, endangered endangered Breeding population: S1B endangered at risk Piping plover (melodus Charadrius melodus Schedule 1, endangered endangered Breeding population: S2B subspecies) endangered at risk Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus - special concern - Migrating population: S3M sensitive Red Knot (rufa Calidris canutus rufa Schedule 1, endangered endangered Migrating population: S3M subspecies) endangered at risk NOTES: S1 = Extremely rare throughout its range in the province (typically five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals). May be especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Rare throughout its range in the province (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals). May be vulnerable to extirpation due to rarity or other factors. S3 = Uncommon throughout its range in the province, or found only in a restricted range, even if abundant in at some locations (21 to 100 occurrences). S4 = Usually widespread, fairly common throughout its range in the province, and apparently secure with many occurrences, but the element is of long-term concern (e.g., watch list). (100+ occurrences). S#S# = Numeric range rank: A range between two consecutive numeric ranks. Denotes range of uncertainty about the exact rarity of the element (e.g., S1S2). B = Breeding: Basic rank refers to the breeding population of the element in the province. SOURCE: 1 Government of Canada 2015 2 COSEWIC 2014a 3 Government of New Brunswick 2015 4 NBDNR 2014. 5 ACCDC 2013
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-23
CA PDF Page 24 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Harlequin Duck (Eastern population)
Harlequin duck is a small to medium-sized diving duck which breeds adjacent to fast-flowing streams and winters along rocky marine coastlines. This species feeds primarily upon marine invertebrates, and occasionally on fish, which it catches while diving (Robertson and Goudie 1999). The eastern population of harlequin duck is listed as special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA, and as an endangered species under NB SARA.
Harlequin ducks have been observed each year by CWS during coastal surveys within the RAA (A. Hicks, CWS, pers. comm. 2013) and were also observed during coastal monitoring for other recent projects (Jacques Whitford 2008). They were also observed during surveys in support of this Project in 2013 and 2014. This species is typically observed in relatively low numbers at many locations along the lower Bay of Fundy between Martin’s Point and Machias Seal Island (off Grand Manan) (Figure 11-1).
Winter surveys conducted between 2004 and 2006 in support of the Canaport LNG project (Jacques Whitford Limited 2004) recorded a small number of individual harlequin ducks between Anthony’s Cove and Mispec Beach, which includes the PDA for this Project. Observations of between two and six individual harlequin ducks were made on six out of nine site visits to Black Point between December 22, 2005, and March 29, 2006 (Jacques Whitford 2008).
The continued observation of low numbers of harlequin duck in the Mispec/Canaport area, which includes the Irving Canaport Facility and the Canaport LNG Terminal, indicates that this foraging area is a regular wintering location for a small number of ducks.
Barrow’s Goldeneye (Eastern population)
Barrow’s goldeneye is a medium-sized diving duck and is listed as special concern on Schedule 1 under SARA, special concern under NB SARA, and as sensitive under the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources (NBDNR) General Status of Wild Species. Barrow’s goldeneye breeds along lakes in parkland, and winters along rocky coasts (Eadie et al. 2000).). In Canada, the eastern population breed in Quebec; however, a small number of this population winter in the Atlantic Provinces. Approximately 400 birds winter in the Atlantic Provinces and Maine (Environment Canada 2013). It was not observed during the surveys conducted in support of this Project in 2013, 2014 or 2015.
Roseate Tern
Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) is a migratory coastal plunge diving seabird that is found breeding in flocks and nests on sand dunes, saltmarshes and beaches. In North America, two populations of roseate tern breed on the Atlantic coast where they nest colonially with other tern species (common and Arctic). The Northeastern breeding population is estimated at fewer than 200 pairs and is mainly concentrated on a few coastal islands or headlands off the southern coast of Nova Scotia, with smaller numbers nesting on Machias Seal Island in the Bay of Fundy. Roseate tern is listed as endangered under SARA (Government of Canada 2015) and by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2009), and the breeding population found in this area is designated as at risk under the NBDNR General Status of Wild Species (Government of New Brunswick 2015). The recovery strategy for roseate tern does not identify any critical habitat within the RAA (Environment Canada 2010).
11-24 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 25 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Piping Plover, melodus subspecies
Piping plover is a small migratory bird found on gravel-sand beaches throughout New Brunswick, mainly along the Northumberland Strait, but also occurring in the Bay of Fundy from the end of March to early May. The only identified breeding sites and critical habitat for this species in New Brunswick are located in the upper Bay of Fundy (Environment Canada 2012); however, small numbers of piping plover (melodus subspecies) were observed on four occasions (i.e., 1976, 1986, 1996 and 2003) at Saints Rest Marsh & Beach and Courtenay Bay. This species has not been observed near the PDA and would not be expected given the rocky shoreline habitat in this area. Piping plover is listed as endangered under SARA (Government of Canada 2015) and by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2013), and the breeding population found in New Brunswick is designated as at risk under the NBDNR General Status of Wild Species (Government of New Brunswick 2015).
Red Knot, rufa subspecies
The rufa subspecies of red knot, a shorebird, breeds in the central Canadian Arctic and winters in southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (COSEWIC 2007b). Red knot is listed as endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA and NB SARA. However, a recovery strategy for this species has not been developed under SARA. Coastal areas with extensive intertidal flats, usually sandflats (sometimes mudflats), are the preferred staging area for migrating red knots; the species feeds on bivalves and other benthic invertebrates (COSEWIC 2007b). The important areas for rufa knots in New Brunswick are Miscou Island and upper Bay of Fundy near Mary’s Point (COSEWIC 2007b). The Atlantic Canada Shorebird Survey contains 13 observations of red knot from the LAA; most are from the Saints Rest Marsh and Beach. The count in this area was mostly 1 to 2 individuals, although as many as 20 birds were observed on one occasion.
Red-necked Phalarope
The red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) was listed as a species of special concern under COSEWIC in November 2014 (COSEWIC 2014b). This species migrates offshore in small flocks on floating seaweed and debris in the outer Bay of Fundy in late summer to early fall, and picks copepod- sized zooplankton prey from the water’s surface. The species prefers areas with high concentrations of prey biomass, such as the New Brunswick coast. Red-necked phalaropes breed on Arctic and subarctic tundra ponds. The migrating population that is found in New Brunswick is designated as sensitive under the NBDNR General Status of Wild Species (Government of New Brunswick 2015).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-25
CA PDF Page 26 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
IMPORTANT MARINE BIRD HABITAT
The Bay of Fundy is located on a major migration route that has been known for many years by birdwatchers and ornithologists as an important part of the Atlantic Flyway (Dietz and Chiasson 2000). The Atlantic Flyway is the easternmost of the four North American migration flyways, and spans over 4,800 km, from Baffin Island to the Caribbean (Ducks Unlimited nd).The Bay of Fundy is particularly known for its tidal amplitude which can peak at 12 m in the upper Bay. This creates large expanses of mudflats where thousands of migrating shorebirds forage to accumulate fat reserves for their migration (Dietz and Chiasson 2000). The large tidal exchange also creates nutrient-rich upwelling areas in the lower Bay, which attracts a wide range of organisms from zooplankton to birds and whales. The rocky coastlines also offer foraging opportunities for shellfish-eating waterfowl such as the overwintering harlequin duck and locally breeding common eider. Harlequin duck is observed from early September to late May along the coast between St. Martin’s and Grand Manan Island, while common eider can be observed higher in the Bay towards Cape Enrage and the Petitcodiac River.
The marine bird habitat types within the RAA consist of mudflats, coastal salt marshes, and rocky coastline.
The IBA Program is a worldwide effort to improve and maintain the conservation of the world’s birds by protecting important bird habitats. The program designates discrete sites at which large numbers of birds regularly breed, congregate or pass through on migration, or where large numbers of threatened birds, or birds restricted by range or by habitat are supported. There are nine IBAs in the marine RAA, two of which are located in the marine LAA (Manawagonish Island [NB016] and Saint’s Rest Marsh and Beach [NB022]) (Bird Studies Canada 2012; see Figure 11-9). There are no IBAs located within the marine PDA (Bird Studies Canada 2012).
The Manawagonish Island IBA is located approximately 6.2 km west of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex. The 40 ha island is partially wooded with rocky shores, coastal cliffs, and many small inlets. It is an important double-crested cormorant breeding colony, being among the three largest in the Maritimes. The island is also home to other colonial nesting birds including herring gulls and great black- backed gulls (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012).
Saint’s Rest Marsh and Beach is also about 6 km west of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex. The area includes a gravel spit and a partly tidal marsh. This IBA is a major fall stopover site for small sandpipers and other shorebird species during fall migration. Globally noteworthy numbers of semipalmated sandpipers and semipalmated plovers visit the site during fall migration, along with smaller numbers of lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), and pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012).
11-26 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
! !
! ! CA PDF Page 27 of 68
r Grand Lake r ve UV ive i Réserve nationale de R R k n o UV a o t p o faune du Marais ap r c Réserve nationale N B o UV n a m John Lusby/ Anthonys e o de faune de Shepody,/ r
B Y r M
o O e John Lusby Marsh Cove is Riv a
h s Shepody National c ca *# o lle be Po tt Riv National Wildlife c S e er a
A n Wildlife Area n n t S n
th r Ke R o iv n R
ys eam a B i e n i v
ro r
UV t o e k J r o H h é n er b ± iv e R R r i d t v UV n *# er o UV m r am e H v r i e v R iver Havre de Saint John / i ay R e i fw R l al Saint John Harbour n u o h H lm S F a o S x
NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK / g R
i i
Baie Mispec / B v e ! N r Mispec Bay NEW BRUNSWICK e Saint John River
r UV
e M p ! ag is a R g i u ve a r MAINE d Kennebecasis River ! avi c B R *# on i n v L e e y r p R r i e ve a r u ! N R
e i v w e R r ive r 9 ") St.C r o ix R i A v v e UV o r er n Zone de protection Riv R au iv re e marine de l'estuaire 9 pe r ") as G de la Musquash / Musquash Estuary UV Marine Protected Area
UV
r
Baie de Fundy / Bay of Fundy e
MAINE v
i R
x u
a t
i c S
P N
h
a
e r
r a b UV !
d r
o i ! s o e r k e B e Riv r lis R o o k i p o v a e n r An UV W Go es ld t R R i v i e ve r r UV B ea UV L r R aH iver a ve M R artins i R ve i r ver Sissiboo R iver r e S v a i lte UV R r r e M s v e l d B i w
r o S
ay o Riv k e r NOUVELLE-ÉCOSSE / Lake
Rossignol r
e k
v NOVA SCOTIA o i o Stoney Brook r R B M C t s e n l r e s y e o y Rive m d W r l B a e R r S i o v a e d r R UV iv er
QC
ME NB PE
NS Sources: Données sur le projet fournies par TransCanada Pipelines Ltée. Données de base fournies par les gouvernements du Canada et du Nouveau-Brunswick. / Sources: Project data provided by TransCanada Pipelines Limited. Base data provided by the Governments of Canada and New Brunswick.
CA PDF Page 28 of 68 CA PDF Page 29 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
The remaining seven IBAs in the RAA are located between 35 and 90 km from the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex, and are summarized below:
• Point Lepreau/Maces Bay IBA is located approximately 35 km southwest of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex, along the northern coast of the Bay of Fundy. This site is important for staging geese and shorebirds and acts as a major concentration point for thousands of spring migrating waterfowl traveling along the north coast of the Bay, such as common eider and black scoter (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012). • Quaco Bay is located 35 km east of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex, along the northern coast of the Bay of Fundy. This location is important for semipalmated plovers and least sandpipers, and is known to have the largest semipalmated plover concentration in the Bay of Fundy (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012). • At the southwest end of the RAA, the Quoddy region, Grand Manan Island and the Wolves Archipelago IBAs are considered the most important staging area for sea ducks during spring and fall migration in the Bay of Fundy (Percy et al. 1997). These staging areas are located at least 75 km from the PDA. • The Brier Island and Offshore Waters IBA is located 50 km southwest of Digby, Nova Scotia and 90 km south of the marine PDA. This site includes both Brier Island and Peter Island, and is known for its diversity of birds. Brier Island waters are one of the most important areas for phalaropes in North America (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012). Other marine birds popular to the area include shearwaters, kittiwakes, and several species of alcids. • Machias Seal Island is located in the Gulf of Maine and 25 km southwest of Grand Manan Island, and is considered to be one of the most important seabird colonies in the Bay of Fundy. It supports the largest Arctic tern and Atlantic puffin colonies in the Maritimes. Small numbers of harlequin duck can be found wintering around the island, as well as during the spring (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012).
Musquash Estuary is the single Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Bay of Fundy. It was officially designated as Canada’s sixth MPA on March 7, 2007 under the Oceans Act (Figure 11-9). Musquash Estuary, over 742 ha in size and located 20 km southwest of Saint John and within the LAA, supports high biological productivity with a variety of coastal habitats and a fully functioning estuary and salt marsh complex, supporting a diversity of migrating marine birds (Deichmann 2001). In the spring, these are mostly comprised of sea ducks, such as common eider, and three species of scoter (black scoter, surf scoter, and white-winged scoter), although other coastal birds are also observed.
In the upper Bay of Fundy (approximately 100 km northeast of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex), Cape Enrage Nature Preserve, the Shepody National Wildlife Area, and Mary’s Point Ramsar Site, all preserve habitat necessary for large flocks of migrating shorebirds and waterfowl (Jacques Whitford 2008).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-29
CA PDF Page 30 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
A total of 34 marine bird species were recorded during the surveys, including detection of one SOMC. Du ring the survey periods, the habitat in the PDA was primarily used by small numbers of feeding and wintering dabbling and diving ducks (primarily black scoter and common eider) and cormorant species, which were present throughout the year.
Gull species, such as herring gull and great black-backed gull were recorded on every survey visit, and are present in the PDA year-round. Iceland gull were recorded foraging in the PDA during the winter and early spring. Several species of shorebirds were observed in low numbers near the PDA, including spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), purple sandpiper, whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), and semipalmated plover. Double-crested cormorant were recorded in small numbers, passing by the PDA during fall migration months (August through November), and using the habitat within the PDA for foraging.
Harlequin duck was the only SOMC recoded during field surveys; this species was observed on five of the 27 surveys completed. This is consistent with past records of small numbers of harlequin ducks observed in the Anthonys Cove to Mispec area.
11.3 Potential Effects
11.3.1 Potential Effects and Measurable Parameters
Potential effects of the Project on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat were identified and evaluated based on the following:
• The interaction could cause a measurable change in the VC and/or has an identified regulatory threshold that could be exceeded by project development (construction or operations). • The interaction could affect the persistence and viability of the VC in the RAA. • The interaction could directly or indirectly affect a SAR whose population or habitat are provincially or federally managed or protected (e.g., Species at Risk Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, New Brunswick Species at Risk Act). • The interaction has been identified as an effect of concern by regulators and other stakeholders as a key effect on a particular VC, identified as an effect of concern based on the professional judgment of those conducting the assessment, or could be specific to a particular region.
Based on this review and knowledge of the Project and its associated activities, the following project- specific effects on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat including SAR or SOMC are assessed:
• change in marine wildlife behavior – sensory disturbance caused by: • construction of the marine terminal complex (e.g., pile driving, use of barges and support vessels for installation of the trestle and berth facilities and dredging); or • the operation of the marine terminal complex and vessel loading/hoteling, could interact with marine wildlife and wildlife habitat • change in health of marine wildlife – primarily related to sensory disturbance caused by:
11-30 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 31 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
• construction of the marine terminal complex (e.g., pile driving, use of barges and support vessels for installation of the trestle and berth facilities and dredging); or • the operation of the marine terminal complex and vessel loading/hoteling, could interact with marine wildlife and wildlife habitat
To adequately characterize the potential effects of the Project on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat, measurable parameters are used to represent each type of predicted effect. Effective parameters are preferably measurable and quantifiable (e.g., underwater sound level). However, some effects on marine wildlife lack defined parameters to measure effects and are therefore qualitative and rely primarily on professional judgment and past project experience.
Table 11-4 summarizes the potential effects, measurable parameters, and rationale for each selection for the marine wildlife and wildlife habitat VC.
Table 11-4 Potential Effects and Measurable Parameters for Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Rationale for Inclusion of Measurable Potential Project the Potential Project Effect Parameter(s) for the Rationale for Selection of the Effect in the Assessment Effect Measurable Parameter
Change in Marine terminal complex • Underwater sound Construction of the marine behaviour construction and operation level components of the Project has has the potential to affect potential to produce sound and • Potential for marine wildlife behavior. light levels at magnitudes that behavioural change could trigger behavioural changes due to in air sound or to marine wildlife. light
Change in health Marine terminal complex • Underwater sound Construction of the marine construction and operation level components of the Project has has the potential to affect potential to produce sound and • Potential for injury or marine wildlife health. light levels that could cause mortality due to in air physical injury or mortality to sound or light marine wildlife.
11.3.2 Effects Assessment
Project activities associated with the marine terminal complex have potential to directly and indirectly affect marine wildlife and wildlife habitat by way of in-air and underwater noise, and night-lighting. Specifically, these Project activities have the potential to result in the following effects:
• change in behaviour • change in health
Potential interactions between Project activities and marine wildlife and wildlife habitat are presented in Table 11-5. The effects of marine shipping associated with the Project, including berthing, on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat are assessed in Volume 17, Part B, Section 4.3. Effects related to collisions between vessels and marine mammals are addressed with accidents and malfunctions in Volume 19.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-31
CA PDF Page 32 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Table 11-5 Potential Effects on Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Potential Effects
Project Activities and Physical Works1 Change in Behaviour Change in Health
Construction
Interconnect pipelines2 N/A N/A
Tanks, onshore facilities, and associated infrastructure, N/A N/A exclusive of interconnect pipelines
In-water infrastructure
Operation
Interconnect pipelines2 N/A N/A
Tanks, onshore facilities, and associated infrastructure, N/A N/A exclusive of interconnect pipelines
Loading of berthed tankers
Decommissioning and abandonment3
NOTES: Indicates that an activity is likely to contribute to the effect N/A Indicates not applicable 1 For accidents and malfunctions, see Volume 19. 2 Construction includes development and use of temporary ancillary facilities (e.g., stockpile sites, laydown areas, storage yards). 3 For effects of Decommissioning and abandonment, see Volume 14, Section 8.
Construction and operation of the interconnect pipeline and of tanks have no interaction with marine wildlife and habitat because these construction activities are land-based.
Project effects on potential marine wildlife prey are assessed in Volume 17, Part B, Section 3 as part of marine fish and fish habitat.
There are rare sightings of leatherback sea turtles in the RAA (Halpin et al. 2009; Right Whale Consortium 2014) and few are expected given that Atlantic Canada is at the northern extent of their range (Halpin et al. 2009; James et al. 2006). Additionally the Bay of Fundy is not considered important habitat for leatherback sea turtles (DFO 2012). Potential effects from Project construction or operation activities on the leatherback sea turtle and sea turtles in general are therefore not expected, and are not further assessed.
There are no expected potential effects on marine mammals from Project operation and maintenance of in-water infrastructure at the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex. Operation is not expected to create underwater noise that could cause change in behaviour or health for marine mammals. As such, the potential effects from operation of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat are assessed further for marine birds only.
11-32 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 33 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
It is not anticipated that the MPA (which is located within the LAA, but at the western edge of the Saint John Harbour, approximately 20 km from the Project), the IBAs located within the RAA (which are outside of the LAA), nor the designated protection/management areas (Cape Enrage Nature Preserve, the Shepody National Wildlife Area, and Mary’s Point Ramsar Site, located 105 km, 107 km, and 120 km from the Project, respectively) will be affected by the construction or operation of the Project because of their distances from the marine PDA. Therefore, Project effects on IBAs and the designated areas, and the bird populations they support are not further assessed.
11.3.3 Change in Behaviour
11.3.3.1 Construction
Construction of the marine in-water infrastructure may potentially change marine wildlife behaviour with the use of heavy machinery, dredging and pile driving activities, and, for marine birds, use of night- lighting.
Construction activities that create underwater noise, such as pile installation, dredging and construction vessels, have the potential to change marine wildlife behaviour (e.g., Southall et al. 2007). The anthropogenic underwater noise created during construction activities is typically described as either pulse noise, such as the short, high-intensity sounds typical of impact pile installation, or continuous noise, which is typical of dredging or vessel traffic (Popper and Hastings 2009). Underwater noise is often expressed in terms of received sound pressure level (SPL), measured in dB re 1 µPa , or sound exposure level (SEL), which is a measure of sound energy over time, in dB re 1 µPa2s. These metrics are further categorized as:
• peak SPL (SPLpeak): the maximum sound pressure level at any given moment produced by a particular activity
• root mean square SPL (SPLRMS): average root mean square pressure level over a given amount of time, or
• cumulative SEL (SELcum): cumulative energy exposure over a given period of time
Underwater noise produced by impact pile installation of the marine terminal is a pulse noise and the level of noise produced depends on numerous factors, including pile type and size, bottom type, water depth and installation method. Typically, impact pile installation emits low frequency (100 to 1000 Hz [hertz]) and high intensity noise that is introduced directly into the water column and reverberates through the ocean floor (Hildebrand 2009). A literature search was conducted to determine possible sound levels from pile installation activities. Illingworth and Rodkin (2007) summarized average noise from impact pile installation, at a distance of 10 m from the source, and found root mean square (RMS) SPLs of 195 dB re
1 µPa for 1.5 m cast in steel shell steel piles (SPLpeak 210 re 1 µPa) and SPLRMS of 205 dB re 1 µPa for
2.4 m diameter cast in steel shell steel piles (SPLpeak 220 re 1 µPa). Bailey (2010) measured underwater noise from 1.8 m diameter tubular steel piles, installed with an impact hammer, with an SPLRMS of 226 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m from the source and 152 dB re 1 µPa at 20 km from the source. Vibratory installation of
1.8 m steel pipe piles had an SPLRMS ranging from 170 – 180 dB re 1 µPa, at 10 m from the source (Illingworth and Rodkin 2007).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-33
CA PDF Page 34 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Underwater noise from dredging is considered a continuous or non-pulse sound. Sound levels depend on equipment and bottom type and are typically lower than those produced by pile installation. Project- specific dredging methods have not been confirmed by the engineering design team for the marine terminal; however, underwater noise from a standard cutter head dredge has been measured at a broadband source level of 187 dB re 1 µPa @ 1 m, while a clamshell dredge may have a maximum broadband source level of approximately 167 dB re 1 µPa @ 1 m, with noise typically diminishing to below ambient levels within 25 km of the source (Richardson et al. 1995). Construction vessels can also create underwater noise (Richardson et al. 1995), and sound levels are expected to be less than those created during pile installation.
MARINE MAMMALS
Behavioural responses of marine mammals to underwater noise vary considerably and can include changes in communications (e.g.,Castellote et al. 2012; Merchant et al. 2014; Risch et al. 2012; Williams et al. 2013), increased stress (e.g., Rolland et al. 2012; Southall et al. 2007), changes in surfacing and diving behaviour (e.g., Nowacek et al. 2007), and disrupted migration and foraging patterns (e.g., Southall et al. 2007; Sundermeyer et al. 2012; Tougaard et al. 2012). Whether or not an animal responds to underwater noise depends on the species, their hearing frequency range, novelty of the sound, their activity state, and the intensity and duration of the noise (Ellison et al. 2012; Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007). Individuals can also respond differently within a species, for example Kastelein et al. (2013a) reported difference in response by two harbour seals to pile driving noise attributed to differences in hearing sensitivity. Tyack (2008) and Dähne et al. (2013) noted that the links between short-term behavioural response and population-level effects are currently not clear. Changes in behaviour resulting from pile installation have been recorded, with responses including avoidance (e.g., Dähne et al. 2013) and decreased acoustic activity (e.g., Brandt et al. 2011).
Regulatory thresholds for the level of underwater noise that may result in changes in behaviour by marine mammals have been determined in the United States (US) by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s current behavourial disruption threshold for both pinnipeds and cetaceans is 160 dBRMS re 1 µPa for pulse noise and 120 dBRMS re 1 µPa for nonpulse noise (NOAA 2013d). NOAA is currently creating new behavioural disruption thresholds, but these are still under development (NOAA 2013d). DFO has currently not adopted regulatory thresholds for assessing effects of underwater noise on marine mammals, and as such, this assessment uses the NOAA behavioural disruption thresholds in assessing the potential effects of underwater noise.
MARINE BIRDS
Construction activities related to the Project may affect marine bird behavior as a result of in-air acoustic emissions from dredging, pile driving, installation of the marine terminal trestle and berths, and the use of barges, escorts and harbour tugs, underwater noise from pile-driving, and artificial night-lighting.
Most studies quantifying the responses of birds to noise have been related to aircraft overflight, traffic, and during use of bird deterrents (e.g., Brown 1990; Dooling and Popper 2007). Ambient noise from construction-related activities could potentially affect the behaviour of marine birds in the terms of spatial deterrence, behavioural interruption and signal modification (Slabbekoorn 2012).
11-34 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 35 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Noise disturbance can exclude birds from suitable breeding, roosting, resting, and foraging habitats (Exo et al. 2003). Several studies have demonstrated the association between noise and declining bird densities (e.g., Forman et al. 2002).
Human-associated disturbance can also cause birds to increase their energy expenditure as a result of avoidance flights, as well as result in a decreased energy intake because of interference with foraging activities. A study by Norris and Wilson (1988; from Hockin et al. 1992) found that the energetic costs of foraging, and therefore the suitability of a site, for wintering Greenland white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons flavirostris), was directly influenced by disturbance levels. Noise can also obstruct the detection of auditory signals associated with approaching danger. In a study by Quinn et al. (2006), foraging chaffinches exposed to a background noise treatment made substantially fewer pecks when feeding, which led to a decrease in intake rate; this decrease in intake rate suggests that there may be a fitness cost to compensating for increased predation risk.
Direct effects of underwater noise on birds have not been well studied, however it is expected that birds would avoid areas where noise pressures were excessive. Marine birds would only be subject to underwater noise while actively foraging, an activity of relatively short duration compared to roosting or overflight.
There is extensive literature on the effects of underwater noise on fish; if the prey of marine birds is affected, there could be corresponding effects on the survival or reproductive success of the birds. Volume 17, Part A, Section 10 provides an assessment of the effects of the Project on marine fish and fish habitat. In a study by Perrow et al. (2011), which examined the potential for indirect or trophic (predator-prey) effects of an offshore wind farm on the prey base of little tern (Sternula albifrons), reduced prey abundance corresponded with a large decline in little tern foraging success. It was suggested that noisy monopole installation during the winter spawning period was responsible for the reduction in herring abundance; young of the year herring being the dominant species in the diet of little tern chicks (Perrow et al. 2011). In some years, unprecedented egg abandonment and lack of chick hatching tentatively suggested a colony-scale response to this reduction in prey abundance (Perrow et al. 2011).
Changes in marine bird behavior due to artificial light at night may include continuous circling (i.e., an effect known as trapping), collisions, deviation from migratory pathways, susceptibility to predation at dawn or dusk (Wiese et al. 2001, Montevecchi 2006, Greer et al. 2010, Bolshakov et al. 2013), reduced visitation rates by burrow-nesting seabirds to mates, eggs, and chicks (Keitt 1998; cited in Rich and Loncore 2006), and increased night foraging (Santos et al. 2010).
In a study by Bolshakov et al. (2013), migratory birds were found to circle an artificial light beam, as well as change their flying trajectories due to attraction to the light beam. These effects can lead to increased energy expenditure, which, in nocturnal seabirds, has been observed to lead to starvation and eventually death (Bourne 1979).
The majority of petrel species, unlike other seabirds are nocturnal, and have been observed to reduce their activity levels with increasing light conditions (Watanuki 1986; Mougeot and Bretagnolle 2000).
In the study by Santos et al. (2010), the effects of artificial light were evaluated for six shorebird species with different foraging strategies: three visual foragers, two species that alternate visual and tactile strategies (mixed foragers), and one tactile forager. The results of the study found that effects to visual
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-35
CA PDF Page 36 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick foragers as a result of artificial night light can be beneficial in terms of increased food intake, but may also result in increased predation risk.
11.3.3.2 Operation
MARINE BIRDS
Operation activities that may affect marine bird and bird habitat are primarily related to the operation and maintenance of in-water infrastructure, as well as the loading of berthed tankers. As with the construction phase, disturbance, in-air noise, and night-lighting can affect marine bird behaviour.
Night-lighting of the in-water facilities could affect marine birds in several ways, as discussed above for construction activities. The operation lighting would have the same potential effects as construction lighting; however, operation lighting is expected to be reduced compared to construction. Similarly, in-air noise levels during operation activities would be expected to be reduced compared to construction activities.
Operation and maintenance of the in-water infrastructure is not expected to create underwater noise that would cause changes in marine bird behaviour.
11.3.4 Change in Health
11.3.4.1 Construction
MARINE MAMMALS
High intensity underwater noise from construction activities (as discussed in Section 11.3.3.1 above) can cause changes in health of marine wildlife (Richardson et al. 1995; Nowacek et al. 2004). This noise can cause changes in hearing sensitivity or increased hearing thresholds in an animal, with the level of the effect depending on amplitude, duration, frequency and energy distribution of the noise (Southall et al. 2007). Permanent changes in hearing abilities as a result of underwater noise can be caused by physical injury to tissue within the ear, while temporary changes in hearing thresholds can also occur with hearing returning to normal after a period of time (Southall et al. 2007). Anticipated underwater noise levels for the Project are based on a literature review of previous construction projects as presented in Section 11.3.3.1.
The potential effect for a change in health to marine mammals depends on the level of underwater sound produced as well as the frequency of the sound, and the potential for the marine mammal to hear the sound. Marine mammals have different frequencies that they are most sensitive to and hearing ranges depend on species and individual. Southall et al. (2007) have identified four functional hearing groups, based on their associated hearing frequency ranges:
• low-frequency cetaceans (hearing frequencies of 7 Hz to 22 kHz for baleen whales, including humpback whales, and fin whales) • mid-frequency cetaceans (hearing frequencies of 150 Hz to 160 kHz for various odontocetes, including, killer whales and Atlantic white-sided dolphins)
11-36 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 37 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
• high-frequency cetaceans (hearing frequencies of 200 Hz to 180 kHz for various odontocetes, including harbour porpoise) • pinnipeds in water (hearing frequencies of 75 Hz to 75 kHz for pinnipeds, including harbour seals).
Underwater noise can cause permanent auditory damage in marine mammals (i.e., a permanent threshold shift [PTS]) or temporary changes in hearing (i.e., a temporary threshold shift [TTS]). The onset sound levels for PTS are based on extrapolation from the onset of TTS, which has been measured for some species (Southall et al. 2007).
Guidance on underwater noise thresholds that may cause PTS has been provided by Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA (2013d, 2015). Thresholds have been estimated using different metrics, some of which are weighted by marine mammal functional hearing group to focus on frequencies that different species are most sensitive to.
The 2013 NOAA draft injury thresholds present two options that can be applied: weighted or un-weighted. The weighted thresholds apply auditory weighting, which is based on marine mammal functional hearing groups, to best reflect the marine mammals’ ability to hear a received sound. Un-weighted NOAA injury thresholds are used because the weightings for marine mammal functional hearing groups used by NOAA are still under review and have not yet been incorporated into published literature.
NOAA has published an updated draft of acoustic thresholds that may result in permanent auditory injury (or permanent threshold shifts [PTS]) in marine mammals (NOAA 2015). The updated draft includes modification of the functional hearing range for the low frequency cetacean group and Ottariid pinnipeds, and changes to some of the weighted and un-weighted injury thresholds.
Currently, DFO has not adopted regulatory thresholds for assessing effects of underwater noise on marine mammals. Therefore, this assessment uses the 2013 NOAA draft un-weighted injury thresholds and Southall et al. (2007) injury thresholds, as well as the updated draft un-weighted 2015 NOAA injury thresholds. Table 11-6 summarizes the draft NOAA 2013 and 2015 injury thresholds and the Southall et al. (2007) injury thresholds.
MARINE BIRDS
Construction activities related to the Project may affect marine bird health as a result of in-air acoustic emissions that will occur from dredging, pile driving, installation of marine terminal trestle and berths, and the use of barges, escorts and harbour tugs, underwater noise from pile-driving, and artificial night- lighting.
In a study investigating whether pile driving during the construction of a wind farm in the Netherlands affected local seabirds (NoordzeeWind 2009), it was tentatively concluded that no birds were disturbed or physically hurt by the pile driving. Conversely, Teachout (2005) indicated that sound pressure levels above the 180 dB peak could cause physical injury, including death.
Birds that do not show signs of behavioural disturbance as a result of exposure to noise could still be experiencing changes in biochemistry associated with stress (Jasny et al. 2005); growth inhibition, sexual maturation, reproduction and survival all have the potential to be affected (e.g., Hayward and Wingfield 2004; Love et al. 2005).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-37
CA PDF Page 38 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Table 11-6 Permanent Auditory Injury Thresholds (Received Level) for Marine Mammals
NOAA (2015) Draft Acoustic Threshold NOAA (2013) Draft Acoustic Threshold (un-weighted)a (un-weighted)b Southall et al. 2007 Thresholdc Functional Hearing Group (hearing range) Pulse Non-pulse Pulse Non-pulse Pulse Non-pulse
Phocid Pinnipeds 230 dBpeak and 186 230 dBpeak and 201 235 dBpeak and 235 dBpeak and 197 218 dBpeak and 218 dBpeak and 75 Hz to 100 kHz dB SELcum dB SELcum 192 SELcum SELcum 186 SELcum 203 SELcum (e.g., harbour seals)
Otariid Pinnipeds 230 dBpeak and 203 230 dBpeak and 218 235 dBpeak and 235 dBpeak and 220 100 Hz to 48 kHz1 dB SELcum dB SELcum 215 SELcum SELcum (none present in the RAA)
Low-frequency Cetaceans 230 dBpeak and 192 230 dBpeak and 207 230 dBpeak and Source: NB ≥ 10 kHz 230 dBpeak and 230 dBpeak and 2 dB SELcum dB SELcum 187 SELcum 198 SELcum 215 SELcum 7 Hz to 25 kHz 230 dBpeak and 215 (e.g., North Atlantic right SELcum whale, humpback whale, fin Source: All others whale, minke whale) 230 dBpeak and 198 SELcum
Mid-frequency Cetaceans 230 dBpeak and 200 Source: NB ≥ 3 kHz 230 dBpeakand Source: NB ≥ 10 kHz dB SELcum 204 SELcum 150 Hz to 160 kHz 230 dBpeak and 199 230 dBpeak and 198 ( e.g., Atlantic white-sided dB SELcum SELcum dolphin) Source: All others Source: All others
230 dBpeak and 230 dBpeak and 215 212 SELcum SELcum
High-frequency Cetaceans 202 dBpeak and 177 Source: NB ≥ 3 kHz 201 dBpeakand Source: NB ≥ 10 kHz dB SELcum 180 SELcum 200 Hz to 180 kHz 202 dBpeak and 171 201 dBpeak and 180 (e.g., harbour porpoise) dB SELcum SELcum Source: All others Source: All others
202 dBpeak and 201 dBpeak and 199 194 SELcum SELcum
11-38 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 39 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Table 11-6 Permanent Auditory Injury Thresholds (Received Level) for Marine Mammals
NOTES: NB = narrow band 1 Initial range was 100 Hz to 40 kHz 2 Initial range was 7 Hz to 30 kHz
SOURCES: a NOAA (2015) b NOAA (2013d) c Southall et al. (2007)
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-39
CA PDF Page 40 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Although there is some potential for construction activities to result in a change in health for marine birds, this would likely be minimal. In an environmental impact assessment by the US Department of the Interior (2004) on exploration activities in the Gulf of Mexico, it was noted that seismic pulses (i.e., underwater noise) are directed downward and are highly attenuated near the surface. Therefore birds feeding on the surface or diving just below it are unlikely to be exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause temporary or permanent hearing impairment. It was also noted that these sound pressure levels would generally not be sufficient to cause death or life-threatening injury (US Department of the Interior 2004; cited in NoordzeeWind 2009).
There is no known literature on bird mortality resulting from collisions with cranes; however, there is extensive literature on avian collisions with various tall structures, such as buildings and communication towers (Erickson et al. 2005). As a result, there is the possibility that marine birds could collide with tall structures, such as gantry cranes, that could be used during Project construction.
Many marine birds are nocturnally active, in part to avoid diurnal avian predators such as gulls. Project structures, such as buildings, cranes and ships, will emit artificial light that can increase predation risk, lead to collisions with light structures, or cause seabirds to die of starvation (e.g., fledgling petrels and shearwaters can be attracted to artificial light as they attempt to take flight out to sea, and once landed, they are often unable to become airborne again and often become vulnerable to starvation) (Bourne 1979; Montevecchi 2006; Mougeot and Bretagnolle 2000; Wiese et al. 2001). Migratory marine birds have been reported to circle platforms for hours to days (Montevecchi 2006). It has been observed that every year thousands of fledgling petrels are attracted to lights during their first flights from the nest (Fontaine et al. 2011), a phenomenon termed ‘fallout’, which results in high mortality of these species worldwide (Ainley et al. 2001). The energy costs associated with such a disturbance can have serious consequences for winter survival or reproduction.
11.3.4.2 Operation
MARINE BIRDS
As is the case during construction, in-air noise and artificial night-lighting during Project operation could influence the health of marine birds through the same mechanisms as described above for construction activities. However, the potential for effects are expected to be lower during operation because of anticipated lower levels of activity with respect to noise and lighting. Noise levels will be related to operational equipment and loading of berthed vessels, compared to the noisier pile driving and other construction noise. Light levels during operation are expected to be lower than construction lighting, though more frequent.
11-40 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 41 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
11.4 Mitigation
An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) has been developed (see Volume 21) to address potential effects that might arise from Project activities and from marine shipping associated with the Project. The EPP includes all recommended mitigation measures and contingency plans. Where avoidance is not possible, the mitigation measures in Table 11-7, through careful design and planning, are recommended to avoid or reduce the effects on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat. The table provides mitigation to address each of the effects assessed: change in behavior, and change in health.
Table 11-7 Recommended Mitigation Measures for Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Effect Recommended Mitigation Measures
Change in Behaviour • The use of sound reduction methods (e.g., hydro sound dampeners and bubble curtains) during pile installation should be explored. Hydro sound dampeners are a relatively new technology that operates similarly to bubble curtains and can reduce sound levels from pile installation by approximately 23 dB between 100 Hz and approximately 600 Hz (Elmer et al. 2012). • Prior to pile installation, a marine wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan should be developed in consultation with DFO. This plan should detail the implementation of measures designed to avoid or minimize potential residual effects of pile installation on marine wildlife. It is recommended that these measures include establishment of exclusion zones (monitored by trained marine mammal observers) for cetaceans and marine mammal species at risk, or on the advice of DFO, include other suitable alternative measures deemed by DFO to be equally effective. • Soft start procedures (the piling impact energy is gradually increased over a 10-minute time period) are recommended for pile installation when possible. • Construction vessels should operate at reduced speeds when possible, to reduce the amount of underwater noise created. • Directional and fully shielded light fixtures should be used.
Change in Health • The use of sound reduction methods (e.g., hydro sound dampeners) during pile installation should be explored. Hydro sound dampeners are a relatively new technology that operates similarly to bubble curtains and can reduce sound levels from pile installation by approximately 23 dB between 100 Hz and approximately 600 Hz (Elmer et al. 2012). • Prior to pile installation, a marine wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan should be developed in consultation with DFO. This plan should detail the implementation of measures designed to avoid or minimize potential residual effects of pile installation on marine wildlife. It is recommended that these measures include establishment of exclusion zones (monitored by trained marine mammal observers) for cetaceans and marine mammal species at risk, or on the advice of DFO, include other suitable alternative measures deemed by DFO to be equally effective. • Soft start procedures (the piling impact energy is gradually increased over a 10-minute time period) are recommended for pile installation when possible. • Construction vessels should operate at reduced speeds when possible, to reduce the amount of underwater noise created. • Directional and fully shielded light fixtures should be used. • Jack-up rigs, crane barges, and the on-water staging area should be as close as practical to the marine works in order to reduce the work area
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-41
CA PDF Page 42 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
11.5 Residual Effects and Determination of Significance
This assessment considers residual effects on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat after mitigation is implemented.
Table 11-8 provides the effects classification criteria that are applied to make a determination with respect to Project residual effects on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Table 11-8 Effects Classification Criteria – Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Criteria Criteria Definitions Direction The expected long-term Positive Effect is an increase in the health of trend of the effects marine wildlife and reduced potential for injury or mortality compared with baseline conditions and trends.
Negative Effect is a decrease in the health of marine wildlife and increased potential for injury or mortality compared with baseline conditions and trends.
Neutral Effect is no change from baseline conditions and trends
Magnitude The expected change in Negligible No detectable or measurable change a measurable parameter or from existing baseline conditions. variable relative to baseline case Low A measurable change from existing baseline conditions, but is below environmental and/or regulatory thresholds and does not affect the ongoing viability of marine wildlife populations.
Moderate A measurable change from existing baseline conditions that is above environmental and/or regulatory thresholds, but does not affect the ongoing viability of marine wildlife populations.
High A measurable change from existing baseline conditions that is above environmental and/or regulatory thresholds and adversely affects the ongoing viability of marine wildlife populations.
Geographic Extent The geographic area within PDA Effect would be limited to the PDA which an effect of a (i.e., construction and footprints defined magnitude is associated with constructing the expected to occurs marine terminal)
LAA Effect extends to the LAA.
RAA Effect extends to the RAA.
11-42 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 43 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Table 11-8 Effects Classification Criteria – Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Criteria Criteria Definitions
Duration The period of time that is Short-term Effect measurable for duration of required until the VC proposed construction. returns to its baseline condition or the effect can Medium-term Effect is measurable for up to two no longer be measured or years following completion of otherwise perceived construction. Long-term Effect is measureable for longer than two years but less than 10 years following construction, or continues during Project operation.
Frequency The number of times during Single event Effect (or event) occurs once. a project or a specific project phase that an Multiple irregular Effect occurs sporadically (and effect could occur event intermittently) throughout assessment period.
Multiple regular Effect occurs repeatedly and regularly event throughout assessment period.
Continuous Effect occurs continually over assessment period.
Reversibility The likelihood that Reversible Effect expected to return to baseline a measurable parameter conditions within the life of the Project. will recover from an effect Irreversible Effect would be permanent, or reversible only beyond the lifecycle of the Project.
Ecological and The general characteristics Negligible or limited Largely undisturbed ecosystem. Socio-economic of the area in which the disturbance Context project is located Low disturbance Low levels of use or change within the levels ecosystem.
Moderate Use that has permanently altered a disturbance levels portion of the ecosystem.
High disturbance Extensive use of the ecosystem with levels permanent alterations.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-43
CA PDF Page 44 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
11.5.1 Significance Thresholds for Residual Effects
A significant adverse residual effect on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat is one that:
• affects populations in such a way as to cause a decline in abundance or change in distribution such that the populations in the assessment area will not be sustainable All applicable legislation and regulations (i.e., Fisheries Act, SARA, MBCA, NB SARA) were also considered to be an essential part of the framework for the assessment of residual effects on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat.
11.5.2 Assessment of Residual Effects
11.5.2.1 Change in Behaviour
CONSTRUCTION
MARINE MAMMALS
Construction activities may cause changes in marine mammal behaviour due to underwater noise. DFO has currently not adopted regulatory thresholds for assessing effects of underwater noise on marine mammals. In the absence of Canadian regulations or guidelines, thresholds defined by NOAA are considered in this assessment. NOAA has set regulatory thresholds for the level of underwater noise that may result in behavioural disruption in marine mammals. New behavioural disruption threshold are being developed but are not yet available (NOAA 2013d, 2015). The current, interim behavioural disruption threshold is 160 dBRMS re 1 µPa for pulsed noise and 120 dBRMS re 1 µPa for nonpulse noise for both pinnipeds and cetaceans (NOAA n.d.).
Current information on proposed Project construction indicates there will be 218 piles installed for the marine terminal, with a maximum diameter of approximately 1.8 m. Based on a literature review of underwater sound levels produced during construction activities associated with other projects (see Section 11.3.3.1), unmitigated sound levels from impact pile driving and dredging would be expected to exceed the NOAA behavioural disruption threshold for pulsed noise (i.e., 160 dBRMS re 1 µPa). Mitigation such as vibratory pile installation, bubble curtains and/or hydro sound dampeners can reduce the potential residual effect of change in behaviour to marine mammals by reducing the level of noise produced. SPLs and SELs have been reduced by 10 to 15 dB when bubble curtains have been used, and vibratory pile installation methods can potentially reduce noise by approximately 25 dB (Illingworth and Rodkin Inc. 2007; McCauley and Salgado Kent 2008). Hydro sound dampeners can potentially reduce SELs during pile installation by 23 dB between 100 Hz and approximately 600 Hz (Elmer et al. 2012). By reducing the sound levels, these mitigations will therefore also reduce the potential spatial extent of underwater noise that exceeds the behavioural disruption threshold. For example, Illingworth and Rodkin (2007) reported that vibratory installation of 1.8 m steel pipe piles had RMS SPLs ranging from 170 – 180 dB re 1 µPa (which is above the behavioural disruption threshold) 10 m from the source. By reducing the spatial extent of underwater noise, mitigation will likely reduce the number of marine mammals exposed to sound levels above the behavioural disruption threshold, as most marine mammal sightings have been recorded further south in the lower Bay of Fundy, over 20 km from the proposed terminal.
11-44 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 45 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Marine mammal species likely to be near construction activities at the marine terminal and therefore potentially exposed to underwater noise above the behavioural disruption threshold include harbour porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and harbour seals (see Table 11-2). Current data suggest that harbour seals (listed as not at risk by COSEWIC) are the most likely species to be present within the marine LAA (NOAA 2014). In 2001, harbour seals had an estimated abundance of 99,340 animals in the western North Atlantic population (Gilbert et al. 2005). In 1992, approximately 3,500 were counted in the Bay of Fundy, although the survey was not designed to obtain a population estimate (Stobo and Fowler 1994). As previously discussed in Section 11.2.2.1, harbour seals are present along the coast of the Bay of Fundy, including near industrial areas. They can potentially detect underwater noise from pile installation for hundreds of kilometres from the source (Kastelein et al. 2013a), although this does not necessarily result to changes in behaviour at that distance. Edrén et al. (2004) suggested there could be short-term effects on harbour seals from pile installation, with reduced numbers of seals observed at haul- outs during pile installation compared to periods of no pile installation. Based on the same study, Teilmann et al. (2004) found there was no effect on overall abundance. Given previously observed harbour seal abundance and continued presence in areas with industrial activity, it is unlikely that changes in behaviour that could occur from underwater noise during Project construction will affect harbour seal population sustainability.
Sightings of the SARA-listed harbour porpoise are predominantly recorded in the lower Bay of Fundy, with most recorded sightings occurring greater than 20 km from the terminal. Harbour porpoise have previously been known to avoid areas where noise exceeds the behavioural disruption threshold (e.g., Brandt et al. 2011; Dähne et al. 2013; Tougaard et al. 2012). Changes in harbour porpoise behaviour have also been reported at a lower SPL than the interim NOAA behavioural disruption threshold (e.g., Kastelein et al. 2013b). Brandt et al. (2011) found reduced harbour porpoise acoustic activity out to approximately 18 km from the sound source of 3.9 m diameter pile installation (larger than the proposed pile size for the Project) and temporal effects at a distance of 2.6 km that lasted for over a day after activity stopped. For unmitigated installation of piles of the same diameter of the Project, Bailey et al. (2010) found that underwater noise would have exceeded 159 dBRMS re 1 µPa within 15 km from the source. With mitigation, the areal extents of the noise that exceeded the behavioural disruption threshold would decrease. For example Lucke et al. (2011) found that bubble curtains used around pile installation were effective at reducing behavioural response to underwater noise by harbour porpoise, 100 m to 175 m from the source, and further reduced sound levels. Given that harbour porpoise distribution is concentrated outside of the marine LAA in the lower Bay of Fundy, it is unlikely that many individuals would be displaced from underwater noise during construction. It is estimated that there are 79,883 harbour porpoises in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine (NOAA 2013b) and any changes in behaviour as a result of Project construction activities are unlikely to cause declines in the population or cause changes in distribution that could affect the sustainability of the regional population.
Atlantic white-sided dolphins found in the Bay of Fundy are part of the Gulf of Maine stock, with an estimated 24,422 individuals in Canadian waters and approximately 49,000 in the western North Atlantic Stock (NOAA 2013c). As with harbour porpoise, sightings of Atlantic white-sided dolphin are concentrated in the lower Bay of Fundy, with most individuals recorded more than 20 km from the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex. With mitigation, Project construction activities are not expected to exceed
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-45
CA PDF Page 46 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick the behavioural disruption threshold 20 km away from sound sources. This, along with their estimated abundance, suggests that changes in behaviour are unlikely to affect population sustainability.
The descriptors for the characterization of the residual effect on marine mammal behaviour are as follows:
• negative in direction • moderate in magnitude as underwater noise will exceed the NOAA behavioural disruption threshold but is not anticipated to affect the ongoing population viability of marine mammal species present • regional in geographic extent because underwater noise that could result in change in marine mammal behaviour is likely to extend beyond the marine LAA into the RAA. • short-term in duration as it will only occur during Project construction • multiple and irregular in frequency during Project construction • reversible in nature as conditions are expected to return to baseline at the end of construction • ecological and socio-economic context is high because of disturbance levels, with the presence of marine traffic in Saint John Harbour, including existing industrial marine traffic associated with the Irving Canaport Facility and the Canaport LNG Terminal With the application of recommended mitigation, residual effects of Project construction on the behaviour of marine mammals are predicted to be not significant, as any residual effects are unlikely to reduce the abundance or sustainability of marine mammal populations within the RAA. Prediction confidence is high because mitigation measures reflect best industry practice and marine mammal distributions indicate limited Project interactions.
MARINE BIRDS
Residual effects of the Project will be reduced through mitigation, but residual effects on marine birds and habitat could still occur as a result of sensory disturbance from in-air and underwater noise, artificial lighting at night, and the displacement of prey because of underwater sound waves emitted during construction of the terminal.
The direct effects of underwater noise on birds have not been well studied, but it is expected that birds would avoid areas where noise pressures were excessive. Marine birds would only be subject to underwater noise while actively foraging, an activity of relatively short duration compared to roosting or overflight. Construction of the offshore component of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal could have an indirect effect on colonial marine birds that reside or forage within the PDA during foraging, migration, or wintering seasons. Effects of the Project on marine bird prey (i.e., marine fish and fish habitat) are discussed in Section 10.
Although activities associated with other aspects of Project construction would present an ongoing source of sensory disturbance to marine birds, recommended mitigation measures related to noise and light suppression would reduce these effects. Construction activities are likely to result in loss of wintering habitat availability for the SARA-listed harlequin duck within the PDA, as birds may avoid suitable habitats in close proximity to the PDA during construction. This habitat, however, is not considered critical habitat under SARA, and there is additional remaining suitable habitats within the LAA and surrounding areas of the RAA that can serve as alternative habitat for members of the regional population.
11-46 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 47 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Although noise and artificial lighting associated with Project construction could result in changes to marine bird behaviour, it will be limited to a relatively small geographic area. Mitigation measures regarding lighting are recommended to reduce potential effects and could include the use of directional and fully-shielded light fixtures, which is not expected to substantively increase ambient light levels over current levels in the Canaport area.
The descriptors for the characterization of the residual effects on marine bird behaviour during construction are as follows:
• direction is negative because of the potential change in behaviour of marine birds resulting from construction activities • magnitude is low because although there will be a measurable change from existing baseline conditions, the ongoing viability of marine bird populations will not be affected • geographic extent is the LAA • duration is short-term because changes in marine bird behaviour resulting from construction would be limited to the construction phase • frequency is multiple and irregular during Project construction • effects are reversible in nature as conditions are expected to return to baseline at the end of the Project • ecological and socio-economic context is high because of disturbance levels, with the presence of marine traffic in the Saint John Harbour, including existing industrial marine traffic associated with the Irving Canaport Facility and the Canaport LNG Terminal
With the application of recommended mitigation measures, residual effects of Project construction on the behaviour of marine birds during construction are predicted to be not significant because the residual effects are unlikely to reduce the abundance or sustainability of bird populations within the RAA. Prediction confidence is high because mitigation measures are proven and reflect accepted best industry practice.
OPERATION
MARINE BIRDS
Although the residual effects of the Project on marine bird behaviour will be most pronounced during the construction phase, activities during operation will continue to have a potential effect through both periodic and ongoing sensory disturbances. As is the case during construction, in-air noise and night lighting during Project operation can have potential residual effects on the behaviour of marine birds. The area surrounding the PDA, including the Irving Canaport Facility and the Canaport LNG Terminal, continue to be used by harlequin duck and other marine species, and similarly, these species are expected to habituate to the operation of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex, as activities will be similar.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-47
CA PDF Page 48 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
The residual effects of artificial lighting associated with Project operation will be limited to a small geographic area. Mitigation is recommended to reduce potential residual effects and could include the use of directional and fully shielded light fixtures, such that ambient light levels will not substantively increase beyond current levels within the Canaport area.
For this residual effect, the:
• direction is negative • magnitude is low because although there will be a measurable change from existing baseline conditions, the ongoing viability of marine bird populations will not be affected • geographic extent is the LAA • duration is medium-term in duration because changes in marine bird behaviour have the potential to occur throughout operation • frequency is multiple and irregular • effects are reversible in nature, because recovery is likely, through active management and mitigation • ecological and socio-economic context is high because of disturbance levels, with the presence of marine traffic in the Saint John Harbour, including existing industrial marine traffic associated with the Irving Canaport Facility and the Canaport LNG Terminal
With the application of recommended mitigation measures, residual effects of Project operation on the behaviour on marine birds and marine bird habitat during operation are predicted to be not significant, as the residual effects are unlikely to reduce the abundance or sustainability of regional marine bird populations. Prediction confidence is high because mitigation measures are proven and reflect accepted best industry practice.
11.5.2.2 Change in Health
CONSTRUCTION
MARINE MAMMALS
During construction of the marine terminal underwater noise from activities such as pile installation could result in a change in the health of marine mammals (Richardson et al. 1995; Nowacek et al. 2004).
Mitigation such as exclusion zones, vibratory pile installation, bubble curtains and/or hydro sound dampeners will reduce the level of noise and its spatial extent. Monitoring for cetaceans and SAR within the exclusion zone and stopping work when they are present will reduce the likelihood that marine mammals are exposed to noise above the injury thresholds.
11-48 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 49 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Bailey et al. (2010) found that the Southall et al. (2007) injury threshold was exceeded for cetaceans within 5 m, and for pinnipeds within 20 m, of unmitigated pile installation (for approximately 1.8 m diameter piles). This is the same diameter as Project piles. An example of unmitigated installation of
2.4 m diameter cast in steel shell piles, summarized by Illingworth and Rodkin (2007), had SPLpeak of 220 re 1 µPa 10 m from the source and SELcum of 195 dB re 1 μPa2-s at 10 m from the source which, if left unmitigated, exceeds three thresholds:
• the Southall et al. (2007) injury threshold for pinnipeds • the initial (2013) and updated (2015) draft unweighted NOAA injury threshold for the high frequency cetacean functional hearing group • the updated (2015) draft unweighted NOAA injury threshold for phocid pinnipeds and low frequency cetaceans.
Results reported by Bailey et al. (2010) and Illingworth and Rodkin (2007) suggest that it is unlikely that pile installation would exceed injury thresholds beyond the marine LAA.
Dredging is not expected to create underwater noise at levels that could change the health of marine mammals. Published sound levels produced by standard cutter head dredge or a clamshell dredge indicate sound levels of 187 dB re 1 µPa and 167 dB re 1 µPa, respectively, 1 m from the source (Richardson et al. 1995), which are below the Southall et al (2007) and NOAA (2013d, 2015) unweighted injury thresholds for continuous sound.
Based on species distributions, few marine mammal species are likely to occur within the marine LAA and be potentially exposed to noise above injury threshold. Harbour porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphins and harbour seals are the most likely species to be found within the marine LAA (Table 11-2), and thus potentially exposed to underwater noise above the injury threshold. Based on literature review for pile installation of similar size, the injury threshold would be exceeded within 20 m of the source, without mitigation. With mitigation, the areal extents of underwater noise that could be above the injury threshold will be reduced, and exclusion zones will further reduce the likelihood of a marine mammal being exposed to noise that could cause changes in health. For example, vibratory pile installation does not have high impulse signatures that impact pile installation has, and generates sound levels approximately 25 dB lower than those produced by impact pile installation (Illingworth and Rodkin Inc. 2007). This would result in a low likelihood of marine mammals exposed to noise above the injury thresholds and a residual effect on change in health. The effectiveness of exclusion zone mitigation measures and the potential use of sound reduction techniques to reduce underwater noise, that otherwise could be above the injury thresholds, will further reduce the likelihood of a marine mammal being exposed to noise that could cause changes in health.
The descriptors for the characterization of the residual effect on the health of marine mammals are as follows:
• direction is negative • magnitude is moderate with thresholds exceeded, but is not anticipated to affect the ongoing population viability of marine mammal species present within the marine RAA
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-49
CA PDF Page 50 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
• geographic extent is the LAA, with underwater noise exceeding injury thresholds for limited distances from the source • duration is short-term, because the residual effect is restricted to construction and primarily from pile driving • frequency is multiple and irregular, because of pile driving activities during construction • reversible in nature, because recovery from the effect is likely, through active management and mitigation • ecological and socio-economic context is high because of disturbance levels, with the presence of marine traffic in the Saint John Harbour, including existing industrial marine traffic associated with the Irving Canaport Facility and the Canaport LNG Terminal
With the application of recommended mitigation, residual effects on the health of marine mammals and marine mammal habitat are predicted to be not significant, as the residual effects are unlikely to reduce the abundance or sustainability of marine mammal populations and the implementation of the exclusion zone will ensure there is a low likelihood of harm to marine mammals. Prediction confidence is high because proposed mitigation reflects accepted best industry practice and the distribution of marine mammals indicates there will be limited Project interactions.
MARINE BIRDS
The residual effects of construction activities on the health of marine birds can occur through several activities and project components, including in-air acoustic emissions, underwater noise, tall equipment, and artificial night lighting. Changes in biochemistry associated with stress (Jasny et al. 2005), growth inhibition, sexual maturation, reproduction, and survival could still occur in marine birds that do not show signs of behavioural disturbance as a result of exposure to noise (Hayward and Wingfield 2004; Love et al. 2005). Mitigation measures include reducing noise associated with construction, which will reduce potential effects of stress. In general, marine birds are mobile, and will be able to avoid the noise and the associated effect.
There is no known literature on bird mortality resulting from collisions with construction equipment such as gantry cranes; however, there is extensive literature on avian collisions with other types of tall structures, such as buildings, lighting infrastructure, and communication towers (Erickson et al. 2005). There is the possibility that marine birds could collide with tall structures, such as gantry cranes, that are being used during Project construction. Mitigation to reduce collisions with tall equipment includes limiting night lighting of equipment where it is safe to do so. With the implementation of the described mitigation, the likelihood of potential residual effects of change in health on marine birds during construction is low.
The descriptors for the characterization of the potential residual effect on the health of marine birds are as follows:
• direction is negative • magnitude is moderate, but not anticipated to affect the ongoing population viability of marine bird species present within the marine RAA • geographic extent is the LAA
11-50 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 51 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
• duration is short-term, because the residual effect is restricted to construction • frequency is multiple and irregular • reversible in nature, because recovery from the effect is likely, through active management and mitigation • ecological and socio-economic context is high because of disturbance levels, with the presence of marine traffic in the Saint John Harbour, including existing industrial marine traffic associated with the Irving Canaport Facility and the Canaport LNG Terminal
With the application of recommended mitigation measures, residual effects on the health of marine birds during operation are predicted to be not significant, as the residual effects are unlikely to reduce the abundance or sustainability of marine bird populations within the RAA. Prediction confidence is high because proposed mitigation measures are proven and reflect accepted best industry practice.
OPERATION
MARINE BIRDS
The residual effects of the Project on the health of marine birds will be most pronounced during construction. As is the case during construction, in-air noise and night lighting during operation of the Project can affect the health of marine birds. However, mitigation measures such as reducing noise levels from operation of equipment, reducing the attractiveness of infrastructure during operation, limiting lighting on equipment and facilities, and using wildlife-resistant garbage containers will limit the likelihood of a potential residual effect of change in health of marine birds during operation.
The descriptors for the characterization of the potential residual effect on marine bird health are:
• direction is negative • magnitude is low because the residual effect is not anticipated to affect the ongoing population viability of marine bird populations present within the marine LAA or RAA • geographic extent is the LAA • duration is medium-term, because the residual effect occurs throughout operation • frequency is multiple irregular • reversible in nature, because recovery from an effect is likely, through active management and mitigation • ecological and socio-economic context is high because of disturbance levels, with the presence of marine traffic in the Saint John Harbour, including existing industrial marine traffic associated with the Irving Canaport Facility and the Canaport LNG Terminal
With the application of recommended mitigation measures, residual effects on the health of marine birds and marine bird habitat are predicted to be not significant; the residual effects are unlikely to reduce the abundance or sustainability of marine bird populations within the RAA. Prediction confidence is high because proposed mitigation measures are proven and reflect accepted best industry practice.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-51
CA PDF Page 52 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
11.5.3 Summary of Residual Effects
For a summary of Project residual effects on marine wildlife and wildlife habitat, see Table 11-9.
11.6 Cumulative Effects
A cumulative effect occurs if a residual effect of the Project acts cumulatively with the effects of other physical activities that have been or will be carried out. For cumulative effects assessment methods, see Volume 14, Section 6. Past and existing physical activities that have been or are being carried out have influenced the baseline conditions for the assessment of Project effects (refer to Section 11.2). The effects of other physical activities that have been or are being carried out in combination with the effects of the Project are therefore considered in the assessment of the residual environmental effects of the Project (Section 11.5). These physical activities, as well as certain and reasonably foreseeable physical activities with the potential to result in cumulative environmental effects, are shown in Table 11-9.
Because residual effects from the Project on sea turtles are not anticipated, cumulative effects are not considered. Cumulative effects on marine mammals and marine birds from the Project in combination with other certain and reasonably foreseeable physical activities are summarized in Table 11-10.
For the determination of significance of cumulative effects, see Volume 20.
11-52 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 53 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Table 11-9 Residual Effects on Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat – Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex Significant Effects Significant Likelihood of Significance Significance
Residual Effects Characteristics Confidence Prediction Socio-economic Socio-economic Ecological and Reversibility Geographic Frequency Magnitude Direction Direction Duration Context Extent 1
Project Monitoring Phase Mitigation and Follow-up
INTERCONNECT PIPELINES
Change in Behaviour, Change in Health
Operation N/A N/A – an interaction is not expected N/A
Operation N/A N/A – an interaction is not expected N/A
Decommissioning and abandonment2
SAINT JOHN TANK TERMINAL (including temporary workspace) AND CANAPORT ENERGY EAST MARINE TERMINAL (onshore component)
Change in Behaviour, Change in Health
Operation N/A N/A – an interaction is not expected N/A
Operation N/A N/A – an interaction is not expected N/A
Decommissioning and abandonment2
CANAPORT ENERGY EAST MARINE TERMINAL (offshore component)
Change in Behaviour
Construction See Section 11.4 N L-M LAA- S MI R H N H N/A See Section RAA 11.7
Operation See Section 11.4 N L LAA M MI R H N H N/A See Section 11.7
Decommissioning and abandonment2
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-53
CA PDF Page 54 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Table 11-9 Residual Effects on Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat – Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex Significant EffectsSignificant Likelihood of Significance
Residual Effects Characteristics Confidence Prediction Socio Ecological and and Ecological Reversibility Geographic Frequency Magnitude Direction Duration Context Extent - economic economic
1
Project Monitoring Phase Mitigation and Follow-up
Change in Health
Construction See Section 11.4 N M LAA S MI R H N H N/A See Section 11.7
Operation See Section 11.4 N L LAA M MI R H N H N/A See Section 11.7
Decommissioning and abandonment2
NOTES: 1 Likelihood is characterized only if there is a significant residual effect. 2 Decommissioning and abandonment – see Volume 14, Section 8 for assessment of residual effects.
11-54 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 55 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Table 11-9 Residual Effects on Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat – Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex
KEY Direction Duration Significance Ecological and Socio- P Positive S Short term S Significant economic Context N Negative M Medium term N Not significant N Negligible or limited Nt Neutral L Long term L Low Reversibility M Moderate Magnitude Frequency R Reversible H High L Low S Single event I Irreversible M Moderate MI Multiple irregular event Prediction Confidence H High MR Multiple regular event L Low C Continuous M Moderate Geographic Extent H High PDA Project development area LAA local assessment area N/A Not applicable RAA regional assessment area
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-55
CA PDF Page 56 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Table 11-10 Potential Cumulative Effects on Marine Wildlife – Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex
Potential Cumulative Effects
Other Physical Activities with Potential for Change in Change in Cumulative Effects Behaviour Health Rationale
Past or Existing Physical Activities
Industrial land use (marine based, including the Irving Existing and past marine based industrial land use could overlap Canaport Facility, the Canaport LNG regasification with the residual effects of the project, resulting in changes to terminal, and other land-based operations of the Port of marine wildlife behavior through changes to underwater sound Saint John) level and to marine wildlife health through changes to underwater sound level or potential for injury or mortality due to changes in air, sound, or light.
Marine ship traffic (including bulk carriers, container Existing and past marine shipping could overlap with the residual ships, cruise ships, commercial fishing vessels, and the effects of the project resulting in changes to marine wildlife Saint John to Digby ferry) behavior through changes to underwater sound level and to marine wildlife health through changes to underwater sound level or qualitative potential for injury or mortality due to changes in air, sound, or light.
Commercial fishing N/A N/A There are no anticipated overlapping effects from the project with commercial fishing that would have a cumulative effect on marine wildlife behavior or health.
Dredging and ocean disposal Dredging and ocean disposal could overlap with the residual effects of the project resulting in changes to marine behavior and health through changes to underwater sound level and the potential for injury or mortality to changes in air, sound or light.
Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Physical Activities
Increased ship traffic to Saint John Harbour (all planned It is not anticipated that future shipping activities will overlap projects, including the export of LNG from the Canaport temporally with construction of the Project. There could be LNG Terminal) overlapping effects from lights and noise associated with operation of the terminal and the effects of increased shipping that might affect marine wildlife.
11-56 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 57 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Table 11-10 Potential Cumulative Effects on Marine Wildlife – Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Complex
Potential Cumulative Effects
Other Physical Activities with Potential for Change in Change in Cumulative Effects Behaviour Health Rationale
Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd. – Barge Terminal Construction of this project may overlap temporally with the Construction marine terminal construction. Therefore, effects on underwater sound and changes in air, sound or light could overlap with the residual effects of the Project.
Canaport LNG Terminal – export of LNG (excluding any N/A N/A Emissions of sound and light as a result of the reversal of flow at increases to shipping, which is addressed above) the facility are not expected to appreciably change over existing operations at Canaport LNG.
NOTES: Indicates that potential effects are likely to act cumulatively with those of other physical activities. N/A Indicates that potential effects do not act cumulatively with those of other physical activities.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-57
CA PDF Page 58 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
11.6.1 Assessment of Potential Cumulative Effects
11.6.1.1 Baseline Case
The baseline case of environmental conditions in the LAA and RAA has been affected by other past and current marine projects and activities including: marine components of industrial land uses (e.g., Irving Canaport Facility, Canaport LNG regasification terminal) and marine ship traffic.
Lights and noise associated with marine based infrastructure and ship traffic have influenced the existing, or baseline, environment in which the Project is located. Ongoing dredging and ocean disposal activities cause changes to the environment through noise and light, which could have overlapping effects with the Project. These projects and activities have therefore influenced and are included in the existing environmental conditions for marine wildlife described in the baseline summary provided in Section 11.2.
11.6.1.2 Application Case
The residual effects of the Project are the changes to the baseline environment of marine wildlife as a result of the Project in the context of the baseline case, including the effects of past and existing physical activities. The effects of other projects and activities that have been or are being carried out in combination with the effects of the Project are considered in the assessment of the residual effects of the Project as presented in Section 11.5. Residual effects on marine wildlife for the application case include: changes to behavior and changes to health. The application of proposed mitigation to reduce residual effects to marine wildlife (e.g., sound attenuation, shielded lights) is also described for the application case in Section 11.4.
Given currently known levels of underwater noise produced by vessels and other dredging and disposal activities, it is likely that construction-related noise will act cumulatively with these baseline conditions. This combined effect could result in underwater noise above the behavioural disruption threshold and therefore changes in behaviour by marine mammals. The species potentially affected include harbour porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, and harbour seals. Primary concentrations of harbour porpoise and Atlantic white-sided dolphin are located at least 20 km from the terminal and therefore effects are unlikely to cause a decline in abundance or change in distribution that will affect the sustainability of the population. Harbour seal distributions indicate that the species is currently present within the Project LAA although it is unlikely that changes in behaviour as a result of cumulative underwater noise will affect the sustainability of the population, given their current abundance and continued presence in areas of industrial activity (see Section 11.5.2.1).
11.6.1.3 Planned Development Case
Effects from increased ship traffic and the barge terminal construction have the potential to overlap with the residual effects of the Project on marine wildlife. These other projects are likely to contribute to light and sound emissions in the RAA. The increase in vessel traffic from the Canaport LNG terminal specifically is anticipated to be very small, as most traffic will simply be reversed (exporting versus importing). The barge terminal will accept approximately 12 vessels per year and is located approximately 10 km from the Project. The potential effects of increased noise from passing vessels are not anticipated
11-58 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 59 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat to act cumulatively with operation of the terminal due to the likely distance of passing vessels from terminal operations. Potential overlapping effects are anticipated to be spatially limited to where vessels are within proximity of the terminal. As such, this potential cumulative effect is considered negligible and is not likely to cause a change to marine wildlife health or behavior. Shipping is assessed separately in Section 3.3.
Effects from construction of the barge terminal could act in combination with the Project and produce underwater noise above the behavioural disruption threshold and cause a change in behaviour by marine mammals. The species potentially affected include harbour porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphin and harbour seals. The primary concentrations of Atlantic white-sided dolphin and harbour porpoise are located at least 20 km from the terminal; therefore effects are unlikely to cause a decline in abundance or change in distribution that will affect the sustainability of the population. Harbour seals are present within the Project LAA although it is unlikely that changes in behaviour as a result of cumulative underwater noise will affect the sustainability of the population, given their current abundance and continued presence in areas of industrial activity (see Section 11.5.2.1).
11.7 Monitoring and Follow-up
It is recommended that an Environmental Effects Monitoring Program be developed and implemented for marine birds and that this program should focus on the harlequin duck during winter construction, as this SAR is known to use habitat within and adjacent to the PDA.
Construction monitoring will be implemented through Energy East’s environmental inspection program. Environmental inspectors will be onsite during facility construction to monitor activities for compliance with regulatory commitments and mitigation measures. Resource specialists (e.g., trained marine mammal biologists or technicians) will be required by Energy East to monitor some aspects of construction.
Energy East will follow TransCanada’s standard post-construction monitoring program. This program:
• evaluates the success of mitigation implemented during construction
• documents opportunities for procedural learning and improvement
• compares predicted effects (including cumulative effects) and mitigation measures with actual documented effects
11.8 References
Ainley, D.G., R. Podolsky, N. Nur, L. Deforest, and G.A. Spencer. 2001. Status and population trends of the Newell’s Shearwater on Kauai: a model for threatened petrels on urbanized tropical oceanic islands. Studies in Avian Biology 22: 108-123.
Allen, K.R. 1971. A preliminary assessment of Fin Whale stock off the Canadian Atlantic coast. International Whaling Commission 21:64-66.
Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (ACCDC). 2013. Species Ranks. Available at: http://accdc.com/webranks/NBVERT.htm.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-59
CA PDF Page 60 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Bailey, H., B. Senior, D. Simmons, J. Rusin, G. Picken and P.M. Thompson. 2010. Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 888-897.
Behrens, K., and C. Cox. 2013. Seawatching Eastern Waterbirds in Flight. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. New York.602 pp.
Birds Studies Canada and Nature Canada. 2012. Important Bird Areas Canada. Available at: http://www.ibacanada.ca/mapviewer.jsp?lang=en. Bolshakov, C.V., V.N. Bulyuk, A.Y. Sinelschikova, and M.V. Vorotkov. 2013. Influence of the vertical light beam on numbers and flight trajectories of night-migrating songbirds. Avian Ecology and Behaviour 24: 35-49.
Bond, A.L., P.W. Hicklin, and M. Evans. 2007. Daytime spring migrations of scoters (Melanitta spp.) in the Bay of Fundy. Waterbirds 30(4): 566-572.
Bourne, W. R. P. 1979. Birds and gas flares. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10(5): 124-125.
Brandt, M.J., A. Diederichs, K. Betke and G. Nehls. 2011. Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 421: 205-216.
Brilliant, S.W., A.S.M. Vanderlaan, R.W. Rangeley and C.T. Taggart. 2015. Quantitative estimates of the movement and distribution of North Atlantic right whales along the northeast coast of North America. Endangered Species Research 27:141-154.
Brown, A.L. 1990. Measuring the effect of aircraft noise on sea birds. Environment International. 16(4-6): 587-592.
Brown, M.W., D. Fenton, K. Smedbol, C. Merriman, K. Robichaud-Leblanc and J.D. Conway. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheris and Oceans Canada. vi + 66 pp.
Castellote, M., C.W. Clark and M.O. Lammers. 2012. Acoustic and behavioural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in response to shipping and airgun noise. Biological Conservation 147: 115-122.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the fin whale Balaenoptera physalus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 37 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (Northwest Atlantic population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 32 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007a. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the harbour seal Atlantic and Eastern Arctic subspecies Phoca vitulina concolor and Lacs des Loups Marins subspecies Phoca vitulina mellonae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 40 pp.
11-60 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 61 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Red Knot Calidris canutus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 58 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2009. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 48 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Piping Plover circumcinctus supspecies (Charadrius melodus circumcinctus) and the melodus subspecies (Charadrius melodus melodus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiv + 39 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2014a. COSEWIC Species Database. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/index_e.cfm.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2014b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 52 pp.
Corrigan, S., and A.W. Diamond. 2001. Northern Gannet, Morus bassanus, nesting on Whitehorse Island, New Brunswick. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115(1): 176-177.
Dähne, M., A. Gilles, K. Lucke, V. Peschko, S. Adler, K. Krügel, J. Sundermeyer and U. Siebert. 2013. Effects of pile-driving on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at the first offshore wind farm in Germany. Environmental Research Letters 8: 1-16.
Deichmann, H. 2001. A Survey of Bird Life in the Musquash Estuary on the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Report prepared for the Conservation Council of NB. Available at: http://www.musquashmpa.ca/musquash/reports/pdfs/birdreport.pdf.
Diamond, A. W. 2012. Managing for Migrants: The Gulf of Maine as a Global “Hotspot” for Long-Distance Migrants. In R. Stephenson, J. Annala, J. Runge, and M. Hall-Arber, editors. 2012. Advancing an Ecosystem Approach in the Gulf of Main, American Fisheries Society Symposium.
Dietz, S. and R. Chiasson. 2000. Point Lepreau/Maces Bay Important Bird Area. Conservation Concerns and Measures for the Point Lepreau site. Canadian Nature Federation, Bird Studies Canada, N.B. Federation of Naturalists, Natural History Society of P.E.I., Federation of N.S. Naturalists, 20 pp.
Dooling, R.J., and A.N. Popper. 2007. The effects of highway noise on birds. The California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/files/caltrans_birds_10-7-2007b.pdf.
Ducks Unlimited. nd. DU Projects: Atlantic Flyway. Available at: http://www.ducks.org/conservation/where-we-work/flyways/du-projects-atlantic-flyway.
Edrén, S.M.E., J. Teilmann, R. Dietz and J. Carstensen. 2004. Effect from construction of Nysted offshore wind farm on seals in Rødsand seal sanctuary based on remote video monitoring. National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-61
CA PDF Page 62 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark and A.S. Frankel. 2012. A new context-based approach to assess marine mammal behavioural responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conservation Biology 26(1): 21-28.
Elmer, K.-H., J. Gattermann, C. Kuhn, B. Bruns, and J. Stahlmann. 2012. Mitigation of underwater piling noise using balloons and foam elements as hydro sound dampers. 11th European Conference on Underwater Acoustics Paper presented at the 11th European Conference on Underwater Acoustics, Edinburgh, UK. 1142-1149. Acoustical Society of America.
Elvin, S.S. and C.T. Taggart. 2008. Right whales and vessels in Canadian waters. Marine Policy 32: 379- 386.
Environment Canada. 2010. Amended recovery strategy for the roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vii + 36 pp.
Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus melodus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. v + 29 pp.
Environment Canada. 2013. Management Plan for the Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), Eastern Population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. iv + 16 pages.
Environment Canada. 2014. Bird Conservation Strategy for Bird Conservation Region 14 and Marine Biogeographic Units 11 and 12 in New Brunswick: Atlantic Northern Forest, Bay of Fundy and Gulf of St. Lawrence. November 2013. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/mbc- com/default.asp?lang=En&n=34835C5E-1.
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, D.P. Jr. Young. 2005. A summary and comparison of bird mortality from anthropogenic causes with an emphasis on collisions. In: Ralph, C. John; Rich, Terrell D., editors 2005. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 2 Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: p. 1029-1042.
Exo, K.-M., O. Hüppop, and S. Garthe. 2003. Birds and offshore wind farms: a hot topic in marine ecology. Wader Study Group Bulletin 100: 50–53.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2012. Using Satellite Tracking Data to Define Imporant Habitat for Leatherback Turtles in Atlantic Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/036.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2014. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 68 pp
Fontaine, R., O. Gimenez, and J. Bried. 2011. The impact of introduced predators, light-induced mortality of fledglings and poaching on the dynamics of the Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea population from the Azores, northeastern subtropical Atlantic. Biological Conservation 144(7): 1998-2011.
11-62 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 63 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Forman, R.T., B. Reineking, and A.M. Hersperger. 2002. Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environmental Management 29(6): 782-800.
Fundy Shorebirds. 2006. Fall Shorebird Migration. Available at: www.speciesatrisk.ca/fundyshorebirds/shorebirds/migration.html.
Gaskin, D.E. 1983. The Marine Mammal Community. In M.L.H. Thomas (ed.), Marine and Coastal Systems of the Quoddy Region. New Brunswick: Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Vol. 64, 245-268
Gilbert, J.R., G.T. Waring, K.M. Wynne and N. Guldager. 2005. Changes in abundance and distribution of harbor seals in Maine, 1981-2001. Marine Mammal Science 21: 519-535.
Government of Canada. 2015. Species at Risk Public Registry. Available at: www.sararegistry.gc.ca.
Government of New Brunswick. 2015. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. Available at: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/natural_resources/wildlife/content/GeneralStatus WildSpecies.html.
Greer, R.D., R.H. Day and R.S.Bergman. 2010. Effects of Ambient Artificial Light on Arctic Marine Fauna. Northern Oil and Gas Research Forum. Available at: http://www.arcus.org/files/meetings/279/presentations/greer.pdf.
Halpin, P.N., A.J. Read, E. Fujioka, B.D. Best, B. Donnelly, L.J. Hazen, C. Kot, K. Urian, E.A. LaBrecque, A. Diametter, J. Cleary, C. Good, L.B. Crowder and K.D. Hyrenbach. 2009. OBIS-SEAMAP: The World Data Center for Marine Mammal, Sea Bird, and Sea Turtle Distributions. Oceanography 22(2): 104-115.
Hayward, L.S., and J.C. Wingfield. 2004. Maternal corticosterone is transferred to avian yolk and may alter offspring growth and adult phenotype. General and Comparative Endocrinology 135: 365- 371.
Hildebrand, J.A. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 395:5-20.
Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller, and M.A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36: 253-286.
Hyrenbach, D. and H. Whitehead. 2006. Sargasso Cruise 2005 - Cetacean Sightings. Dalhousie University. Dalhousie, NS.
Illingworth and Rodkin Inc. 2007. Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data. California Department of Transportation Petaluma, CA. 129 pp.
Ingram, S.N., L. Walshe, D.A. Johnson and E. Rogan. 2007. Habitat partitioning and the influence of benthic topography and oceanography on the distribution of fin and minke whales in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87:149-156.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-63
CA PDF Page 64 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Jacobs, S.R. and J.M. Terhune. 2000. Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) numbers along the New Brunswick Coast of the Bay of Fundy in autumn in relation to aquaculture. Northeastern Naturalist 7(3): 289- 296.
Jacques Whitford Limited. 2008. Marine Biophysical Environment Technical Study: Project Eider Rock – Proposed Petroleum Refinery and Marine Terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick. Prepared for Irving Oil Company, Limited.
Jacques Whitford Limited. 2004. LNG Project: Environmental Impact Statement for the Liquefied Natural Gas Marine Terminal and Multi-Purpose Pier. Prepared for Irving Oil Limited. Jacques Whitford Environment Limited, Fredericton, New Brunswick. March 23, 2004.
James, M.C., S.A. Sherrill-Mix, K. Martin and R.A. Myers. 2006. Canadian waters provide critical foraging habitat for leatherback sea turtles. Biological Conservation 133:347-357.
Jasny, M., J. Reynolds, C. Horowitz, and A. Wetzler. 2005. Sounding the depths II: The rising toll of sonar, shipping, and industrial noise on marine life. Report prepared by the Natural Resources Defense Council. California, United States of America. 76pp. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sound/sound.pdf.
Kastelein, R.A., L. Hoek and R. Gransier. 2013a. Hearing thresholds of two harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) for playbacks of multiple pile driving strike sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134(3): 2307-2312.
Kastelein, R.A., D. van Heerden, R. Gransier and L. Hoek. 2013b. Behavioural repsonses of a harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to playbacks of broadband pile driving sounds. Marine Environmental Research 92:206-214.
Keitt, B. S. 1998. Ecology and conservation biology of the black-vented shearwater (Puffinus opisthomelas) on Natividad Island, Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Kenney, R. 2005. BLM Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CETAP) AIR Sightings. University of Rhode Island. Kingston, RI.
Khan, C., T. Cole, P. Duley, A. Henry and J. Gatzke. 2011. North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) 2010 Results Summary. NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). Woods Hole, MA.
Lawson, J.W. and J.F. Gosselin. 2009. Distribution and preliminary abundance estimates for cetaceans seen during Canada's marien megafauna survey - A component of the 2007 TNASS. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2009/031. vi + 28 pp.
Lien, J. 2001. The conservation basis for the regulation of whale watching in Canada by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: a precautionary approach. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2363:24.
Love, O.P., E.H. Chin, K.E. Wynne-Edwards, and T.D. Williams. 2005. Stress hormones: A link between maternal condition and sex-biased reproductive investment. The American Naturalist 166(6): 751- 766.
11-64 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 65 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Lucke, K., P.A. Lepper, M.-A. Blanchet and U. Siebert. 2011. The use of an air bubble curtain to reduce the received sound levels for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5): 3406-3412.
McCauley, R.D. and C.P. Salgado Kent. 2008. Pile driving underwater noise assessment proposed Bell Bay pulp mill wharf development. Centre for Marine Science and Technology Report 2008-27. Curtin University. Perth, Australia.
Mellinger, D.K., S.L. Nieukirk, H. Matsumoto, S.L. Heimlich, R.P. Dziak, J. Haxel and F. M. 2007. Seasonal occurrence of North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) vocalizations at two sites on the scotian shelf. Marine Mammal Science 23(4): 856-867.
Merchant, N.D., E. Pirotta, T.R. Barton and P.M. Thompson. 2014. Monitoring ship noise to assess the impact of coastal developments on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 78:85-95.
Montevecchi, W.A. 2006. Influences of artificial light on marine birds. In C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting, pp 94-113.
Mougeot, F., and V. Bretagnolle. 2000. Predation risk and moonlight avoidance in nocturnal seabirds. Journal of Avian Biology 31(3): 376-386.
National Energy Board (NEB). 2014. National Energy Board Filing Manual, 2014-01. Available at: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rpblctn/ctsndrgltn/flngmnl/flngmnl-eng.pdf.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). n.d. Interim Sound Threshold Guidance. Available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/threshold_guidanc e.html.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae): Gulf of Maine Stock. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013a. Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata acutorostrata): Canadian East Coast Stock. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013b. Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy Stock. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013c. Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus): Western North Atlantic Stock. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013d. Draft Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals: Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. 1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina concolor): Western North Atlantic Stock. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-65
CA PDF Page 66 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015. Draft Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals: Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts, Revised version for Second Public Comment Period July 23, 2015. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources (NBDNR). 2014. General Status of Wild Species. Available at: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/natural_resources/wildlife/content/GeneralStatus WildSpecies.html.
NoordzeeWind. 2009. Did the pile driving during the construction of the Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee, the Netherlands, impact local seabirds? Available at: http://www.noordzeewind.nl/wp- content/uploads/2012/02/OWEZ_R_221_Tc_20090817_Birds.pdf.
Norris, D. W. and H.J. Wilson. 1988. Disturbance and flock size changes in White-fronted geese wintering in Ireland. Wildfowl 39: 63-70.
Northridge, S., M.L. Tasker, A. Webb, K. Camphuysen and M. Leopold. 1997. Cruise results: NOAA ship DELAWARE II, Cruise No. DEL 93-06, Mairne Mammal Survey. 5 pp.
Nowacek, D.P., M.P. Johnson and P.L. Tyack. 2003. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. The Royal Society (271): 227-231.
Nowacek, D.P., L.P. Thorne, D.W. Johnston and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review 37(2): 81-115.
Palka, D. 2000. Abundance of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy harbour porpoise based on shipboard and aerial surveys during 1999. (No. Doc. 00-07). U.S. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. 29 pp.
Palka, D. 2007. NEFSC Aerial Circle-Back Abundance Survey 2004. NOAA/NEFSC.
Percy, J.A., P.G. Wells, and A.J. Evans. (eds). 1997. Bay of Fundy Issues: a scientific overview. Workshop Proceedings, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, January 29 to February 1, 1996. Environment Canada – Atlantic Region, Occasional Report No. 8. 191 p.
Perrow, M.R., J.J. Gilroy, E.R. Skeate, and M.L. Tomlinson. 2011. Effects of the construction of Scroby Sands offshore wind farm on the prey base of Little Tern Sternula albifrons at its most important UK colony. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(8): 1661-1670.
Pettis, H.M. and P.K. Hamilton. 2014. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2014 annual report card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, November 2014.
Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integrative Zoology 4(1):43-52.
Quinn, J.L., M.J. Whittingham,S.J. Butler, and W. Cresswell. 2006. Noise, predation risk compensation and vigilance in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Journal of Avian Biology 37(6): 601-608.
Read, A. 2004. Duke Harbor Porpoise Tracking. Duke University Marine Laboratory.
Rich, C. and T. Loncore. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press.
11-66 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 67 of 68
Energy East Project Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Effects Assessment – New Brunswick Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Richardson, J., C.R. Greene Jr, C. Malme and D. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press. San Diego, California.
Right Whale Consortium. 2014. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium Sightings Database 05/06/2014 (New England Aquarium, Boston, MA, U.S.A.).
Risch, D., P.J. Corkeron, W.T. Ellison and S.M. Van Parijs. 2012. Changes in humpback whale song occurrence in response to an acoustic source 200 km away. PLoS ONE 7(1): e29741, 29741- 29746.
Robbins, J., A.N. Zerbini, N. Gales, F.M. Gulland, M. Double, P.J. Clapham, V. Andrews-Goff, A. Kennedy, S. Landry and D.K. Mattila. 2013. Satellite tag effectiveness and impacts on large whales:preliminary results of a case study with Gulf of Maine humpback whales. Paper SC/65a/SH05 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, Jeju, South Korea.
Robertson, G.J. and R.I. Goudie. 1999. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/466/articles/foodhabits.
Rolland, R.M., S.E. Parks, K.E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P.J. Corkeron, D.P. Nowacek, S.K. Waaser and S.D. Kraus. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biology 279(1737): 2363-2368.
Rosenfeld, M., M. George and J.M. Terhune. 1988. Evidence of autumnal harbour seal, Phoca vitulina, movement from Canada to the United States. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102: 527-529.
Santos, C.D., A.C. Miranda, J.P. Granadeiro, P.M. Lourenço, S. Saraiva, and J.M. Palmeirim. 2010. Effects of artificial illumination on the nocturnal foraging of waders. Acta Oecologica 36(2): 166- 172.
Slabbekoorn, H. 2012. The complexity of noise impact assessments: from birdsong to fish behavior. In A.N. Popper and A. Hawkings, editors, The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life pp. 497-500. Springer New York.
Smedbol, K., J. Gale and L. Bajona. 2005. Canada Maritimes Regional Cetacean Sightings. In: Fisheries and Oceans, Canada – Digital Collections, OBIS Canada (Vol. 1): OBIS Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia Digital Originating database created maintained at St. Andrews Biological Station, New Brunswick.
Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Special Issue: Marine mammal noise exposure criteria. Aquatic Mammals 33(4).
Stobo, W.T. and G.M. Fowler. 1994. Aerial surveys of seals in the Bay of Fundy and off southwest Nova Scotia. Canadian Technology Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science (1943): 57.
Sundermeyer, J.K., K. Lucke, M. Dahne, A. Gallus, K. Krugel and U. Siebert. 2012. Effects of Underwater Explosions on Presence and Habitat Use of Harbor Porpoises in the German Baltic Sea. In A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins, editors, Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. pp. 289-291.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 11-67
CA PDF Page 68 of 68
Energy East Project Part A: Marine Terminal Complex Volume 17: Biophysical and Socio-Economic Section 11: Marine Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Effects Assessment – New Brunswick
Teachout, E. 2005. Evaluating and minimizing the effects of impact pile driving on the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), a threatened seabird. UC Davis: Road Ecology Center. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/55q101cp.
Teilmann, J., J. Carstensen, R. Dietz and S.M.E. Edrén. 2004. Effect on seals at Rødsand seal sancturay from the construction of Nysted offshore wind farm based on aerial surveys. Technical report to Energy E2 A/S. National Environmental Institute, Roskilde.
Tougaard, J., L.A. Kyhn, M. Amundin, D. Wennerberg and C. Bordin. 2012. Behavioral Reactions of Harbor Porpoises to Pile-driving Noise. In A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins editors. Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. pp 277-280.
Trippel, E.A., M.B. Strong, J.M. Terhume and J.D. Conway. 1999. Mitigation of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by-catch in the gillnet fishery in the lower Bay of Fundy. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56(1): 113.
Tyack, P.L. 2008. Implications for marine mammals of large-scale changes in the marine acoustic environment. Journal of Mammalogy 89(3): 549-558.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment. New Orleans, 487p. Available at: http://www.gomr.mms.gov.
Watanuki, Y. 1986. Moonlight avoidance behavior in Leach's storm-petrels as a defense against slaty- backed gulls. The Auk 103(1): 14-22.
Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond and J. Linke. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the North Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 1285-1290.
Williams, R., C.W. Clark, D. Ponirakis and E. Ashe. 2013. Acoustic quality of critical habitats for three threatened whale populations. Animal Conservation 17(1): 12.
Winn, H.E., C.A. Price and P.W. Sorensen. 1986. The distribution biology of the right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission. 10 (special issue):129-138 pp.
Woodley, T.H. and D.E. Gaskin. 1996. Environmental characteristics of North Atlantic right and fin whale habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74: 75-84.
Wursig, B., C.R. Greene and T.A. Jefferson. 2000. Development of an air bubble curtain to reduce underwater noise of percussive piling. Marine Environmental Research 49(1): 79-93.
Zelazny, V. F. (General Editor). 2007. Our landscape heritage: The story of ecological land classification in New Brunswick, Second Ed. NBDNR, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
11.8.1 Personal Communications
Hicks, A. Canadian Wildlife Services (CWS). Personal Communication, October 24, 2013.
11-68 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.