ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NORTHEAST NEWFOUNDLAND SLOPE 2-D SEISMIC SURVEY PROGRAMME MULTI KLIENT INVEST AS Submitted to: Canada – Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board APRIL 2012 Environmental Assessment of MKI INVEST AS’s Northeast Newfoundland Slope 2-D Seismic Survey Programme 2012-2017 Prepared By: YOLO Environmental Inc. 35 Newcastle Street Dartmouth, NS B2Y3M6 in association with Spatial Metrics Atlantic Limited 243 Ritcey Crescent Dartmouth, NS B2W 6J9 Prepared For: RPS Group Liberty Place 2nd Floor, 1545 Birmingham Street Halifax, NS B3J 2J6 April 2012 MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Multi KIient Invest (MKI) AS proposes to undertake a multiyear 2-D seismic survey programme within a large regional area that encompasses the Northeast Newfoundland Slope and North Grand Banks totaling 40,000 km in the Labrador Basin, Orphan Basin, Flemish Basin, and Jeanne d’Arc Basin over the next six years (2012-2017). MKI foresees the 2-D seismic surveys occurring sometime between May 1 and November 30. The 2012 survey will not commence until August. The survey durations will be of 50 to 70 days and possibly an upper limit of 150 days. This document provides a Screening Level Environmental Assessment to allow the Canada – Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board to fulfill its responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As per the Scoping Document issued by the C-NLOPB, the valued ecosystem components include Marine and Migratory Birds, Marine Fish and Shellfish, Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, Species at Risk, Sensitive Areas and Ocean Resource Users. Engagement of stakeholder groups to collect and compile information on activities and concerns of these groups in the Study Area included several fishing industry organizations, scientists, and government agencies. Information was obtained through telephone interviews, emails, and face-to-face meetings. Environmental mitigative measures include: deferring seismic data acquisition in intensive shrimp and crab fishing areas until after July in 2012 and the need for avoidance will be discussed each year; avoidance of fish spawning in EBSAs until July; placement of an Environmental Observer onboard the vessel to provide proper identification of marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds to ensure adherence to commitment and mitigation purposes; and to collect opportunistic data on their behaviours and distribution with and without air guns operating. Mitigation measures will be applied as set out in Fisheries and Oceans Statement of Canadian Practice on Mitigation of Seismic Noise in the Marine Environment. Operational plans will be developed to avoid or lessen any potential effects on the commercial fishery. These plans will include elements such as good communications with fisher organizations (e.g., Notices to Shipping), a dedicated Fisheries Liaison Officer on the seismic vessel, a Single Point of Contact, use of a picket or chase vessel, avoidance of areas during times of heavy fixed gear use, and a fishing gear damage compensation program. With the application of mitigative measures, this environmental assessment predicts that potential adverse environmental effects on the above VECs will not be adversely significant because the potential extent of physically harmful sound levels on fish occurs within 20 of m or less of the air gun source. No other marine species is expected or known to experience physical harm by these seismic surveys. Avoidance reaction by cetaceans may occur within 6.5 km of the array and within 500 m of the array for sea turtles. YOLO Environmental Inc. Page (i) MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA Species Effects Sound Level (RMS) marine fish startle 156 dB re 1µPa marine fish transient stunning 192 dB re 1µPa marine fish internal injuries 200 dB re 1µPa marine fish egg/larval damage 220 dB re 1 Pa marine fish mortality 230-240 db re 1µPa marine mammals temporary threshold shift 200-205 dB re 1 µPa cetaceans harassment 180 dB re 1 µPa pinnipeds harassment 190 dB re 1 µPa marine mammals strong avoidance 160-170 dB re 1 μPa marine turtles avoidance 166 dB re μPa marine turtles erratic behaviour 175 dB re μPa Potential cumulative environmental effects external to the Project include fishing, research surveys, military, submarine cables, marine transportation, and other seismic surveys and drilling programmes. Compared to existing vessel traffic in the area, the incremental amount of the MKI vessel traffic as a result of this Project will be negligible. Cumulative environmental effects resulting from any of the Project activities will not be additive or cumulative because the Project activities are transitory, moving about 100 km a day, and there must be sufficient distance in the range of 40 to 50 km between seismic vessels, a 20 km distance from DFO fishing research vessels, and 500 safety zone around stationary oil platforms/FPSOs. With the implementation of mitigative measures and the limited spatial overlap with other activities, the residual cumulative environmental effect of the Project in conjunction with other projects and activities is predicted to be not adversely significant. The potential of accidental events is limited to a diesel spill in the unlikely events of a seismic vessel sinking, or a collision with another vessel. Given how unlikely these events are, and the mitigative measures that will be applied to the Project (including an FLO, on-board spill response plan and equipment), the residual environmental effect of an accidental event is predicted to be not adversely significant. YOLO Environmental Inc. Page (ii) MKI NE NL Slope Seismic Survey Programme EA TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Need for the Project.....................................................................................1 1.2 Proponent Contact Information .........................................................................................3 1.3 Regulatory Context ...........................................................................................................3 1.4 Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits ................................................................4 1.5 Stakeholder Consultation ..................................................................................................4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................5 2.1 Project Name and Location...............................................................................................5 2.2 Project Overview ...............................................................................................................5 2.2.1 Project Activity Area .....................................................................................................6 2.3 Alternatives to the Project & Alternatives for the Project...................................................7 2.3.1 Alternatives to the Project.............................................................................................7 2.3.2 Alternative Means for the Project .................................................................................7 2.3.2.1 Alternatives to Survey Method ............................................................................................ 7 2.3.2.2 Alternatives to Program Timing........................................................................................... 8 2.4 Project Components..........................................................................................................8 2.4.1 Seismic Vessel .............................................................................................................9 2.4.1.1 Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) .......................................................... 10 2.4.1.2 Waste Management – Sanco Shipping AS....................................................................... 11 2.4.2 2-D Seismic Survey Towed Array...............................................................................11 2.4.3 Streamer.....................................................................................................................17 2.4.4 Logistical Support.......................................................................................................17 2.5 Emissions and Waste Discharges...................................................................................18 2.5.1 Noise Emissions.........................................................................................................18 2.5.2 Atmospheric Emissions ..............................................................................................18 2.5.3 Liquid Emissions.........................................................................................................19 2.5.4 Solid Waste ................................................................................................................19 2.5.5 Light Emissions ..........................................................................................................19 2.6 Potential Malfunctions and Accidental Events ................................................................19 3 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT....................................................................................21 3.1 C-NLOPB Scoping Requirements...................................................................................21