See Figure 6-1 (A) below. See Figure 6-1 (B) below db re 1 µpa (duration is s) a J/m 2 Yes

Transcription

1 Page 78 Table 6-2. Acoustic properties of the proposed 500 in 3 airgun array for VSP operations (as per Table required in the Seismic EIA Guidelines; Kyhn et al. 2011). The array was modelled at a source depth of 7 m and with pressure of 3000 psi. Specify Description Provided Far field pressure signature (provide figure) Frequency spectrum of the far field airgun signature (broadband) (provide figure) Source level (source factor) of airgun array on acoustic axis below array, given in all of the following units: db re 1 µpa zero-peak (broadband) db re 1 µpa peak-peak (broadband) db re 1 µpa rms (Over 90%* pulse duration) (provide duration for rms calculation) *as defined in Malme et al. 1986; Blackwell et al See Figure 6-1 (A) below. See Figure 6-1 (B) below. Yes Yes db re 1 µpa Yes db re 1 µpa Yes db re 1 µpa (duration is s) a Yes db re: 1 µpa 2 s. per pulse db re 1 µpa 2 s Yes Energy, joule/m 2 per airgun pulse J/m 2 Yes Signal duration. (Define how it is measured) Map showing modelled sound pressure levels (rms*), peakpeak and sound exposure level (1 µpa 2 s) for the survey area and surroundings (to levels likely to affect marine mammals or nearest land) * rms calculated by the 90% energy approach for derivation of the duration (Malme et al. 1896; Blackwell et al. 2004). Provide description of the noise propagation model, including assumptions of sound speed profiles ms (90% rms pulse duration as defined in Malme et al. 1986) See Figure 6-3 (SPL rms); Figure 6-4 (SPL peak to peak); Figure 6-2 (SEL) See Section and Appendix E (Section 2 for Methods and Section for assumptions on sound speed profiles) a This metric has little relevance when calculated on a point source waveform because it is dependent on the local acoustic propagation conditions. Yes Yes Yes

2 Figure in 3 VSP airgun array (A) far-field pressure signature and (B) frequency spectrum, including the surface ghost. Page 79

3 Page 80

4 Page 81

5 Page 82

6 Page Key Assumptions in Assessment Approach for Noise Impacts The Seismic EIA Guidelines (Kyhn et al. 2011) consider it important for an EIA to predict the total number of marine mammals likely to be affected by airgun array sound in relation to the population size, local densities and season. The approach for predicting how many marine mammals might be exposed to VSP noise of sufficient level (and duration) that could elicit a behavioural response or cause hearing impairment is intended to provide guidance on the expected level of impact. The actual numbers of marine mammals predicted to exhibit behavioural responses or, in the extreme, to experience hearing impairment is based on the following key assumptions. For all studied marine mammals it is clear that behavioural responses are strongly affected by the context of exposure and by the animal s motivation and experience. Threshold values for delineating behavioural disturbance are based on several studies but the data do not converge on specific exposure conditions resulting in particular reactions. In reality, there is expected to be much variation in response to sound type and level. Sound exposures that elicit Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) in cetaceans are based on laboratory studies of two mid-frequency species bottlenose dolphin and beluga. There are no published data for mysticetes, including the bowhead whale, or other cetaceans (narwhal) expected in the study area. Sound exposures that elicit TTS in pinnipeds (in water) are based on laboratory studies of three species harbour seal, California sea lion and northern elephant seal. There are no published data for ringed seals, bearded seals or walruses. There are no specific data concerning the levels of underwater sound necessary to cause permanent hearing damage (permanent threshold shift or PTS) in any species of marine mammal. Hearing impairment is likely a cumulative sound exposure phenomenon for which empirical data are lacking. In the absence of a species-specific audiogram, it was assumed that narwhals have the same hearing sensitivity as belugas. The method for estimating the numbers of marine mammals exposed to a given sound level assumes that marine mammals are stationary, whereas in reality they would likely move away from the sound source. This is particularly relevant when considering the numbers of marine mammals that might incur hearing impairment. Section provides details on the specific assumptions that were made during the assessment process, including those about the distribution and abundance of the marine mammal VECs. While acknowledging these assumptions and cautions, the best available information and a precautionary approach have been used to estimate the numbers of animals that may be impacted by VSP operations as well as noise from the JOIDES Resolution when it is engaged in coring operations.

7 Page Potential Impacts of Noise Vertical Seismic Profiling and Vessel Noise During Coring Fundamentals of Underwater Sound A brief overview of the fundamentals of underwater sound and of the units to quantify or describe underwater sounds is found in Appendix G. A good understanding of the relationship between the various sound measurement reference levels is essential in order to adequately compare results from different studies. It is also important to note that, for reasons explained in Appendix G and later in this section, many of the sound levels presented in the following sections are conservative (i.e. maximum) estimates of the actual levels that will likely be present around the sound sources. The nominal source level of the VSP airgun array to be used in 2012 is estimated at db re 1 Pa (peak-to-peak) and ~221.9 db re 1 Pa (rms) in the vertical direction (i.e., below the array). Sound levels to the side of the array will be lower. Further details of the acoustic properties of the VSP array are provided in Section Sound levels from the JOIDES Resolution s DP thrusters, which are used to maintain the position and heading of the vessel during drilling, were also modelled. The DP thrusters were selected for modelling because they produce much higher sound levels than actual coring/drilling (Gales 1982; M-N. Matthews, JASCO, pers. comm., March 2012). Propagation/Spreading Loss For Shell s 2012 coring program, sound levels of the VSP array were modelled for a single shot (by JASCO Applied Science) at three sites in the Project Area (see Figure 6 in Appendix E). In addition to modelling sound levels of the VSP array, JASCO modelled the sound levels of the JOIDES Resolution s DP thrusters at the same three sites. A conservative or precautionary approach was taken when predicting sound levels. The modelling report indicates that sound verification tests of previous acoustic models in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas were on average 3 db higher than the modelled predictions. Therefore, a safety factor of 3 db was added to the predicted received levels in Baffin Bay to provide cautionary results reflecting the inherent variability of sound levels in the modelled area. In addition, JASCO also used a maximum-over-depth approach. Received sound levels were determined for various water depths at each modelled distance from the one of the three source points. Whereas received sound levels varied with depth at each distance from the source, the maximum received value was always used to assess Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS). This maximum level is present only at depths well below the surface because of pressure release effects at the surface, so animals at or near the surface would be exposed to much lower received levels (RLs) of sound. Finally, to assess the propagation loss at longer distances from the source, JASCO modelled received levels up to a distance of 100 km. A propagation path (or line ) was selected to follow the water depths that supported the best propagation resulting in maximum received levels. Had other lines been selected, the received sound levels could have been substantially lower. These precautionary acoustic modelling estimates are incorporated into the impact predictions below.

8 Page Impacts of Underwater Sounds on Marine Mammals Hearing in Marine Mammals A detailed description of the current scientific knowledge as it relates to hearing in marine mammals is provided in Appendix C (Section 1.2). Available information specific to selected VECs is summarized below. Beluga Whale and Narwhal. Belugas and other toothed whales hear best at frequencies of ~ khz. The hearing thresholds of these species increases progressively (poorer hearing) outside of this khz range. Belugas are capable of hearing seismic and vessel-generated sounds at lower frequencies, but those sounds are not within their best hearing range. Sounds need to be at or above the hearing threshold to be readily detectable. Sounds must also be at or greater than ambient noise levels in order to be detected. There are no specific hearing data for narwhals, but it is assumed that belugas and narwhals have similar hearing abilities because of their taxonomic similarity; the two are the only species in the family Monodontidae. Bowhead Whale. The hearing abilities of baleen whales, including the bowhead, have not been studied directly. Behavioural and anatomical evidence indicates that they hear well at frequencies below 1 khz (Richardson et al. 1995; Ketten 2000), likely down to 10 Hz or less, and they can detect sounds at frequencies as high as the low 10s of khz. Frankel (2005) noted that gray whales reacted to a khz whale-finding sonar. For baleen whales as a group, the functional hearing range is thought to be ~7 Hz to 22 khz, and they constitute the low-frequency (LF) hearing group (Southall et al. 2007). The absolute sound levels that they can detect below 1 khz are probably limited by increasing levels of natural ambient noise at decreasing frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004). Ringed Seal and Bearded Seal. The underwater hearing sensitivity of ringed seals has been studied by Terhune and Ronald (1975). The study was limited to frequencies above 1 khz but it is known that seal hearing extends below this range. Compared to odontocetes, pinnipeds tend to have lower best hearing frequencies, lower high-frequency cutoffs, better auditory sensitivity at low frequencies, and poorer sensitivity at the best frequency. There are no specific hearing data for bearded seals. Walrus. The range of best hearing for walruses is 1 12 khz, and maximum sensitivity (~67 db re 1 µpa) occurs at 12 khz (Kastelein et al. 2002). Sensitivity falls gradually below 1 khz and drops off sharply above 12 khz, in contrast to ringed and harbour seal audiograms. Walrus hearing is relatively sensitive to low frequency sound, compared to odontocetes. Polar Bear. Data on the specific hearing capabilities of polar bears are limited. A recent study of the in-air hearing of polar bears applied the auditory evoked potential method while tone pips were played to anesthetised bears (Nachtigall et al. 2007). Hearing was tested in 1 / 3 -octave steps from 1 to 22.5 khz, and best hearing sensitivity was found between 11.2 and 22.5 khz. Although low-frequency hearing was not studied, the data suggested that medium- and some highfrequency sounds could be audible to polar bears. However, polar bears usual behaviour (i.e., on ice, at the water surface, or on land) reduces or avoids their exposure to underwater sounds.

9 Page 86 Potential Impacts of VSP Sounds There are four types of potential impacts of VSP sounds on marine mammals considered in the following sections. These include 1. temporary reduction in hearing sensitivity, evident as Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS); 2. permanent hearing impairment, evident as Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS); 3. masked communication; and 4. changes in behaviour and distribution of the animals that are of sufficient magnitude to be biologically significant. A detailed description of the current scientific knowledge of the potential impacts of seismic sound on marine mammals, as it relates to these four types of potential impacts, is provided in Appendix C (Sections ). Available information regarding any of these types of potential impacts specific to selected VECs is summarized below. Special attention has been given to narwhals and ringed seals since they are the marine mammal VECs whose distributions most likely overlap with the coring program spatially and temporally. Numbers of Marine Mammals that could be Exposed to VSP Impacts To determine potential hearing impairment and behavioural impacts on marine mammal VECs, estimates of the percentage (and total numbers in the case of narwhals and ringed seals) of affected populations were calculated based on available knowledge of the density information and modelled sound propagation (see Appendix E). Estimates of percentages (and numbers) of affected populations of cetaceans and pinnipeds (hearing impairment and behavioural impacts) that could be exposed are calculated based on the following corresponding received levels of sound: 1. One or more pulses with RL 160 db re 1 μpa rms : These are the levels of sound that are typically assumed, by U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to elicit behavioural disturbance in marine mammals based on observations of mysticetes reacting to airgun pulses (Malme et al. 1983, 1984; Richardson et al. 1986). (Specifically, NMFS considers 160 db re 1 Pa rms to be the received level above which Level B Harassment is likely. Level B Harassment is considered by NMFS to be the level at which there is potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioural patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but not at which there is the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.) Although applied by NMFS to all marine mammals, it is probably not appropriate (scientifically) for most odontocetes. Even for baleen whales there is much variation in response thresholds, with some individuals reacting at RLs lower than 160 db re 1 Pa rms and others not reacting unless levels are higher (see Appendix C). 2. One or more pulses with RL 150 db re 1 μpa rms : In some instances, beluga whales have shown partial avoidance of the area of airgun operations at distances of up to km. A study in the Canadian Beaufort Sea found that belugas avoided areas with RLs of ~150 db re 1 μpa rms (Miller et al. 2005). These reactions are not consistently observed for belugas (see beluga impact assessment discussion below and Appendix C), and it is unclear whether these behavioural reactions can be extrapolated to narwhals. In the absence of other information, it is suggested that they serve as a precautionary indicator and that the use of the 150 db re 1 μpa rms criterion to assess behavioural impacts of VSP noise on beluga whales and narwhals is warranted.

10 Page Received energy level (SEL) 198 db re 1 μpa 2 s: Recently acquired data indicate that TTS onset in marine mammals is more closely correlated with the received energy levels than with rms levels (Southall et al. 2007). In odontocetes exposed to impulsive sounds, the TTS threshold can be as low as ~183 db re 1 μpa 2 s. There are no specific data concerning the levels of underwater sound necessary to cause permanent hearing damage (PTS) in any species of marine mammal. A conservative (precautionary) estimate of this offset between TTS and PTS, when sound exposure is measured on an SEL basis (received energy level), is 15 db (Southall et al. 2007). Thus, available data indicate that the lowest cumulative received SEL that could elicit auditory injury (PTS) in cetaceans is 198 db re 1 μpa 2 s (i.e., 183 db + 15 db) (Southall et al. 2007). This remains a very complex issue and regulatory bodies (e.g. NMFS and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada) have not formulated new policy directions in response to these most recently proposed criteria.in addition, it remains unclear how this level relates to cumulative SEL levels calculated over prolonged periods of time. 4. Received energy level (SEL) 186 db re 1 μpa 2 s: In pinnipeds exposed to impulsive sounds, the TTS threshold can be as low as ~171 db re 1 μpa 2 s. Thus, available data indicate that the lowest cumulative received SEL that might elicit auditory injury (PTS) in pinnipeds is 186 db re 1 μpa 2 s (i.e., 171 db + 15 db) (Southall et al. 2007). Auditory Weighting Function In the following analyses of the numbers of marine mammals that could be exposed, flat-weighting (i.e., no weighting) was applied when calculating the distances within which RLs would diminish to 150 and 160 db re 1 μpa rms (behavioural impact), and M-weighting was applied when calculating the distances within which the RLs would diminish to 198 db re 1 μpa 2 s and 186 db re 1 μpa 2 s (PTS for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively). Densities Used to Estimate Number of Animals Exposed to VSP Sound The actual numbers of animals exposed to the corresponding sound levels predicted to result in potential hearing impairment and behavioural impact were only calculated for narwhals and ringed seals, because these are the only VECs whose distributions are expected to overlap temporally and spatially with the coring program on a regular basis. For other marine mammal VECs that are unlikely to be encountered or would be encountered in very low numbers during the coring program, only percentages of the population affected, based on the assumption of a uniform distribution throughout the Study Area, were calculated in order to quantify the magnitude of the impact (see Section 6.4.1).

11 Page 88 Density estimates of narwhals for four coastal blocks derived from aerial surveys were provided by Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010). The fraction of the Melville Bay narwhal population included in the survey blocks of Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010) is unknown, but satellite tagging information from 1993 and 1994 (Dietz and Heide- Jørgensen 1995) provides some information that can be used to estimate a population size. Based on locations plotted in Figure 6 of Dietz and Heide- Jørgensen (1995), ~10% of narwhal locations were recorded in offshore waters outside of Narwhal Protection Zone I, ~40% were in the survey blocks surveyed by Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010), and ~50% were in Narwhal Protection Zone I (excluding the Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010) survey blocks). Those animals seen seaward of the aerial survey blocks would be in addition to the 6024 narwhals estimated during the Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010) surveys in the survey blocks shown in Figure 6-5. For the current assessment, we assume that an additional 1506 narwhals ( /0.40) are evenly dispersed throughout an Offshore area (defined as the Shell D seismic survey Study Area, which is similar in size and location to the Baffin Bay Assessment Area; see LGL 2012), seaward of Narwhal Protection Zone I, and an additional 7530 ( /0.40) are evenly distributed throughout the parts of Narwhal Protection Zone I, but outside of the aerial survey area of Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010). Thus, the density of narwhals offshore and outside of Narwhal Protection Zone I is assumed to be /km 2 and the density in Narwhal Protection Zone 1 (excluding the Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010) survey blocks) is estimated to be km 2. The density of narwhals in each of the survey blocks of Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010) is assumed to be the density they reported (see Table 6-3). This may be a large overestimate of the actual number of narwhals present in these offshore areas because narwhals were not observed during earlier offshore surveys by GINR (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2010) or during a geophysical site survey off northwest Greenland in 2011 (Abgrall and Harris 2011). However, the objective of the calculation is to evaluate the proportion of the population that could potentially be exposed to various levels of seismic sounds. This methodology enables us to determine such a proportion although it is recognized that that the proportion is probably an over-estimate. In the case of ringed seals, a density estimate of 1.39/ km 2, based on a density estimate for the offshore pack ice in spring (Finley et al. 1983) was used throughout the Offshore Area. During the summer, beluga whales are not expected in the Offshore Area. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that 1% of the population remains in the Offshore Area during the summer and that they are uniformly distributed throughout this area. During the fall migration period however, it is assumed that 100% of the beluga whales could be present in the Offshore Area, although it is recognized that the fall migration will most likely occur within a few kilometres of the coastline. However, since VSP operations are not expected to be on-going in October, only the summer population of belugas is further considered in this analysis.

12 Page 89 Table 6-3. Densities used to estimate numbers of narwhals that could be exposed to various levels of seismic sounds during the VSP survey proposed during 12 August 29 September Densities in the northwest, northeast, central, and south survey blocks are from Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010). See the text above for derivation of density in the offshore stratum and Narwhale Protection Zone I (NPZ I; excluding the Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010) survey blocks). Stratum Area (km 2 ) Density (no./km 2 ) CV Abundance a CV Offshore b 123, NA 1506 NA NPZ I c 23, NA 7530 NA Northwest Northeast Central South a Corrected for availability bias by dividing by 0.21 (CV=0.09) b Not including the NPZ I the narwhal estimates only c Excluding the Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2010) survey blocks Potential Numbers of Marine Mammals Exposed to VSP Sounds The following estimates of exposures to various sound levels at any one time during the VSP survey are based on the assumption that the animals are uniformly distributed across their habitat (or within each habitat stratum presented in Table 6-3 in the case of the narwhal) and at the depth of highest sound propagation. These estimates assume that there is no avoidance (or attraction) behaviour on the part of the animal. JASCO modelled the sound propagation from three different coring sites. The assessment of magnitude was determined using the worst-case scenario (modelling Site 2), closest to the Narwhal Protection Zone I, and therefore represents an additional precautionary step in the impact assessment methodology. Predicted levels of VSP sounds obtained from the modelling and used for hearing impairment and behavioural impact assessment, as they apply to narwhal (198 db re 1 μpa 2 s and 150 db re 1 Pa rms ), are shown in Figure 6-5. Also shown are the Narwhal Protection Zone I and the aerial survey strata surveyed by Heide- Jørgensen et al. (2010) for narwhals during August The number of narwhals potentially exposed to each level of VSP sound was estimated by multiplying the area ensonified (details of the sizes of the areas ensonified at various RLs are presented in Appendix H) for the corresponding RLs assessed in each of the six strata by the density of animals for that stratum (see Table 6-3). The estimated numbers exposed are then divided by the putative population size of 15,060 (6024/0.40) to estimate the proportion of the population exposed to the corresponding sound levels from the VSP survey at any one time (Table 6-4). Predicted levels of VSP sounds obtained from modelling and used for hearing impairment and behavioural impact assessment, as they apply to ringed seals (186 db re 1 μpa 2 s and 160 db re 1 Pa rms ), are shown in Figure 6-6. The number of ringed seals potentially exposed to each level of VSP sound was estimated by multiplying the area ensonified (details of the sizes of the areas ensonified at various RLs are presented in Appendix H) for the corresponding RLs assessed by the density of animals (1.39/km 2 ). The estimated numbers exposed are then divided by the population size of (size of the Study Area density) to estimate the proportion of the population exposed to the corresponding sound levels from the VSP survey at any one time (Table 6-4).

13 Page 90 For all other marine mammal VECs, only an estimate of the proportion of the population exposed to the corresponding sound levels was calculated for the assessment of magnitude, because the distributions of these species (beluga whale, bowhead whale, bearded seal, walrus, and polar bear) are not expected to overlap substantively with the coring program. This proportion was determined by dividing the area ensonified by the size of all six strata combined because a uniform distribution of animals was assumed (Table 6-4). The resulting proportions differ based on the predicted levels of VSP sounds used to assess hearing impairment and behavioural impact for that particular species. In the case of the summer beluga estimate, this number was further multiplied by 0.01 to account for the fact only 1% of the population might still occur within the boundaries of the Offshore Area.

14 Page 91

15 Page 92

16 Page 93 Table 6-4. Potential proportion (%) of marine mammal VEC populations exposed to hearing impairment (PTS) and behavioural impacts caused by the VSP array. Hearing Impairment RLs a Behavioural Impact RLs 198 db 186 db SEL 160 db rms 150 db rms VEC SEL Narwhal b 0.00% NA 0.00% 0.01% Beluga 0.00% NA 0.00% 0.00% Whale Summer Bowhead Whale Ringed Seal c 0.00% NA 0.01% NA NA 0.00% 0.01% NA Bearded NA 0.00% 0.01% NA Seal Walrus NA 0.00% 0.01% NA a Considering M-weighting auditory weighing function. b Number of narwhals potentially exposed: 198 db SEL=0.0, 160 db rms =0.2, 150 db rms =1.3 c Number of ringed seals potentially exposed: 186 db SEL=0.02, 160 db rms =20.9 Marine Mammal VECs Impact Assessments Beluga Whale and Narwhal. The received energy level of a single seismic pulse that caused the onset of mild TTS in the beluga, as measured without frequency weighting, was ~186 db re 1 µpa 2 s or 186 db SEL (Finneran et al. 2002). 2 The rms level of an airgun pulse (in db re 1 μpa measured over the duration of the pulse) is typically db higher than the SEL for the same pulse when received within a few kilometres of the airguns. Thus, a single airgun pulse might need to have a received level of ~ db re 1 µpa rms in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each has a flat-weighted received level near 190 db re 1 µpa rms ( db SEL) could result in cumulative exposure of ~186 db SEL (flat-weighted) or ~183 db SEL (M mf -weighted), and thus slight TTS in a small odontocete. That assumes that the TTS threshold upon exposure to multiple pulses is (to a first approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy, without allowance for any recovery between pulses. However, recent data have shown that the SEL required for TTS onset to occur increases with intermittent exposures, with some auditory recovery during silent periods between signals (Finneran et al. 2010; Finneran and Schlundt 2011). The conclusion that the TTS threshold is higher for non-impulse sound than for impulse sound is somewhat speculative. The available TTS data for a beluga exposed to impulse sound are extremely limited, and the TTS data from the beluga and bottlenose dolphin exposed to non-pulse sound pertain to sounds at 3 khz and above. Follow-on work has shown that the SEL necessary to elicit TTS can depend substantially on frequency, with susceptibility to TTS increasing with increasing frequency above 3 khz (Finneran and Schlundt 2010, 2011; Finneran 2012). It should be remembered that most of the sound energy in seismic pulses occurs at much lower frequencies. 2 If the low-frequency components of the watergun sound used in the experiments of Finneran et al. (2002) are downweighted as recommended by Southall et al. (2007) using their M mf -weighting curve, the effective exposure level for onset of mild TTS was 183 db re 1 μpa 2 s (Southall et al. 2007).

17 Page 94 Despite the relatively poor low-frequency hearing thresholds of small- and mediumsized odontocetes, they should often be able to hear pulses from airgun arrays operating many tens of kilometres away (Richardson et al. 1995; Richardson and Würsig 1997). At a frequency of 100 Hz, a sound needs to be at a received level of about 120 db in order to be heard by a beluga. In the Canadian Beaufort Sea, during Devon Canada s (then Anderson Resources) seismic monitoring programs (see Miller et al. 2005), very few belugas were seen during the 1561 h of daylight observations conducted from the seismic ship. In contrast to the vessel-based results, there were numerous sightings of belugas during associated aerial surveys. The aerial survey results during seismic periods documented that beluga sighting rates at distances of km from the airgun array were significantly (P <0.001) lower than those in areas km from the airgun array, where sighting rates were unexpectedly high. These findings suggested that some belugas were avoiding the seismic operation at distances up to 20 or so km. The low number of beluga sightings recorded by the vessel-based observers is consistent with the apparent avoidance of the seismic operations area indicated by the aerial data. The combined results of the vessel and aerial monitoring suggest that belugas tended to avoid the area of seismic operations by km. The belugas sighted closest to the vessel ( m) would have been exposed to sound levels of about 165 db re 1 Pa rms. The few belugas sighted from the aircraft at km from the vessel with airguns operating would have been exposed to underwater sound levels ranging from ~150 to 130 db re 1 Pa rms, respectively, based on measurements made during an associated acoustic program. There have been no studies of narwhal hearing impairment or changes in behaviour of narwhals attributable to airgun sounds. For that reason, studies of beluga whales summarized above are used to evaluate potential effects on narwhals. No beluga whales or narwhals were observed during periods with or without seismic operations during a geophysical site survey off northwest Greenland in 2011 (Abgrall and Harris 2011) or during earlier offshore surveys by GINR (Heide- Jørgensen et al. 2010). However, during 1993 and 1994 satellite telemetry studies, narwhals were commonly seen in offshore waters within Narwhal Protection Area I, and whales occasionally were located in offshore waters outside of that area. Thus narwhals, but not belugas, are likely to be found in coastal, nearshore, and offshore areas of Melville Bay during the period of the proposed VSP surveys, and airgun sounds are likely to be audible in areas where narwhals are present in Melville Bay and adjacent offshore waters. An important point to consider in this assessment is the relatively short duration and intermittent nature of VSP operations that will occur during the Project, i.e., less than 8 h per core site (11 sites in total) during the ~twomonth shallow coring program.

18 Page 95 Impact Assessment. Based on acoustic modelling results and the implementation of mitigation measures, beluga whales and narwhals are not expected to be exposed to received sound levels high enough to elicit PTS ( 198 db SEL M MF ; see Figure 6-5 and Table 6-4). Using the 198-dB SEL M MF threshold for impulsive sounds (Southall et al. 2007), whales would have to approach to within 14 m of the airguns to potentially incur PTS hearing impairment (Appendix E, Table 10). Given this, plus the mitigation measures in place (see Section 7 Environmental Management Plan), residual impacts of the VSP sound source on beluga whale and narwhal hearing are predicted to be negligible. The behavioural residual impacts would be on narwhals would be negligible to minor, short-term, and occur over a km 2 area (Table 6-6). The behavioural residual impacts of the VSP source on beluga whales during summer would be negligible (Table 6-6). The potential residual impacts are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is medium because of the variable responses of belugas to airgun noise and the lack of information concerning the response of narwhals to airgun noise. Bowhead Whale. There are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce PTS or TTS in any baleen whale. The frequencies to which mysticetes are most sensitive are assumed to be lower than those to which odontocetes are most sensitive, and natural background noise levels at those low frequencies tend to be higher. Responsiveness of bowhead whales to seismic surveys can be variable depending on their activity (feeding vs. migrating). Details of behavioural responses of bowhead whales to seismic sound are provided in Appendix C and are not repeated here considering the low probability that bowhead whale distribution will overlap with the coring program temporally and spatially in No bowhead whales were observed during periods with or without seismic operations during a seismic site survey off northwest Greenland in 2011 (Abgrall and Harris 2011). They are expected to be in Canadian waters during the openwater period. Impact Assessment. Based on acoustic modelling results and the implementation of mitigation measures, bowhead whales are not expected to be exposed to received sound levels high enough to elicit PTS ( 198 db SEL M LF ; see Table 6-4). Using the 198-dB SEL M LF threshold for impulsive sounds (Southall et al. 2007), whales would have to approach to within 14 m of airguns to potentially incur PTS (Appendix E, Table 10). If bowhead whales did approach close to the VSP array, any effects would most likely be limited to mild TTS, from which they would recover. Given this, plus the low probability of encounter and the mitigation measures in place (MMSOs on watch, ramp ups, safety zone ramp-up delays, and safety zone shutdowns to a mitigation gun), the hearing impairment and behavioural residual impacts of the VSP sound source on bowhead whales would be negligible (Table 6-6 and see Table 6-4). Therefore, the residual impacts are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high.

19 Page 96 Ringed Seal and Bearded Seal. Monitoring work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during provided considerable information regarding the behaviour of seals exposed to seismic pulses (Harris et al. 2001; Moulton and Lawson 2002). Those seismic projects usually involved arrays of 6 16 airguns with total volumes in 3. Subsequent monitoring work in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in , with a somewhat larger airgun system (24 airguns, 2250 in 3 ), provided similar results (Miller et al. 2005). The combined results suggest that some seals avoid the immediate area around seismic vessels. In most survey years, ringed seal sightings averaged somewhat farther away from the seismic vessel when the airguns were operating than when they were not (Moulton and Lawson 2002). Also, seal sighting rates at the water surface were lower during airgun array operations than during no-airgun periods in each survey year except However, the avoidance movements were relatively small, on the order of 100 m to (at most) a few hundreds of metres, and many seals remained within m of the trackline as the operating airgun array passed by. The operation of the airgun array had minor and variable effects on the behaviour of seals visible at the surface within a few hundred metres of the airguns (Moulton and Lawson 2002). The behavioural data indicated that some seals were more likely to swim away from the source vessel during periods of airgun operations and more likely to swim towards or parallel to the vessel during non-seismic periods. No consistent relationship was observed between exposure to airgun noise and proportions of seals engaged in other recognizable behaviours, e.g., looked and dove. Such a relationship could have occurred if seals seek to reduce exposure to strong seismic pulses, given the reduced airgun noise levels close to the surface where looking occurs (Moulton and Lawson 2002). Monitoring results from the Canadian Beaufort Sea during were more variable (Miller et al. 2005). During 2001, sighting rates of seals (mostly ringed seals) were similar during all seismic states, including periods without airgun operations. However, seals tended to be seen closer to the vessel during nonseismic than seismic periods. In contrast, during 2002, sighting rates of seals were higher during non-seismic periods than seismic operations, and seals were seen farther from the vessel during non-seismic compared to seismic activity (a marginally significant result). The combined data for both years showed that sighting rates were higher during non-seismic periods compared to seismic periods, and that sighting distances were similar during both seismic states. Miller et al. (2005) concluded that seals showed very limited avoidance to the operating airgun array. Vessel-based monitoring also took place in the Alaskan Chukchi and Beaufort seas during (Funk et al. 2010). These observations indicated a tendency for phocid seals to exhibit localized avoidance of the seismic source vessel when airguns were firing (Funk et al. 2010). In the Chukchi Sea, seal sightings rates were greater without nearby seismic than from source vessels at locations with received sound levels (RLs) 160 and db re 1 μpa rms. Seals tended to stay farther away and swam away from seismic source vessels more frequently than from nonseismic monitoring (chase) vessels when RLs were 160 db rms. Over the three years, seal sighting rates were greater from chase than source vessels at locations with received sound levels 160 and db rms, whereas seal sighting rates were greater from source than chase vessels at locations with RLs <120 db rms, suggesting that seals may be reacting to active airguns by moving away from the source vessel (Haley et al. 2010; Savarese et al. 2010).

20 Page 97 Based on the limited number of seal sightings during a seismic site survey off northwest Greenland in 2011 (Abgrall and Harris 2011), the sighting rate was more than three times higher during periods without seismic activity than during periods with seismic activity (0.022 sightings/km vs sightings/km). The average sighting distance was greater during periods with seismic activity than during periods without seismic activity (906 m vs. 670 m). These numbers could suggest that seals were avoiding the area during periods of seismic activity. However, the limited number of sightings during periods of seismic operation (9 sightings total, 4 of which may be repeat sightings of 2 individuals) and the limited spatial range over which seismic data acquisition occurred prevented any statistical comparison. Impact Assessment. Using the 186-dB SEL M PW threshold for impulsive sounds (Southall et al. 2007), seals would have to approach to within 18 m of airguns to potentially incur PTS hearing impairment (Appendix E, Table 10; Figure 6-6). It is possible that a very small number of seals could occur within this distance. As a precautionary measure, MMSOs will implement shutdowns of the airgun array for seals (and other marine mammals) at the safety zone distance of 500 m versus the injury zone distance of 200 m (see Section 7). Given this mitigation measure plus others (ramp ups, safety zone ramp-up delays), the small numbers of seals expected close to the VSP array (Table 6-4), and the short duration the VSP array will be activated, the hearing impairment and behavioural residual impacts of VSP noise on ringed and bearded seal VECs are predicted to be negligible (Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential residual impacts are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Walrus. Walruses near operating seismic surveys tend to swim away from the vessel (Hannay et al. 2011). Walrus calls were monitored during a low-energy shallow-hazards survey in 2009 and a 3-D seismic survey in 2010 (Hannay et al. 2011). During the shallow-hazard survey using a 40-in 3 airgun, walrus call detections stopped at SPLs >130 db re 1 µpa rms and declined at lower SPLs. During the large-array 3-D seismic survey, acoustic detections were negatively correlated with SPL at RLs of db, but no detections were made at SPLs >140 db re 1 µpa rms. Hannay et al. (2011) suggested that walruses likely reduced calling rates upon exposure to higher SPLs without leaving the area. No walruses were observed during periods with or without seismic operations during a geophysical site survey off northwest Greenland in 2011 (Abgrall and Harris 2011). Impact Assessment. Similar to ringed and bearded seals, the hearing impairment and behavioural residual impacts of the VSP sound source on walruses are predicted to be negligible (Table 6-6 and see Table 6-4). Therefore, the potential residual impacts are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Polar Bear. Airgun effects on polar bears have not been studied. However, polar bears on the ice would be largely unaffected by underwater sound. Sound levels received by polar bears in the water would be attenuated because polar bears generally do not dive much below the surface and received levels of airgun sounds are reduced near the surface because of the aforementioned pressure release and interference effects at the water s surface. No polar bears were observed during periods with or without seismic operations during a geophysical site survey off northwest Greenland in 2011 (Abgrall and Harris 2011).

21 Page 98 Impact Assessment. It is unlikely that polar bears will be encountered during the 2012 coring program given that the JOIDES Resolution will be avoiding ice-covered waters. Given the small proportion of the polar bear population involved, their aquatic behaviour, and the mitigation measures in place (MMSOs on watch, safety zone ramp-up delays, and safety zone shut downs to a mitigation gun), the residual impacts of the VSP sound source on polar bears would be negligible (Table 6-6). The potential residual impacts are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Marine Mammal Subsistence Hunt. The 2012 coring program will occur offshore of typical marine mammal subsistence hunting grounds and over 50 km from the Melville Bay Reserve. The Project Area is at its closest point ~10 km from the coast and 35 km from the nearest community (Savissivik). Based on sound propagation modelling (Appendix E), sound levels from the VSP array close to shore are expected to be <140 db rms. Impact Assessment. Based on the acoustic modelling, it is unlikely that noise from the VSP program will propagate to nearshore waters at levels that will affect the subsistence hunt (see Appendix E). Given the mitigation measures in place to avoid temporal overlap with marine mammal migration activities and the very short duration of VSP operations at each coring site, the residual impacts of the VSP sound source on the marine mammal subsistence hunt would be to negligible to minor, short-term, and km 2 (Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential residual impacts are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is medium given the existing data gaps concerning behavioural reactions of narwhals to seismic noise as described in the impact assessment of beluga whales and narwhals Impacts of Vessel Noise on Marine Mammals The shallow coring program is expected to begin in early August. There will be one coring vessel operating continuously, and it will be stationary most of the time. Support vessels are not required for the JOIDES Resolution. Reactions of whales to vessels often include changes in general activity (e.g., from resting or feeding to active avoidance), changes in surfacing-respiration-dive cycles, and changes in speed and direction of movement. Responses to vessel approaches tend to be reduced if the animals are actively involved in a specific activity such as feeding or socializing (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995). Past experiences of the animals with vessels are important in determining the degree and type of response elicited from a whale-vessel encounter. Whales react most noticeably to erratically moving vessels with varying engine speeds and gear changes, and to vessels in active pursuit, none of which apply to the coring program. The coring vessel will remain stationary during the majority of the program. There will be short transits to and from the 11 coring sites. Noise sources, other than the VSP array, will mainly come from the DP thrusters used to maintain the vessel s position during operations. A typical ocean drilling vessel s engines and thrusters will generate ~154 db re 1 Pa of noise, not including drilling activities (IODP 2008).

22 Page 99 JASCO modelled sound levels of the JOIDES Resolution DP thrusters at three coring sites (see Appendix E). Sound levels in close proximity (i.e., ~0.4 5 km) to the coring vessel ranged from db re 1 μpa rms. Noise levels rapidly dropped below 120 db re 1 μpa rms within ~20 40 km of the coring sites (Appendix E, Figures 22 24). Given the relatively reduced levels of sound from the JOIDES Resolution and the fact that the most likely species to be exposed to vessel noise (narwhals and belugas) are mid-frequency cetaceans, there is limited potential for hearing impairment and masking in marine mammals. The potential for masking, while higher than during a seismic survey because of the continuous nature of the sound source, is unlikely to impact the communication potential of marine mammals unless they remain in close proximity to the coring vessel for prolonged periods of time. Using the 230 and 218 db re 1 μpa (peak flat ) threshold for non-impulsive sounds for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively (Southall et al. 2007), marine mammals would have to remain within ~15 m of the DP thrusters to potentially incur PTS hearing impairment (Appendix E, Table 16). Because that is unlikely, this section will focus on the assessment of behavioural impacts of vessel noise from the JOIDES Resolution. Mitigation measures in place to reduce the impacts of vessel traffic on marine mammals include spatial avoidance of protected areas and the fact that the coring vessel will steer a straight course and maintain a constant speed whenever possible during transit to and from coring sites, and avoid marine mammals to the extent possible. Beluga Whale and Narwhal. Reactions of beluga whales to ships and boats are highly variable depending on the circumstances, ranging from very tolerant to highly responsive (Richardson et al. 1995). The effect of vessel noise on beluga whales in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Québec, Canada, was assessed by Lesage et al. (1999). They used controlled experiments to record the surface behaviour and vocalizations of beluga whales before, during, and after the passing of two different types of boats: an outboard motorboat moving rapidly and erratically on an unpredictable course, and a ferry moving regularly and slowly through the study area on a predictable route. Noise from the motorboat peaked at a frequency of 6 khz but was strong up to 16 khz, with a second peak at 11.5 khz. The noise from the ferry, on the other hand, had its greatest sound levels below 6 khz and its engines generated a tone at around 175 Hz. Beluga whales changed their vocalizations in response to both these vessels. Changes included the use of higher-frequency vocalizations, a greater redundancy in vocalizations (more calls emitted in a series), and a lower calling rate. The lower calling rate persisted for longer during exposure to the ferry than to the motorboat. Investigators attempting to record beluga whale vocalizations off Norway found those whales to be surprisingly silent most of the time. The whales were silent during 72% of the recordings when the whales were known to be in the vicinity. The researchers suggested that the relative silence of this usually vocal species could be attributed to the presence of the research vessel in an area where whales are not accustomed to boat traffic (Karlsen et al. 2002).

23 Page 100 In 2007 and 2008, biologists attempted to time aerial surveys of given areas (i.e., Milne Inlet, Koluktoo Bay, and Eclipse Sound in the Canadian Arctic) to coincide with a period before and after a ship had left that area. The time between a ship transit and the period of aerial surveys ranged from 1 hour to 48 hours. Observed densities were compared during aerial surveys before the ship s arrival and after its departure. Based on aerial surveys in 2007, no consistent trends in densities were observed during four ship transits. In some areas, and during some transits, narwhal density estimates were similar before and after a vessel transited, whereas after other transits, density estimates decreased or increased. There was no obvious evidence to indicate that narwhals immediately abandoned an area transited by a vessel. Based on aerial surveys in 2008, relative to density estimates obtained prior to a vessel transit, declines were observed for 10 of 18 vessel transitarea combinations in Eclipse Sound, Koluktoo Bay, and Milne Inlet. Densities before and after vessel transits were similar for about a third of vessel transit-area combinations, and observed densities increased in Milne Inlet after a sealift vessel and an ore carrier entered on consecutive days. It remains difficult to differentiate between natural variations in narwhal abundance and the potential effects of shipping. The data suggest that some narwhals may have left some areas after a ship s passage but that others did not. Beluga responses to vessels during periods of open water are variable, ranging from tolerance to avoidance. There have been few studies of narwhal responses to vessels during periods of open water, but a study in summering areas in Canada found no evidence to indicate that narwhals immediately abandoned an area transited by a vessel. On average, there appeared to be slightly lower densities of animals in the transit area after vessel transits, but the changes in densities could have been attributable to day-to-day variation in use of areas. The response of belugas and narwhals likely depends on the type of vessel and its speed and course, their activity, and their previous exposure to industrial activity. Belugas, along with other toothed whales, have shown signs of habituation in some areas with frequent vessel traffic. Finley et al. (1990) suggested that narwhal and beluga sensitivity to ship noise in Lancaster Sound declined after repeated exposures. Impact Assessment. No (or few) belugas are expected to occur in the Project Area and most narwhals are expected to be present in the Narwhal Protection Area I, to the east of the Project Area. As a result, no belugas and few narwhals likely would be exposed to sound levels from vessels high enough to cause disturbance. Some narwhals do occur near the Project Area, and they may exhibit localized avoidance of vessels, particularly if DP thrusters are active. This avoidance would be shortterm and the number of animals affected would be small. The residual impacts of vessel noise on the beluga whale and narwhal VECs are expected to be negligible to minor, short-term, and in a geographic area of 1 10 km 2 (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential residual impacts of vessel noise are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Bowhead Whale. Some bowheads begin to avoid approaching vessels at distances of 4 km or greater (Richardson et al. 1995), but others tolerate much closer approach where sound levels are much higher. If a vessel approaches within several hundred metres, the avoidance response usually is conspicuous: the whale may increase its swimming speed, attempt to out-swim the vessel or change direction to swim perpendicularly away from the vessel s path, or decrease its time at the surface (Richardson et al. 1985a,b, 1995; Richardson and Malme 1993). Koski and Johnson (1987) reported that bowheads 1 2 km from a supply vessel swam rapidly away to distances of 4 6 km from the vessel track; displaced individuals returned to feeding locations within one day.

24 Page 101 If the vessel travels slowly, bowhead whales often are more tolerant, and may show little or no reaction, even when the vessel is within several hundred metres (e.g., Richardson and Finley 1989; Wartzok et al. 1989). This is especially so when the vessel is not directed toward the whale and when there are no sudden changes in direction or engine speed (Wartzok et al. 1989; Richardson et al. 1995). Wartzok et al. (1989) noted that bowheads often approached small ships within m when the vessel was not moving toward them. Bowhead whales engaged in social interactions or mating may be less responsive than other bowheads (Wartzok et al. 1989). Impact Assessment. Bowhead whales are expected to avoid vessels that are underway. Considering that bowhead whales are unlikely to be present in the Project Area and given the proposed mitigations (the vessel will steer a straight course and maintain a constant speed whenever possible), the residual impacts are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential residual impacts of vessel noise are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Ringed Seal and Bearded Seal. Few workers have described the responses of pinnipeds to vessels, and most of the available information concerns pinnipeds hauled out on land or ice. Ringed seals hauled out on ice pans often showed shortterm escape reactions when a ship came within m (Brueggeman et al. 1992). However, during the open-water season in the Beaufort Sea, ringed and bearded seals are commonly observed close to vessels (e.g., Harris et al. 1997, 1998, 2001, 2007, 2009). Several Hunter and Trapper Committee members in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the Beaufort Sea indicated that during seal hunting, they often create underwater noise to attract ringed seals to their boat, noting that seals are curious. In places where boat traffic is heavy, there have been cases where seals have habituated to vessel disturbance. In England, harbour and grey seals at some haul-out sites appear to have habituated to close approaches by tour boats (Bonner 1982). When in the water (vs. hauled out), seals appear less responsive to approaching vessels. Some seals will approach a vessel out of apparent curiosity, including noisy vessels such as those operating airgun arrays (Moulton and Lawson 2002). Suryan and Harvey (1999) reported that Pacific harbour seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) commonly left the shore when powerboat operators approached to observe them. These seals apparently detected a powerboat at a mean distance of 264 m, and seals left their haul-out sites when boats approached to within 144 m. Harbour seals hauled out on floating ice in fjords in Disenchantment Bay, Alaska, were more likely to enter the water when a cruise ship approached within 500 m (Jansen et al. 2010). Seals that were approached as close as 100 m were 25 times more likely to enter the water than those approached at 500 m. Cruise ships that approached directly vs. abeam resulted in more seals entering the water. Based on available information, some seals are likely to avoid approaching vessels by a few hundreds of metres, and some curious seals are likely to swim toward them.

25 Page 102 Impact Assessment. It is predicted that ringed seals and bearded seals in the water may exhibit localized avoidance of the coring vessel during the open-water period. Ringed seals and bearded seals hauled out on ice may temporarily avoid a vessel (by diving into the water), perhaps at distances up to 500 m. Ringed and bearded seal avoidance to a vessel during the open-water period is expected to be localized, particularly if DP thrusters are active, and short-term. The residual impacts of vessel noise on ringed seals and bearded seals are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential residual impacts of vessel noise are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Walrus. For walruses hauled out on ice, the response to a vessel is dependent on vessel distance (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991, 1992) and speed (Fay et al. 1984). Fay et al. (1984) reported that walruses responded at greater distances when a ship approached from downwind as compared with upwind, and that walruses in water showed less reaction than those on ice. Walruses at a terrestrial haulout did not appear to be disturbed by boats with an outboard motor when approached at distances >400 m (see Fay 1981). Salter (1979) reported that no walruses were disturbed at a terrestrial haul-out during six approaches by Zodiacs at distances of 1.8 to 7.7 km. However, noise from outboard motors may be more disturbing than sounds from a diesel engine (Fay et al. 1984). Born et al. (1995) noted that some walruses may react to ships as far as 2 km away. Animals from hunted populations are typically skittish around small boats (see Malme et al. 1989; Born et al. 1995), but Born et al. (1995) noted that some could be approached within m when asleep. At Round Island, Alaska, walruses have been observed during disturbances over the past several years. During 44 potential boat disturbance events (primarily tour boats) in 2008, walruses raised their heads in response to 2 boats, re-oriented in response to 3 boats, and dispersed when disturbed by 11 boats; during 28 other events, walruses did not react (Okonek et al. 2008). Similarly, for 43 potential boat disturbances in 2007, walruses showed no response during 27 events; head raises occurred on 4 occasions, and dispersal occurred on 12 occasions (Okonek et al. 2007). Impact Assessment. Few data are available concerning the responses of walruses to vessels, while the animals were initially in the water. Walrus avoidance of a vessel during the open-water period is expected to be localized, particularly if DP thrusters are active, and short-term. The residual impacts of vessel noise on walruses are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential residual impacts of vessel noise are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Polar Bear. Polar bears exhibit variable responses to boats, but most individuals appear to be little affected by shipping (Fay et al. 1984). If bears do react by walking, running, or swimming away, the responses are typically brief; other bears do not respond to vessels at all, or approach the ship (Brueggeman et al. 1991; Rowlett et al. 1993; Harwood et al. 2005).

26 Page 103 Impact Assessment. Like seals, polar bears exhibit variable responses to vessels. Some seem to approach vessels while others exhibit avoidance (e.g., Harwood et al. 2005). It is unlikely that the coring vessel will encounter polar bears because they will avoid ice-covered areas where bears are most likely to be found. The residual impact of vessel traffic on polar bears is expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential residual impacts of vessel presence are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Marine Mammal Subsistence Hunt. There is little information on the effects of vessel noise on marine mammal subsistence harvests. An apparent correlation between increased noise during the yellow fin sole fishery and observed declines in numbers of walruses using haulouts in northern Bristol Bay, Alaska, led to the establishment in 1990 of protection zones around the Walrus Islands (see Wilson and Evans 2009). Additionally, native hunters in Bristol Bay were concerned that noise from fishing activities disturbed walruses and made it more difficult to hunt them (Wilson and Evans 2009). Impact Assessment. Given the unlikely spatial overlap between the coring program and the marine mammal subsistence hunt, the residual impacts of vessel noise on the marine mammal subsistence hunt are predicted to be negligible. Therefore, the potential residual impacts are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high Impacts of Underwater Sounds on Seabirds There are few data on the effects of underwater sound on birds. Stemp (1985) made observations on the reactions of birds to seismic exploration programs in southern Davis Strait over three summer periods. No mortality or effects on distribution were detected in 1982, the only year when an airgun-based program was conducted. John Parsons (in Stemp 1985) reported that shearwaters off Sable Island, Nova Scotia, did not respond to underwater explosive charges 30 m away, even though the birds heads were underwater. Evans et al. (1993) made observations from operating seismic vessels in the Irish Sea. They noted that when seabirds were near the seismic boats, "there was no observable difference in their behaviour, birds neither being attracted nor repelled by seismic testing". A study on the effects of underwater seismic surveys on moulting long-tailed ducks in the Beaufort Sea showed little effect on their movement or diving behaviour (Lacroix et al. 2003). However, the study did not monitor the physical effects on the ducks. The authors suggested caution in interpretation of the data because they were limited in their ability to detect subtle disturbance effects and recommended studies on other species to fully understand the potential effects of seismic testing. This lack of overt response may be at least partly related to the fact that received levels of underwater sound from airguns are greatly reduced at and immediately below the surface as compared with levels deeper in the water (Greene and Richardson 1988). Deep-diving seabirds are more likely to be affected by underwater sound. From a resting position on the water they dive well below the surface in search of small fish and invertebrates. Diving seabirds that occur in the area of operations include the Gaviidae (loons), Alcidae (e.g., thick-billed murre, black guillemot, and little auk) and Anatidae (e.g., common and king eiders, and long-tailed duck).

27 Page 104 The sound created by airguns is focused downward below the surface of the water. Above the water the airbone sound is reduced to a muffled shot that should have little or no effect on birds that have their heads above water or are in flight. It is possible birds on the water at close range would be startled by the sound, however, the presence of the ship and associated gear dragging in the water should have already warned the bird of unnatural visual and auditory stimuli. There are no specific data on the levels of low-frequency underwater sound that are harmful to waterbirds, or that cause temporary hearing impairment (TTS). TTS is known to occur in birds exposed to strong, prolonged sounds in air (Saunders and Dooling 1974). Whether TTS could occur in waterbirds that are exposed relatively briefly to intermittent pulses of airgun sound close to an operating airgun array is unknown. TTS is, by definition, only temporary. Indeed, the auditory systems of birds, unlike mammals, have some capability to recover even from exposure to sounds that are strong enough to cause direct auditory injury (Corwin and Cotanche 1988). Impact Assessment. The available information regarding the effects of underwater sound on seabirds is limited, but there has been no indication that there are substantial disturbance effects or injury. Thus, any residual impacts of underwater sound (VSP sound and vessel noise) on birds in the Project Area are expected to be negligible (Table 6-6). The residual impacts are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high Impacts of Underwater Sound on Fish and Invertebrates and Fisheries Potential Impacts of VSP Noise A comprehensive discussion of the acoustic capabilities of fishes and marine invertebrates and the potential effects of exposure to seismic sound on these animals and associated fisheries is included in Appendix D. As indicated in Table 6-1, VSP noise will potentially interact with fish and invertebrates, their eggs and larvae, as well as the commercial and subsistence fishery. Fish and Marine Invertebrates. As discussed in Appendix D, there is little evidence to suggest that exposure to underwater sound generated by typical seismic surveying activity has any acute physical or physiological impact on postlarval fish and marine invertebrates. Effects have been noted after exposure to very high levels of seismic sound that would not typically occur in practice (e.g., McCauley et al. 2003; Popper et al. 2005). It appears that some fishes and marine invertebrates will move away in either or both the horizontal and vertical planes to avoid a seismic source, but these distributional shifts appear to be relatively short term (e.g., Chapman and Hawkins 1969; Pearson et al. 1992; McCauley et al a,b; Hassel et al. 2003,2004). Whereas acute physical impacts on the eggs and larvae of fishes and marine invertebrates resulting from exposure to seismic sound have been documented, individuals affected were situated within a few metres of the seismic sound source and exposed to very high levels of seismic sound that would not typically occur in practice (e.g., Kostyvchenko 1973; Booman et al. 1996). Payne et al. (2009), on the other hand, repeatedly exposed both eggs and larvae of marine fishes to seismic sound and did not find any statistical differences in mortality/morbundity between control and exposed subjects.

28 Page 105 Impact Assessment. Based on available scientific evidence, VSP noise associated with the proposed shallow coring program is predicted to have minor residual impacts on the fish and marine invertebrate VECs over a short-term duration in an area <1 km 2 to km 2 (Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of the VSP noise on the fish and marine invertebrate VECs are predicted to be not significant. Given the relative paucity of scientific evidence, the level of confidence in this prediction is medium. Based on available scientific evidence, the VSP noise associated with the proposed shallow coring program is predicted to have minor residual impact on the fish and marine invertebrate eggs and larvae VECs over a short-term duration in an area of <1 km 2 (Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of the VSP noise on the fish and marine invertebrate eggs and larvae VECs are predicted to be not significant. Given the relative paucity of scientific evidence, the level of confidence in this prediction is medium. Fisheries. It appears that some fishes and marine invertebrates will either move away from a seismic source or swim erratically in response to seismic sound. A limited number of fish (e.g., cod, haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus, Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides, redfish Sebastes sp., sand lance Ammodytes sp., and herring Clupea harengus) and marine invertebrate species (various shrimps, and snow crab Chionoecetes opilio) have been involved in studies of the effects of exposure to seismic sound on fishery catch rates (see further in Appendix D). Generally, when catch rate effects were observed in these studies, they were temporary (e.g., Engås et al. 1993, 1996; Løkkeborg 1991; Løkkeborg et al. 2010). Whereas the southwest corner of the Project Area overlaps with a portion of the Greenland halibut offshore fishing area, it is km from the inshore Greenland halibut fishing area, the nearest northern shrimp fishing area to the east-southeast, and the subsistence fishing along the coastline. Impact Assessment. Based on available scientific evidence and the location of the Project Area relative to the areas where commercial fisheries are typically prosecuted, the VSP noise is predicted to have negligible to minor residual impact on the commercial fishery VEC over a short-term duration in an area of <1 km 2 to km 2 (Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of the VSP noise on the commercial fishery VEC are predicted to be not significant. Given the limited commercial fishery activity in the vicinity of the coring, the level of confidence in this prediction is high. Based on available scientific evidence and the location of the Project Area relative to the areas where subsistence fisheries are typically prosecuted, the VSP noise is predicted to have negligible to minor residual impact on the subsistence fishery VEC over a short-term duration in an area of <1 km 2 to km 2 (Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of VSP noise on the subsistence fishery VEC are predicted to be not significant. Given the limited subsistence fishery activity in the vicinity of the shallow coring program, the level of confidence in this prediction is high.

29 Page 106 Potential Impacts of Vessel Noise As indicated in Table 6-1, vessel (drill ship) and drilling noise will potentially interact with fish and invertebrates and the commercial and subsistence fisheries. Although continuous rather than impulsive, the underwater noise produced by marine vessels is typically characterized by energy levels substantially lower than those associated with airgun noise. As predicted by acoustic modelling (Appendix E), the maximum SPL of DP thruster noise is predicted to be about 140 db re 1µPa rms at 361 to 632 m from source, and about 130 db re 1µPa rms at 4 to 5 km from source. As noted earlier, the amplitude of the noise caused by drilling will be much lower than that of the DP thrusters. Impact Assessment. Considering that this noise type causes less impact than airgun noise, vessel and drilling noise associated with the proposed coring program is predicted to have negligible to minor residual impacts on the fish and marine invertebrate VECs over a short-term duration in an area from <1 km 2 to 1 10 km 2 (Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of vessel and drilling noise on the fish and marine invertebrate VECs are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Similarly, the vessel and drilling noise associated with the proposed coring program is predicted to have negligible residual impact on the commercial and subsistence fishery VECs. Therefore, the residual impacts of vessel and drilling noise on these VECs are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. 6.8 Potential Impacts of Other Routine Activities Vessel Presence The only vessel required for the shallow coring program is the JOIDES Resolution. Marine Mammals In addition to the potential impacts of vessel noise on marine mammal behaviour, the presence of a vessel can increase the risk of direct injury or mortality via vessel collisions. This risk is considerably reduced during coring operations, because of the use of a single vessel and the vessel will be stationary most of the time. Narwhal. Narwhals are capable of very high swim speeds, which enable them to avoid collisions. Most narwhals within the Study Area would likely occur shoreward of the Project Area, but those that could occur within the Project Area would likely avoid a vessel underway (see Section 6.7), maintaining distances that would prevent ship strikes.

30 Page 107 Beluga whale. Like narwhals, belugas are capable of very high swim speeds, which should enable them to avoid collisions. Beluga whales that could occur within the Project Area would likely avoid vessels under way (see Section 6.7), maintaining distances that would prevent ship strikes. However, it is possible that beluga whales could experience serious injury or mortality as a result of collisions with vessels. Based on necropsy reports, mortality in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, could have been caused by collisions with ships; however, in some cases, disease could have made the beluga more susceptible to strikes (L. Measures, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, pers. comm., 2010). It was noted that comparing mortality from potential ship strikes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (where vessel traffic is frequent) to those in the Arctic would be tenuous, because some belugas in the Gulf respond quite differently to vessels (often approaching closely) than do those in the Arctic. Bowhead whale. Bowhead whales are present in the Project Area during their spring migration (May and June) toward summering areas in Canadian waters, but are uncommon during early summer and rarely seen there at other times of the year. All available information indicates that in the event of an unlikely bowhead whale encounter in the Project Area, the whale would avoid vessels under way (see Section 6.7), maintaining distances that would prevent ship strikes. Although strikes are possible, George et al. (1994) reported that only a small percentage (~1%) of bowhead whales in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock had scars from collisions with propellers. In addition, the JOIDES Resolution will remain stationary for long periods of time and transit at speeds that reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality as discussed below. There is evidence suggesting that a greater rate of mortality and serious injury is related to a greater vessel speed at the time of a ship strike (Laist et al. 2001; Jensen and Silber 2003; Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007; Vanderlaan et al. 2009). Most lethal and severe injuries to large whales resulting from documented ship strikes have occurred when vessels were travelling at 14 knots or greater (Laist et al. 2001). Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) found that if vessel speeds are less than 15 knots, the probability of a lethal injury (mortality or severe injury) from a shipstrike substantially decreases. Similarly, models of speed restrictions in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off the northeast coast of the United States suggested that the probability of cetacean mortality would be reduced by more than 50% if vessel speed were reduced from 16 knots to 10 knots (Wiley et al. 2011). Seals and Walrus. Vessel collisions with seals and walruses are highly unlikely, given that pinnipeds exhibit localized avoidance of vessels, are fast swimmers, and are much smaller than the JOIDES Resolution. There have been no published accounts of walrus, ringed seal, or bearded seal mortality caused by collisions with vessels in open-water conditions. Polar bear. Vessel collisions with polar bears are highly unlikely, given the unlikely encounter probability of the coring vessel with swimming polar bears. In addition, polar bears do not spend extended periods of time submerged in the way that other marine mammal species do. Swimming polar bears are thus more likely to be observed ahead of time and avoided by a vessel.

31 Page 108 Assessment of Impacts. It is conceivable that marine mammals could experience direct injury or mortality from collisions with the coring vessel. The risk of collision is generally considered low given their avoidance of ships and the fact that the coring vessel will be stationary most of the time. Baleen whales would be more susceptible to collision than smaller toothed whales and pinnipeds. Mitigation measures in place to reduce the impacts on marine mammals include spatial avoidance of protected areas, the presence of MMSOs on watch during transit between coring sites, and the fact that the coring vessel will steer a straight course and typically maintain a constant speed when underway, and avoid marine mammals. The residual impacts of vessel presence on narwhals, beluga whales, bowhead whales, seals, walruses, and polar bears are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of vessel presence on the marine mammal VECs are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Marine Mammal Subsistence Hunt Considering the fact that marine mammals are not expected to be struck by the JOIDES Resolution during the shallow coring program (see above), and that the Project Area does not overlap with hunting areas, vessel presence should not impact the marine mammal subsistence hunt. The residual impacts of vessel presence on the marine mammal subsistence hunt are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of vessel presence on the marine mammal subsistence hunt are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Seabirds The impact of vessel presence on seabirds is related to the presence of vessel lights. This interaction is discussed in Section Vessel Lights The JOIDES Resolution will all be equipped with navigation and warning lights. Working areas will be illuminated with floodlights. Note that there will not be any periods of darkness in August, and during September and the first half of October there will be 8-12 h of darkness. Marine Mammals It is possible that lights associated with vessels may attract prey for marine mammals. However, given the small areas where this may happen and the probable avoidance of the vessel by most marine mammals, any effects would be negligible. The residual impacts of vessel lights on narwhals, beluga whales, bowhead whales, seals, walruses, and polar bears are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of vessel lights on the marine mammal VECs are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high.

32 Page 109 Seabirds Some species of seabirds are attracted to lights at night, including lighthouses, offshore drilling platforms, and ships (Montevecchi 2006). The attraction is stronger during fog and drizzle conditions. In some cases on ships, birds fly into parts of a ship s infrastructure and are injured or killed. In most cases, however, birds land on the ship and become stranded because they are unable to take flight from the ships decks. Stranded seabirds tend to crawl into corners or under objects such as machinery to hide. There they may die from exposure, dehydration, or starvation over hours or days. A stranded seabird s plumage is prone to oiling from residual oil that can be present on a ship s decks. Common eiders were the most common casualties from ship strikes (mostly fishing vessels) during a winter study offshore Greenland (Merkel and Johansen 2011). In Newfoundland waters during summer, the Leach s storm-petrel is the species most often found stranded on the decks of offshore vessels after being attracted to lights at night (Moulton et al. 2005, 2006; Abgrall et al. 2008a, 2008b). No birds were found stranded alive, or found dead, during the marine mammal and seabird geophysical monitoring program off northwest Greenland in 2011 (Abgrall and Harris 2011). This may be a result of the long periods of daylight for most of the geophysical program (birds are attracted to lights primarily during periods of darkness). Other contributing factors could be the low densities in the offshore area of birds prone to stranding. The potential effects of the attraction of birds to ship lighting during the proposed shallow coring program, even without mitigation, are expected to be negligible. There are several reasons for this: there was no evidence of bird strandings or collisions during the 2011 geophysical program off northwest Greenland; bird densities are low offshore; and substantial periods of darkness do not begin until early September, thus limiting the period of darkness to about 4 weeks. To further reduce the likelihood of bird strandings, mitigation measures include (1) minimizing deck lighting, especially upward and horizontal-projecting light, to the extent that it is safe and practical and safe to do so, and (2) conducting daily searches of the coring vessel for stranded birds. Project personnel will be made aware of bird attraction to the lights on offshore structures. However, some degree of lighting is required for safe work practices, and coring is conducted around the clock. The MMSOs will conduct daily searches of the ship, and the ship s crew will also be notified to contact the MMSOs if a bird is found. Procedures developed by the Canadian Wildlife Service and Petro-Canada (now Suncor) will be used to handle stranded birds and release them (Williams and Chardine, n.d.). The residual impacts of vessel lights on seabirds are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, residual impacts of vessel lights on the seabird VEC are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Fish, Fish Eggs and Larvae, Invertebrates, and Invertebrate Eggs and Larvae Certain species and life stages of fish and invertebrates may be attracted to vessel lights resulting in movement to the upper water column. Other than this relatively limited neutral effect of attraction and subsequent vertical migration, there will be no impacts of vessel lights on these VECs.

33 Page 110 The vessel lights associated with the proposed shallow coring program are predicted to have negligible residual impacts on the fish, marine invertebrate, and fish and marine invertebrate eggs and larvae VECs. Therefore, the residual impacts of vessel lights on the fish and marine invertebrate VECs are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high Seabed Disturbance The primary seabed disturbance will be due to the deposition of coring cuttings and mud in the vicinity of each bore hole. There are no toxicity issues associated with cuttings and water-based mud. Marine Mammals There is limited potential for marine mammals to interact with the seabed at the coring sites given the location of the sites and the water depths. Some marine mammals that could occur in the Project Area are known to feed on benthos, particularly the bearded seal and walrus. However, these species are only expected in low numbers and the coring sites are not expected to be suitable foraging habitat. Assessment of Impacts. Given the locations of the coring sites and the relatively small area of the seabed affected by cuttings and mud, the impacts of seabed disturbance on narwhals, beluga whales, bowhead whales, seals, and walruses are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential impacts of seabed disturbance on the marine mammal VECs are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high. Fish, Fish Eggs and Larvae, Invertebrates, and Invertebrate Eggs and Larvae As indicated in Table 6-1, there are potential interactions between seabed disturbance from coring operations and the fish and invertebrate VECs. The commercial and subsistence fisheries do not occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed coring site so they are not considered further in this assessment. The primary seabed disturbance will result from the deposition of coring cuttings and mud in the vicinity of each bore hole. Although there are not any toxicity issues associated with the cuttings and mud, these deposits could potentially cause smothering of benthic biota. Studies have indicated relatively rapid recovery of the benthos (e.g.., 3-5 years) after smothering by discharged drilling cuttings and/or muds (e.g., Gray 1981). Most of these studies involved smothering due to exploratory or production drilling which produces far greater amounts of discharged material than stratigraphic coring. The deepest bore hole during the shallow coring program would be ~800 m. An 800 m coring would result in the deposition of ~45 m 3 of cuttings and 14.9 m 3 of mud (see Table 4-2), most of which would occur within 5 m of the bore hole. A more typical bore hole length is 500 m, which would result in the deposition of ~28 m 3 of cuttings and 8.5 m 3 of mud, again primarily in the immediate vicinity of the bore hole. Assuming a total coring length of 4,450 m 3 for the entire shallow coring program (i.e., all 11 sites), the predicted total volume of cuttings and mud is ~333 m 3. Accumulation of cuttings to a depth of more than 1 cm is likely sufficient to smother most of the smaller benthic fauna (Neff et al. 2000). If one assumed that the entire volume of cuttings and mud will form a depositional layer 1 cm thick, that area would be 33,310 m 2 (equivalent to an area 183 m x 183 m), which represents about % of the Project Area. Realistically this area is much too large since most of the deposition will occur in the immediate vicinity of the bore holes.

34 Page 111 During September 2011, a drop camera-mediated benthic habitat survey was conducted near the proposed coring sites (see Appendix F). During the survey, soft corals were observed at 10 of the 11 coring sites and sponges at 6 of the 11 sites. None of the observed soft corals or sponges occurred in dense aggregations (i.e., coral gardens or sponge aggregation according to the OSPAR Commission (OSPAR 2010a,b). Also, none of the soft corals or sponges observed during the benthic habitat survey is listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2012). Three of the soft coral/sponges observed during the benthic habitat survey were < 10 m from the proposed bore holes; the other 13 soft coral/sponges were observed at minimum distances of m from the proposed bore hole locations. As noted in Section 4.2.1, the exact locations of the borehole sites may change. It is proposed that prior to coring, the JOIDES Resolution will deploy its Videospection SIT (high sensitivity) remote video camera to examine the seafloor in the immediate vicinity (assumed field of view of 4 m) of the borehole location. If corals or sponges are detected, then the borehole site will be adjusted to avoid direct coring on these biota. Assessment of Impacts. Based on the relatively small volume of coring cuttings and mud that will be deposited on the seabed, the predicted coarseness of the cuttings, the non-toxic nature of the muds and the sparseness of the observed soft coral and sponge distributions, seabed disturbance associated with the shallow coring program is predicted to have negligible to minor residual impacts on the fish, marine invertebrate, and fish and marine invertebrate eggs and larvae VECs over a short to medium term duration in an area of <1 km 2. Therefore, the residual impacts of seabed disturbance on the fish and marine invertebrate VECs are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction is high Sanitary/Domestic Wastes As described in Section 4.2.8, sanitary and domestic wastes (including grey and black water) will be discharged during vessel operations. Food waste will be macerated and disposed at sea. All wastes during the shallow coring program will be managed in accordance with MARPOL requirements (i.e., Annex IV and Annex V of the MARPOL Convention) and relevant national legislation, and will also consider best environmental practice (see Section 7). Considering these mitigation measures, the residual impacts of sanitary/domestic wastes on all VECs are predicted to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the residual impacts of sanitary/domestic wastes on all VECs are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in these predictions is high. 6.9 Potential Impacts of Accidental Events It is possible that there could be accidental small spills of fuel or other fluids (e.g., hydraulic fluid) during the Project. The chances of a large fuel spill are considered extremely remote, particularly considering the JOIDES Resolution will not require refuelling, and the mitigation measures in place (see Section and Section 7). For the purposes of this EIA, a scenario for accidental fuel spill (of marine gas oil) during routine fueling of a crane was considered. It is predicted that no more than 0.06 m 3 (60 L) of marine gas fuel would be spilled overboard because of a hose break or overfilling the fuel tank of the vessel s crane.

35 Page Mitigation The JOIDES Resolution is not expected to refuel in Greenland waters and is expected to maintain a minimum distance of ~10 km from the Greenland coast. Preventative measures and plans will be in place to avoid any fuel spillage or other accidental events during the shallow coring program. Plans and measures include a spill prevention plan, crew training, adherence to the safety management procedures, and oil pollution drills (see Section 7). To minimize the risk of a collision with ice, an Ice Management Plan will be in place that includes the use of ice radar, satellite imagery, and ice observers. In the unlikely event of a spill, impacts will be minimized by following the Oil Spill Response Plan; including use of appropriate oil spill kits Potential Impacts Marine gas oil is a light oil that persists in the environment for much shorter periods than does crude oil or heavy fuel oils such as Bunker C. In cold water, only about 50% of the spilled gas oil would remain on the water surface after 12 hours (Smith and McIntyre 1971). Thus, a spill of gas oil would not persist for long periods on the water surface. About half of the oil lost from the surface is dispersed in the water column and about half is lost to evaporation (Birchard and Nancarrow 1986). Once in the water column, the half life of diesel at 0º to 2ºC may be more than 10 days (Gearing and Gearing 1982). The amount of marine gas oil that could be lost during fueling of the crane would be, in a routine spill scenario, on the order of 0.06 m 3 (60 L). Such a spill may form a small slick or sheen. The SEIA reviewed potential impacts of accidental oil spills (primarily focusing on larger scale subsurface blowouts during exploration drilling) on various VECs (see Section 11 in Boertmann and Mosbech 2011) and the following assessment refers to the SEIA where appropriate. In addition, the oil spill sensitivity atlas for coastal areas of northwest Greenland (72 75ºN; Stjernholm et al. 2011) was reviewed but its geographic reach does not include much of the coastal areas adjacent to the Project Area (Figure 6-7). Marine Mammals and Their Subsistence Harvest The known effects of oil on marine mammals have been reviewed by Engelhardt (1983, 1985), Geraci and St. Aubin (1990), and Richardson et al. (1989) and are also reviewed (and assessed) in Section of the SEIA (Boertmann and Mosbech 2011). It should be noted that most studies of oiling effects on marine mammals have involved much heavier fuel than marine gas oil. In general, the main effect of oil on marine mammals is to destroy the insulating capability of the fur of mammals that rely on fur for insulation. In the Arctic, whales and seals rely on a layer of blubber, rather than fur, for insulation. The exception is seal pups that have not yet developed insulating blubber. As noted in the SEIA, the primary species in the Study Area that would be vulnerable to exposure to marine gas oil is the polar bear, which could have reduced insulation capabilities. Also, bears ingest oil when trying to clean their fur, and the ingested oil can cause illness or mortality (Engelhardt 1981; Oritsland et al. 1981). Very few polar bears would be in the Project Area during the proposed period of operations (early August to early October), so the likelihood of mortality would be extremely low, and numbers affected (if any) would be very small.

36 Page 113 Considering the mitigation measures in place for spill prevention and cleanup, the small amount of marine gas oil expected to be spilled during a routine fuelling activity, and that the marine mammals expected to be most vulnerable to exposure to marine gas oil are expected to only occur in very low numbers in the Project Area, the residual impacts of accidental spills on marine mammal VECs and the subsistence harvest are expected to be negligible (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential impacts of accidental spills on marine mammal and subsistence harvesting VECs are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction for a small fuel spill is high. Seabirds As noted in the SEIA (Boertmann and Mosbech 2011 Section ), birds are quite vulnerable to the accidental release of fuel. The main concern about a fuel spill is the resulting surface slick or sheen that could contaminate birds that landed on it or swam through it. Even very small amounts of fuel are enough to breakdown the insulation capability of the feathers and cause the bird to die in cold waters. Spills can cause large bird mortalities if they occur near large concentrations of birds or near large nesting colonies (Joensen 1972; Campbell et al. 1978). Boertmann and Mosbech (2011) review the effects of oiling on seabirds and present times and areas where seabirds may be most sensitive to a spill in the Baffin Bay assessment area. It is possible that some seabirds in the Study Area, notably thick-billed murres and little auks, may be exposed to fuel and subsequently experience mortality. However, numbers are expected to be quite low particularly considering mitigation measures and the small amount of marine gas oil considered in the accidental spill scenario. Considering the mitigation measures in place for spill prevention and cleanup and the small amount of marine gas oil expected to be spilled during a routine fuelling activity, the residual impacts of accidental spills on the seabird VEC are expected to be negligible to minor, over a short-term duration, in an area<1 to 1-10 km 2 (see Table 6-6). Therefore, the potential impacts of accidental spills on the seabird VEC are predicted as not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction for a small fuel spill is high. Fish and Invertebrates There is a considerable body of literature regarding the effects of exposure to oil on juvenile and adult fish. Under natural conditions, most juvenile and adult fish can actively avoid contaminated water (Hjermann et al. 2007). As noted in the SEIA (i.e., Section of Boertmann and Mosbech 2011), adult shrimp are unlikely to be exposed to a spill of hydrocarbons at the surface. Considering the relatively small amount of marine gas oil that would be released into the marine environment during the accidental spill scenario, and the application of appropriate mitigation measures, an accidental spill of 0.06 m 3 of marine gas oil is predicted to have negligible residual impacts on the fish and marine invertebrate VECs. Therefore, the residual impacts of an accidental spill of 0.06 m 3 of marine gas oil on the fish and marine invertebrate VECs are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction for a small fuel spill is high.

37 Page 114 Fish/Invertebrate Eggs and Larvae As noted in Section of the SEIA, eggs and larvae of fish and invertebrates are more sensitive to hydrocarbon exposure than adults. The occurrence, abundance and distribution of eggs and larvae of marine fish and invertebrate in the Study Area are likely to be highly variable by season and dependent on a variety of biological (e.g., stock size, spawning success, etc.) and environmental (temperature, currents, etc.) factors. In the event of an accidental spill, there is potential for individual invertebrate eggs and larvae in the upper water column to sustain lethal and sublethal effects following contact with high concentrations of hydrocarbons. Of note, larvae of Greenland halibut and shrimp are found in deeper waters and would be less likely to come in contact with a fuel spill at the water s surface (Boertmann and Mosbech 2011). Considering the relatively small amount of marine gas oil that would be released into the marine environment during the accidental spill scenario, and the application of appropriate mitigation measures, an accidental spill of 0.06 m 3 of marine gas oil is predicted to have negligible to minor residual impacts on the eggs and larvae of marine fish and invertebrate over a short-term duration in an area of <1 to 1-10 km 2. Therefore, the residual impacts of an accidental spill of 0.06 m 3 of marine gas oil on the eggs and larvae of marine fish and invertebrates are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction for a small fuel spill is high. Subsistence Fishery Subsistence fishing 3 occurs in coastal areas adjacent to the Project Area. The primary effects of accidental hydrocarbon releases on fisheries pertain to physical effects on target species, actual and perceived tainting of target species, and fouling of gear. As noted above, physical effects on fish and marine invertebrates from a spill of 0.06 m 3 of marine gas oil are expected to be negligible. It is highly unlikely that a small spill of fuel considered in this assessment would reach the shore. However, impacts might occur if a fuel spill prevented or impeded a harvester s ability to access fishing grounds because of temporary exclusion areas during the spill or spill clean-up, caused damage to fishing gear or resulted in a negative effect on the use of fish due to actual or perceived tainting. Considering the relatively small amount of marine gas oil that would be released into the marine environment during the accidental spill scenario, and the application of appropriate mitigation measures, an accidental spill of 0.06 m 3 of marine gas oil is predicted to have negligible residual impacts on the subsistence fishery VEC. Therefore, the residual impacts of an accidental spill of 0.06 m 3 of marine gas oil on the subsistence fishery VEC are predicted to be not significant. The level of confidence in this prediction for a small fuel spill is high. 3 The commercial fisheries VEC is not considered further in this assessment because the shallow coring sites are km from the closest commercial fishing areas.

38 Page 115