Assessment & mitigation of impacts from icebreaking

vessels on ice-breeding pinnipeds in the Holarctic

Wilson, SC., Trukhanova, I, Crawford, I, Dolgova, E, Dmitrieva, L & Goodman, SJ

University of Leeds, UK

suewilson@sealresearch.org, s.j.goodman@leeds.ac.uk

• Thinning polar ice, O&G exploration and more powerful icebreaking

vessels resulting in increasing shipping in Arctic waters

• Multiple anthropogenic impacts (including oil pollution, acoustic

disturbance of cetaceans)

• This presentation dedicated to the physical impact of vessels

transiting the habitat of ice-breeding pinnipeds

Principal Arctic and sub-

arctic sea routes for

industrial shipping

Review of past studies of

shipping impacts on ice breeding

seals and ice breeding seal

ecology and behaviour can help

inform risk assessments (Hӓrkӧnen

et al 2008; Wilson et al 2008, Vorontsova et

al. 2008).

NWP NSR TSR ABR Baltic Caspian

P groenlandica X X X X

P hispida X X X X X

E barbatus X X X X

O rosmarus X X X X

C cristata X X X

H fasciata X

P largha X

H grypus X X

P vitulina X

P caspica X

Overlap between principal Arctic and sub-arctic sea routes

and ice-associated seal distribution

All routes overlap with seals and 5 species are overlapped by several main

sea routes

Oil & Gas and other industrial requirements may also result

in increased localised vessel traffic

Pechora Sea

White Sea (Vorontsova et al 2008)

O rosmarus

P hispida

E barbatus

P groenlandica

Oil & gas development in the Barents Sea region

• potential impact of icebreakers on walrus and 3 seal

species

N. Okhotsk Sea

NE Sakhalin

H fasciata

P hispida

P largha

Oil and Gas development in the N. Okhotsk Sea

• potential impact of icebreakers on 3 species of seals

• collisions with seals - fatal

• separation of pups from mothers

• displacement of mother-pup pairs

from natal site

• pupping site breakage

• flushing of pups into the water

• stampeding (walrus)

• habitat fragmentation

direct mortality

stress, reduced lactation

hypothermia (pups)

energy deficit

disorientation (habitat breakage)

indirect mortality

Vessel impact (Vorontsova et al 2008; Hӓrkӧnen et al 2008; Wilson et al 2008; Anon 1990)

Characteristics predisposing species to greatest

vulnerability to vessel passage

• Creation of semi-permanent whelping sites

(pupping lairs, mother-pup grouping beside ice features with

breathing hole network)

– pup remains close to whelping site until weaned

– seals disoriented if whelping site ice broken by vessel passage

• Establishing whelping sites along shipping channel edges

• Giving birth to small-bodied white-coat pups unable to survive entry to water

• Short flight distance or freeze response to vessel approach

Species giving birth –

• on mobile ice

• with no fixed nursery site

• with larger-bodied, mobile pups able to enter water

may be less vulnerable to vessel disturbance

P. caspica

P. groenlandica

C. cristata

P. hispida

Photo: B. Kelly

Photo: IFAW (SCS) Photo: S. Wilson

Photo: DFO Newfoundland

adult flight distance 0–100m (Hӓrkӧnen et al 2008; Wilson et al 2008)

may freeze (Lydersen & Kovacs 1995)

adult flight distance ~230m (Brueggeman et al 1992)

Sedentary pupping species on stable ice

• Relatively stable pupping sites on land-fast or pack ice, or large areas of drift ice

Sedentary pupping species would be particularly affected

by icebreaker channelling

• May cut through seal breeding areas,

destroying habitat

• Seals may establish nursery sites along

channel – vulnerable to subsequent ships

H. grypus

Photo: H.Olssen & M.Jϋssi

H. fasciata

Photo: NOAA

P. largha

Photo: DFO Quebec

Little flight response to vessels (Burkanov & Lowry 2008)

Sedentary species on less stable ice • relatively stable pupping sites on edge of fast ice, pack ice, unstable drift

ice, smaller floes

P. vitulina (Alaska, Svalbard) O. rosmarus

Photo: sciencebuzz.org

Photo: Alamy-wildography.co.uk

E. barbatus

Photo: consoglobe.com

Flight response >230m; stampede possible (Anon 1990; Brueggeman et al 1991)

Flight response at 300–500m (Jansen et al 2010)

Mobile pupping species - pup not tied to fixed location

• Pups not in lanugo, able to enter water but may suffer thermal stress

Seal avoidance vessel route planning

First priority in the hierarchy of mitigation measures

Aims of route planning: 1. Advance logistics planning to reduce need for vessel transits

through seal areas during pupping and moulting seasons 2. Plan vessel routes to avoid passing through seal areas 3. If transiting potential seal areas is unavoidable, micro-plan

route to maintain Safe Distance between vessel path and seals

(Safe Distance = seals do not react to vessel)

Pupping season Pupping habitat Duration of

lactation

P groenlandica Late –Feb to early

March

stable pack ice 12 days

P hispida March–April landfast or stable

pack ice

6 weeks

E barbatus Mid –March to early

May

mobile ice floes 18-24 days

O rosmarus Mid-April to early

June

pack ice 2 years

C cristata Mid-March to early

April

centre of large ice

floe

3-5 days

P fasciata Early April to early

May

pack ice 3-4 weeks

P largha Mid Feb to April southern edge of

pack ice

3-4 weeks

H grypus Mid-Feb to mid-

March

pack ice & larger

floes

17 days

P caspica Late Jan to early

march

landfast or stable

pack ice

4–5 weeks

P vitulina Mid-June to July Pack ice and floes 3–4 weeks

Aerial surveys of vessel corridors

Deploy ice buoys Drawing: JCOMMOPS

Potential methods onboard vessel

for seal-avoidance path-finding

Large vessels: helicopter fly ahead

with camera

Smaller

vessels:

drone or

balloon with

cameras

Because of poor visibility ahead, barges should always travel in

coordinated convoy behind a lead icebreaker

convoy

This mitigation measure has been adopted in NE Caspian since 2011

(Agip KCO and NCPOC)

• Barges follow lead vessel

Vessel mitigation

Restrict speed in likely seal areas

Determine safe speeds for different classes of

vessels in seal areas for

• Stopping distance

• Manoeuvering

P. caspica

>150m

Keep vessels at ‘safe distance’ from seals

(Hӓrkӧnen et al 2008; Wilson et al 2008)

>250–1000m

(Brueggeman et al 1991)

O. rosmarus

500m

Photo: j.Womble

P. vitulina on ice floes

100 yard

(voluntary advisory)

(Jansen et al 2010)

Manoeuvering around seals ahead of vessel

This is only possible if vessels going at slow cruising speed

The new ‘oblique’ icebreakers will increase risk of collision

Avoid oblique channelling in seal areas

Risk of collision is greater at night –

• Seals may be slow to react

• Seals are difficult to spot, even with vessel

headlights

IR cameras essential

Use IR cameras at night

Develop an MMO (Marine Mammal Observer)

programme specialised for vessels and ice-

breeding seals

• Mitigation measures on pathfinding, speed, safe distance, manoeuvering, use of IR at night unlikely to be followed consistently without independent monitoring

• MMOs report on impact and mitigation measures at end of

each vessel transit to Company and to Regulatory authorities

• The MMO programme will involve specialised training and

should be recognised by the regulatory authorities in each

State

Research needed for evidence-based mitigation

• identify species, areas and seasons where seals most at risk

• determine seal behaviour response to vessel approach

• determine and quantify disturbance and impact

• determine Safe Distance for each species – breeding, moulting, non-

breeding

Marine mammal biologists should travel onboard vessels to carry

out this research

• To be required by regulatory authorities

• Cooperation between all Arctic & sub-arctic littoral States

Regulatory Issues

• Consistency of species protection status among countries

• Variation in environmental protection standards and allowable

operating procedures

• Responsibility for reporting, oversight, enforcement and accountability

can be unclear

• Development of clear regulatory frameworks, legal status for MMOs

What does this mean for Companies requiring vessel

transit through potential seal ice areas?

• Cooperating with regulatory authorities in all littoral States

• Supporting the necessary basic research on species

• Avoiding where possible travel near seal areas during

breeding season

• Commissioning vessel-route planning surveys

• Supporting seal-avoidance path-finding systems (UAVs etc)

• Equipping vessels with IR cameras

• Contracting independent MMOs for work onboard

• Factoring into transit times potential for reduced speed

or detours in seal areas

Thank you for your attention

Tara Seal Research

Anon. 1990. Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease sale 124. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Vol. 1.

US Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS region. Feb 1990.

Brueggemann J.J., Volsen D.P., Grotefendt R.A., Green G.A., Burns J.J. and Klungblad D.K. 1991. 1990 Walrus

monitoring program: the Popcorn, Burger and Crackerjack Prospects in the Chukchi Sea. Final report for Shell

Western E&P Inc.

REFERENCES

Hӓrkӧnen T., Jϋssi M., Baimukanov M., Bignert A., Dmitrieva L., Kasimbekov Y., Verevkin M., Wilson S. & Goodman

S.J. 2008. Pup production and breeding distribution of the Caspian seal (Phoca caspica) in relation to human

impacts. Ambio 37(5): 356–361.

Vorontsova M.N., Chernook V.I., Glazov D.M. and Filipova A.V. 2008. Current threats to the survival of the harp seal

(Phoca groenlandica) White Sea population. In Proceedings of the Marine Mammals of the Holarctic, Odessa,

October 2008, 586–592.

Wilson S., Kasimbekov Y., Ismailov N. and Goodman S. 2008. Response of mothers and pups of the Caspian

seal, Phoca caspica, to the passage of icebreaker traffic. In Proceedings of the Marine Mammals of the

Holarctic, Odessa, October 2008, 593–595.

Jansen J.K., Boveng P., Dahle S.P. and Bengtson J.L. 2010. Reaction of harbour seals to cruise ships. J.

Wildlife Management 74(6): 1186–1194.

Lydersen C. and Kovacs K.M. 1995. Paralysis as a defence response to threatening stimuli in harp seals (Phoca

groenlandica). Can. J. Zool. 73: 486–492.

Brueggemann J.J., Green G.A., Grotefendt R.A., Smultea M.A., Volsen D.P., Rowlett R.A. and Swanson C.C.

1992. 1991 Marine Mammal Monitoring Program (seals and whales) Crackerjack and Diamond Prospects

Chukchi Sea. Final Report prepared for Shell Western E&P Inc. and Chevron USA Inc.

Burkanov V. and Lowry L. 2008. Histriophoca fasciata. In. IUCN 2014. IUCN Red List of threatened species,

Version 2014. 1. www.iucnredlist.org