190712-08mn053-Bimc NWP Shipping Review-Pt 2-Ia1e

MARY RIVER PROJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF SHIPPING THROUGH THE NORTHWEST
PASSAGE
Existing Environment
July 12, 2019
Lancaster Sound supports a high macro- and megafaunal biomass compared to other areas in the Arctic
(Thompson 1982), except for the north water polynya (Mäkelä et al. 2017).
Benthic community composition in Amundsen Gulf was reported to be similar to that of the Beaufort Shelf
at similar depths (Conlan et. al 2008). Abundance was considerably higher in the inshore region of the
Bathurst polynya (western edge of Amundsen Gulf) than the Beaufort Sea shelf and eastern Amundsen
Gulf (Conlan et. al 2008). Walrus and bearded seals are the major predators in benthic food webs,
although other marine mammals such as gray and bowhead whales will also feed on benthic
invertebrates. Due to the paucity of information on benthic communities in the potential shipping routes,
concentrations of walrus and bearded seals may be an indicator for benthic abundance.
5.3.4 Fishes
From subtidal sculpin (Family Cottidae), gunnels (Pholis spp.) and blennies (Order Blenniformes) to
pelagic Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida and Arctogadus glacialis), deep-water Greenland halibut
(Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), and anadromous Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), the Arctic supports a
variety of fish species that use a wide range of environments. Pelagic forage fish species such as capelin
(Mallotus villosus) and Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) are vital components of marine ecosystems in the
Canadian Arctic, providing food for other fish species as well as marine mammals and birds. Pelagic
forage fish species that were previously restricted to lower latitudes are being observed in the Arctic more
frequently as water temperatures increase (e.g. Pacific sand lance, Ammodytes hexapterus; Falardeau et
al. 2017). Species that use the feeding environments in the pelagic Arctic Ocean include Arctic char and
at least five species of cod (Arctic, polar, Atlantic, Greenland and saffron).
5.3.4.1 Arctic Char

Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) are salmonids with a circumpolar distribution, ranging east from the
MacKenzie River across the Arctic into Greenland, Europe, and Asia as well as south into Hudson Bay
and the Labrador coast (Sawatsky et al. 2007; Evans et al. 2015). In contrast to most other salmonids,
Arctic char are iteroparous, able to spawn several times throughout their life, usually in September and
October in the gravel substrates of freshwater lakes or rivers (Fleming 1998, Harwood and Babaluk
2014).
For most of the year, Arctic char are found in freshwater lakes and rivers, and some populations are land-
locked. However, for a few weeks or months each summer, many Arctic char migrate to the marine
environment to feed. This migration occurs once individuals have reached four or five years of age and a
size of 150-250 mm and sea-run Arctic char are generally larger in size (2.3-4.5 kg) than their freshwater
counterparts (0.2-2.3 kg; DFO 2018a). The species is considered optionally anadromous because many
individuals choose to remain in freshwater year-round, potentially due to their inability to tolerate prolonged
periods of high salinity (Bystriansky et al. 2007). Those that do migrate to the marine environment do so
after ice-breakup in the spring and remain in coastal and nearshore environments over the summer to feed
on benthic organisms, small fish, and other inter- and sub-tidal organisms (Harwood and Babiuk 2014).
Although they feed closer to shore, Arctic char have been caught up to 5 km offshore (Rikardsen et al.
2007). Unlike most anadromous salmonids that return to freshwater once and only to spawn, Arctic char
36
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
return every winter, even as juveniles or non-spawning adults. This yearly return is presumed to allow
individuals to avoid the subzero water temperatures and high salinity of the marine environment in winter
(Klemetsen et al. 2003).
5.3.4.2 Arctic/Polar Cod

Boreogadus saida and Arctogadus glacialis are fish species found throughout the Canadian Arctic that
are referred to interchangeably as Arctic cod and polar cod. Both are small (<30 cm) fish that form large
schools and comprise important prey items for larger fish and marine mammal predators. These small
cod are a keystone to the Arctic food web transferring energy they consume through zooplankton to sea
birds and marine mammals (Bradstreet et al. 1986). They can be found anywhere from <4 m to 500 m
depth and are often associated with sea ice, feeding on ice-associated fauna and zooplankton (Lønne &
Gulliksen 1989; Søreide et al. 2006). Arctic cod, like many Arctic fish species, have antifreeze
glycoproteins in their blood that prevents freezing at sub-zero temperatures and allows them to reside
inside pack ice (Lønne & Gulliksen 1989). Drifting sea ice serves as important habitat for juvenile Arctic
cod (Lønne & Gulliksen 1989). Despite large schools of adult Arctic cod being found under sea ice,
schools have also been observed in open water from June to September (Crawford & Jorgenson 1990;
Hop et al. 1997).
5.3.4.3 Atlantic Cod

The Arctic population of Atlantic cod are listed under COSEWIC as Data Deficient but all other Atlantic
cod populations are listed as either Special Concern or Endangered (COSEWIC, 2010). In general,
Atlantic cod vary in size, can reach 2 m in total length and can migrate great distances (>1000 km)
through environments with wide temperature ranges (1.5 to 19°C; Ingvaldsen et al. 2017). Atlantic cod
spawn in anywhere from tens to hundreds of metres depth (COSEWIC 2010). Juveniles use eelgrass
beds in nearshore waters for refuge from predators and feeding during their first 1 to 4 years (COSEWIC
2010).
5.3.4.4 Greenland Cod

Greenland cod (Gadus ogac) are piscivorous fish found in inshore and coastal Arctic waters from West
Greenland to Baffin Island and west to the Beaufort Sea (Mikhail and Welch, 1989). Greenland cod are
slow-growing, demersal, non-schooling and can tolerate low salinity and a wide range of temperatures
(Mikhail and Welch, 1989; Nielsen and Morin, 1993). After 2-3 years, Greenland cod begin to spawn in
March and April and remain near the coast or in inlets. (Mikhail and Welch, 1989).
5.3.5 Marine Mammals
5.3.5.1 Regulatory Overview

The potential shipping routes overlap with the home ranges of at least seven marine mammals, including
bowhead (Balaena mysticetus), narwhal (Monodon monoceros), beluga (Delphinapterus leucas), polar
bear (Ursus maritimus), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), ringed seal (Phoca hispida), and bearded seal
(Erignathus barbatus) (Table 7). In Canada, management authority for polar bear is shared by provincial,
territorial, and federal governments, who are advised by constitutionally protected wildlife management
37
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
boards. The narwhal fishery is regulated by the Fisheries Act and regulations made pursuant to it,
including the Fishery (General) Regulations and the Marine Mammal Regulations. The narwhal fishery in
the Nunavut area is co-managed by DFO, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB), Regional
Wildlife Organizations (RWOs), and Hunter and Trapper Organizations (HTOs), in accordance with the
Nunavut Agreement, the Fisheries Act and its regulations and in some communities, local hunting bylaws.
The Canada/Greenland Joint Commission was established in 1991 to coordinate management and
conservation for shared beluga and narwhal stocks/populations. Under the National Framework for
Canada's Network of Marine Protected Areas, a closed area for the Greenland halibut fishery was
established in the southeastern portion of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Division to protect
narwhal over-wintering habitat. These waters have been identified as an important narwhal over-wintering
area. The area is closed to Greenland halibut fishing, as this fish species is a major food source for
narwhal on their over-wintering grounds. Narwhal are listed on Appendix II of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Reporting of all non-hunt related mortality is required
(DFO 2013).
Table 7 Conservation Status of Marine Mammals within the potential NWP shipping
routes
Common Scientific Conservation Status Populations

Name Name
NWT SARA COSEWIC IUCN
Bowhead Balaena Special Endangered Special Least • Eastern Arctic –
mysticetus Concern (Eastern Concern Concern West Greenland
Arctic), population
Special (eastern)
Concern • Bering-Chukchi-
(Bering- Beaufort Sea
Chukchi- (western)
Beaufort)
Narwhal Monodon Undetermined No Status Special Least • Baffin Bay
monoceros Concern Concern • Hudson Bay
Beluga Delphinapterus Undetermined No Status Special Least • Eastern High
leucas Concern Concern Arctic-Baffin Bay
• Eastern Beaufort
Sea
Polar Ursus Special Special Special Vulnerable • Lancaster Sound
Bears maritimus Concern Concern Concern • Baffin Bay
• M’Clintock
Channel
• Northern
Beaufort Sea
• Southern
Beaufort Sea
• Viscount Melville
Sound
Walrus Odobenus Vagrant No Status Special Near • Baffin Bay (BB)
rosmarus Concern threatened • West Jones
Sound (WJS)
38
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Table 7 Conservation Status of Marine Mammals within the potential NWP shipping
routes
Common Scientific Conservation Status Populations

Name Name
NWT SARA COSEWIC IUCN
• Penny Strait-
Lancaster Sound
(PS-LS)
Ringed Phoca hispida Secure No Status Status Least • Arctic
Seal being Concern
assessed
Bearded Erignathus Undetermined No Status Data Least • Atlantic
Seal barbatus Deficient Concern • Pacific
Relevant legislation and regulations for the management of beluga differs by region. In the Nunavik
region of the Arctic, Canada and the DFO have been engaged in the co-management of beluga whales.
The management of the Beaufort Sea Beluga Population (FJMC 2013) includes:
• Inuvialuit Final Agreement
• Fisheries Act
• Oceans Act
• Environmental Protection Act
• Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
• Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act
• Species at Risk Act (SARA)
• Marine Mammal Regulations
• Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Areas Regulations
DFO is responsible for the protection and conservation of aquatic species at risk listed under SARA, and
for protecting their critical habitat once identified. Under s. 32 of SARA, it is an offence to kill, harm,
harass, capture, or take individuals of a species at risk listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened.
The Marine Mammals Regulations (MMR) under the Fisheries Act prohibit disturbance to marine
mammals (Section 7) except in the following circumstances:
(a) when carrying on a work, undertaking or activity that is authorized, otherwise permitted or
required under the Act;
(b) when fishing for marine mammals under the authority of these Regulations;
39
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
(c) in the manner set out in a license issued under the Fishery (General) Regulations authorizing
them to fish for marine mammals for experimental, scientific, educational or public display
purposes; or
(d) in the manner authorized under the Species at Risk Act.
To disturb “… includes to approach the marine mammal to, or to attempt to, (a) feed it; (b) swim with it or
interact with it; (c) move it or entice or cause it to move from the immediate vicinity in which it is found; (d)
separate it from members of its group or go between it and a calf; (e) trap it or its group between a vessel
and the shore or between a vessel and one or more other vessels; or (f) tag or mark it.“
In the case of a whale, dolphin or porpoise in resting position or with its calf, the definition of disturb also
includes to approach at a distance of less than 200 m in all Canadian fisheries waters.
5.3.5.2 Bowhead Whales

Population Structure
The bowhead whale is a large baleen whale that can occur in open water and in areas of unconsolidated
pack ice. They feed primarily on zooplankton but also on epibenthic invertebrates such as mysids and
gammarid amphipods (DFO 2016). They reach sexual maturity at about 25 years of age and can live over
100 years of age, with an estimated average lifespan of 50-75 years (DFO 2016). Females give birth
during spring migrations. Bowhead whales use an acoustic sense for ice navigation and long-range
communication (COSEWIC 2009).
There are two populations of bowhead whale that are present within the potential shipping routes: the
Eastern Arctic – West Greenland population (eastern) and the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea (western)
population (Figure 8).
40
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Figure 8 Bowhead populations: Eastern (left) and Western population (right)

(DFO 2019b, c)
Population Status
The eastern population has no status under the federal Species at Risk Act but is identified of special
concern under COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2009). Under the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, it is listed as Least Concern (Cooke and Reeves 2018).
The western population of bowhead whale is listed on Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act as of
Special Concern. Under the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, it is listed as Least Concern (Cooke
and Reeves 2018). This population has no status under the Northwest Territories Species at Risk Act and
has a Northwest Territories general status rank of Secure.
Vocalization and Hearing

Bowhead whales are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (7 Hz to 35 kHz; NMFS 2018). This sensitivity
overlaps with typical vessel-produced in-water noise (50 and 400 Hz; Richardson et al. 1995; NRC 2003).
Bowhead communication consists of calls within 75-500 Hz (Ljungblad et al. 1982; Clark and Johnson
1984 as cited in Richardson et al. 1986). Distribution
The range of the eastern population of Bowhead whale in the potential shipping routes includes Navy
Board Inlet, Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait, Prince Regent Inlet, Bellot Strait, Peel Sound, and the
eastern portion of Parry Channel (DFO 2016) (Figure 8). They migrate from their winter range in Davis
and Hudson Straits to their summer range during ice break-up (DFO 2016). Modelling of eastern Arctic
bowhead whale distribution and habitat by Wheeler et al. (2012) suggests that areas of upwelling are
selected by bowhead whales as they provide favourable feeding opportunities, particularly from August to
41
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
October. Summer aggregations of bowhead whales have been reported in Navy Board Inlet and Prince
Regent Inlet (DFO 2016). In Prince Regent Sound, bowhead whales consist of mainly young whales or
females with calves (COSEWIC 2009). IQ also identifies the presence of bowhead whales in these two
areas (NIRB 2018).
The western population of bowhead whale tend to spend summers in the Beaufort Sea and Amundsen
Gulf but have also been reported in M’Clure Strait, Viscount Melville Sound, Prince of Wales Strait
(Harwood et al. 2017), and in Coronation Gulf (COSEWIC 2009) (Figure 7). Overwintering occurs in the
Bering Sea. Summer aggregations in August and September mainly occur in shallow, shelf waters when
oceanographic conditions and sunlight promote concentrations of zooplankton (Harwood et al 2017).
5.3.5.3 Narwhal
The narwhal is a medium-sized Odontocete whale. Males are easily recognized by their large “tusk,”
which can reach lengths of up to 3 m. They feed on a variety of fishes and invertebrates. Females are
believed to reach maturity between 5 and 8 years of age, while males mature between 11 and 16 years
(COSEWIC 2004a). It is believed that narwhal may reach 50 years of age, although it is estimated that
their average lifespan is closer to 30 years. Peak breeding season occurs in mid-April. The gestation
period is approximately 14 to 15 months and females typically give birth in July and August. IQ has
indicated that calving occurs in Eclipse Sound, Baffin Bay, Home Bay, Cumberland Sound, and Navy
Board Inlet (QIA 2018). During summer months, this species prefers coastal areas with deep water and
shelter from the wind; in winter they prefer deep fjords and the continental slope where upwelling may
increase biological productivity. Ice quality may also influence habitat selection during the winter months
with the presence of leads in fast ice and the density of broken pack ice appearing to be of particular
importance (COSEWIC 2004a).
Two of three known populations of narwhal are located in Canada: Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay. A third
population, East Greenland, exists outside of Canadian waters. Of the two Canadian populations, the
range of the Baffin Bay population overlaps with potential shipping routes being considered for the
Project.
Population Status
Neither the Baffin Bay nor the Hudson Bay populations have status under the federal Species at Risk Act,
although they have been identified by COSEWIC as Special Concern (Government of Canada 2011a).
Narwhal is considered to be rarely observed in NWT and listed as ‘vagrant” by the NWT General Status
Ranking Program (Working Group on General Status of NWT Species, 2016).

Narwhal are known to be sensitive to anthropogenic noise and are easily disturbed by boat traffic,
including disturbance to ships at long distances (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2013). Displacement reactions to
approaching ships have been observed at received sound levels considered to be low (94 to 105 dB re 1
lPa; 20 to 1,000 Hz). Narwhal used sound for pod communications within the 300 Hz to 24 kHz (Marcoux
42
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
2011; Marcoux et al. 2012), which overlap with typical noise produced by vessels (50 and 400 Hz,
Richardson et al. 1995; NRC 2003).
Distribution
The range of the Baffin Bay population stretches from Baffin Island west to Viscount Melville Sound
(Figure 9). Lancaster Sound is an important migration route in the spring and fall for narwhal migrating
from summer grounds (Barrow Strait, Peel Sound, Prince Regent Inlet, Admiralty Inlet, and the Eclipse
Sound). There is little information regarding narwhal distribution throughout the Queen Elizabeth Islands;
however, they have been observed in Queens Channels and McLean Strait (COSEWIC 2004a).
Individuals from the Baffin Bay population overwinter in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait.
Figure 9 Narwhal Populations (DFO 2019d)
5.3.5.4 Beluga
The beluga whale is a medium-sized Odontocete whale. They reach maturity at approximately 4 to 7
years of age, which is when they become easily recognizable by their mostly white colouring. Peak
43
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
breeding season occurs before mid-April and the gestation period is between 12 and 14 months
(COSEWIC 2004b). In the eastern Arctic, harvesters have noted that the known birthing areas for Beluga
include Jones Sound, Admiralty Inlet, southern Navy Board Inlet, southern Milne Inlet, and Koluktoo Bay
(QIA 2018). In the west, the MacKenzie Estuary is a calving area (Fisheries Joint Management
Committee, 2013). While they may live longer than 40 years, it is estimated that the typical lifespan of a
beluga ranges from 15 to 30 years.
Belugas feed on a wide variety of prey, including salmon, capelin, herring, shrimp, cod, flounder, and
invertebrates. Belugas spend the summer months in coastal and offshore areas, typically associated with
river estuaries. During the winter they migrate to deep water areas with approximately 4/10th to 8/10th
pack ice cover (COSEWIC 2004b). Within Canada, there are seven populations of beluga whale. Two
populations, the Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay and the Eastern Beaufort Sea, are believed to reside in
the potential shipping routes under consideration for the Project.
Population Status
The Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay population of beluga does not have a status under the federal Species
at Risk Act, although they have been identified by COSEWIC as Special Concern (Government of
Canada 2011b). The Eastern Beaufort Sea population is not considered to be at risk and, therefore, has
no SARA status and no COSEWIC status. Beluga are listed as “secure” by the NWT General Status
Ranking Program (Working Group on General Status of NWT Species, 2016).

Beluga whales are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (150 Hz to 160 kHz, NMFS 2018). Beluga have
been shown to be sensitive to noises in the 400 Hz to 120 kHz range (Schevill and Lawrence 1949, Sjare
and Smith 1986, Awbrey et al. 1988).
Distribution
The range of the Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay population includes Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound, Barrow
Strait, Peel Sound, Franklin Strait, and Prince Regent Inlet (Figure 10). Surveys suggest that they spend
the summer months in the waters surrounding Somerset Island and overwinter along the coast of
Greenland or around the western portion of Baffin Island (COSEWIC 2004b). The range of the Eastern
Beaufort Sea population includes the Beaufort Sea, M’Clure Strait, Prince of Wales Strait, Victoria Strait,
Laresen Sound, Queen Maud Gulf, Coronation Gulf, and Amundsen Gulf (Figure 10). Surveys suggest
that they spend the summer months in the waters surrounding Banks Island and overwinter in the
Beaufort Sea (COSEWIC 2004b).
44
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Figure 10 Beluga populations; Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay (left), Eastern Beaufort Sea
(right) (DFO 2019e, NOAA 2017)
5.3.5.5 Polar Bear

Polar bears occur throughout the Arctic and over continental shelf seas that are covered by sea ice for
much of the year (Durner et al. 2009) and are distributed in several largely discrete subgroups rather than
constituting one homogeneous pan-Arctic population (Pedersen 1945). They feed mostly on sea ice
obligate seals, particularly ringed seals (Pusa hispida) and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus)
(Derocher et al. 2002; McKinney et al. 2017a; Thiemann et al. 2008).
Polar bears are dependent on sea ice for hunting, resting, mating, and denning. Within a year, polar bear
movements are generally correlated with the annual movements of the sea ice edges, which they stay
near to hunt seals; primarily ringed seal (Amstrup et al. 2000). Studies from 1982 to 2006 have shown
body size and body condition for most sex and age classes of bears to be positively correlated with the
availability of sea ice habitat (Rode et al. 2009). Maximum movement rates for polar bears tend to occur
in winter and early summer (Amstrup et al.2001). Sea ice loss and increased variability in sea ice extent
have the potential to affect polar bear movements and distribution, including the breakdown of historic
subpopulation boundaries (Derocher et al. 2004).
As of August 2015, the total population estimate for the 19 recognized Arctic subpopulations is
approximately 26,000 polar bears with roughly 66% of them residing in the Canadian Arctic (Wiig et al.
2015). The proposed shipping routes (both western and eastern routes), overlap with 6 of the 13 known
subpopulations of Canadian polar bears (Figure 11) (IUCN/SSC PBSG 2015). These subpopulations
include Lancaster Sound, Baffin Bay, M’Clintock Channel, Northern Beaufort Sea, Southern Beaufort
Sea, and Viscount Melville Sound. In the Northwest Territories, the polar bear is listed as a species of
Special Concern on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, SARA).
45
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Figure 11 Subpopulations of Polar Bears that overlap with proposed shipping routes
Taylor et al. (2005) generated an abundance estimate of less than 2,074 ± 266 bears within the Baffin
Bay subpopulation based on simulations using vital rates from a capture study and up-to-date pooled
Canadian and Greenland harvest records. The Lancaster Sound subpopulation is estimated to be 2,541 ±
391 based on an analysis of both historical and current mark-recapture data to 1997 (Taylor et al. 2008).
During summer months, polar bears are most likely to be concentrated within known summer retreats.
The Lancaster Sound subpopulation has a number of summer retreats within the subpopulation area,
which suggests polar bears may be more densely concentrated (i.e., > 5 bears/1,000 km 2) in these areas.
Following the completion of a mark-recapture inventory in spring 2000, the subpopulation for the
M’Clintock Channel was estimated to number 284 ± 59 (Taylor et al. 2006). The Viscount Melville Sound
subpopulation estimates of 215 ± 58 (1996) was based on simulations from parameters measured in
1993 (Taylor et al. 2001). Studies suggest that the size of the Northern Beaufort Sea subpopulation has
remained stable at approximately 1,200 bears (Stirling et al.1988). Evidence suggest that polar bears
from the Northern Beaufort Sea subpopulation are concentrated in areas around Banks Island and along
the sea ice edge to the west of the island for the summer and fall, and that bears return south in the late
fall to habitats in the Amundsen Gulf (Stirling 2001). It has been documented that there are areas of
overlap between the Southern Beaufort Sea and adjacent subpopulations (Amstrup et al. 2004f). At
Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, 50% of polar bears are from the Southern Beaufort subpopulation and
50% are from the northern Beaufort Sea subpopulation. Results from a study conducted from 2001-2006
46
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
in both the USA and Canada indicated that the Southern Beaufort subpopulation included 1,526 (95% CI
= 1,211 to 1,841) polar bears in 2006 (Regehr et al. 2006).
Population Status
The polar bear has been classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN since 1982 (Wiig et al. 2015). IUCN lists
Polar bears as Vulnerable with the population trend unknown (IUCN/SSC PBSG 2015). They are
currently listed as Special Concern under the federal Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2011c).
Nunavut territory defaults species listing to the federal SARA, while NWT also lists this species as Special
Concern.

Nachtigall et al. (2007) studied in-air hearing of three polar bears using evoked auditory potentials. The
results indicated that polar bears have acute and wide-frequency-range hearing capabilities. The study
concluded that bears hear particularly well in the range between 11.2 and 22.5 kHz.
Distribution
In the Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation and during the months of April 2014 and 2015, bears spent
most of their time out of water and on the ice; in contrast, about 17% of their time was spent in water
(Pagano et al. 2017). Studies have also shown bears from the same Southern Beaufort Sea
subpopulation to prefer sea ice situated over shallow waters of the continental shelf during spring and
autumn (Durner et al. 2009). Under reduced ice conditions, they may feed on alternative prey, if available,
including sub-Arctic marine mammals (Aars et al. 2015; McKinney et al. 2013) and land-based food
resources such as whale carcasses or community landfills.
The Lancaster Sound subpopulation has a number of summer retreats within the subpopulation area,
which suggests that polar bears may be more densely concentrated in these areas (Rescan 2015).
5.3.5.6 Walrus
The walrus is the largest pinniped in the Arctic, measuring between 2.5 – 4.0 m (Born et al. 1995), with
males weighing up to 1500 kg. Walruses are primarily bottom feeders, foraging in sediments on the
ocean floor for bivalves and other benthic invertebrates (Outridge et al. 2003). Walruses can live up to 40
years, with females reaching sexual maturity at the age of 4 – 10 years, and males at the age of 6 – 10
years. Calves are usually born on land or pack ice, between April – early June.
There are two subspecies of walrus that are widely recognized but only one is found in the Canadian
Arctic waters: the Atlantic walrus O. r. rosmarus. Atlantic walruses inhabit the Arctic and subarctic waters
of Canada, Greenland, Norway, and Russia. COSEWIC (2017b) identifies two genetically distinct
populations of the Atlantic walrus in Canadian Arctic waters: the Central/Low and High-Arctic populations
(Shafer et al., 2014). Focus here will be on the High-Arctic population, which includes stocks found in
Baffin Bay (BB), West Jones Sound (WJS), and the Penny Strait-Lancaster Sound (PS-LS). The habitat
range of the walruses found in PS-LS area overlaps with the NWP shipping routes (sections A, B, D1 and
47
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
D2; NAMMCO 2019a). The habitat of this population ranges from eastern Bylot Island to northern Prince
of Wales Island (Figure 1, Figure 13). Numerous terrestrial haul outs have been identified on the south
side of Devon Island, Cornwallis Island, Bathurst Island, and the entrance of the Navy Board Inlet,
overlapping with shipping sections A and B (DFO 2019a, Figure 2, pg. 4). Stephenson and Hartwig
(2010) also identified an area between Bylot Island and Devon Island where walruses are commonly
found in the winter (see Stephenson and Hartwig 2010, Figure 7, p. 47).
Population Status
COSEWIC (2017b) designated both populations of the Atlantic walrus as Special Concern. Neither of
these two populations is listed under SARA. IUCN lists the Atlantic walrus subpopulation as Near
threatened (Kovacs 2016). More locally, the government of NWT ranked the Atlantic walrus in the
province as Vagrant (Working Group on General Status of NWT Species 2016), implying that the species
occurs infrequently and unpredictably in the area. Abundance estimates of Atlantic walruses are difficult
to obtain, as individuals tend to gather in remote areas, and can simultaneously be found on ice, land and
water (Stewart et al. 2014). It is estimated that approximately 20,000 individuals inhabit the various
designated sections in the Canadian Arctic (Higdon and Stewart 2018), with 727 (95% CI: 623 – 831)
individuals populating the PS-LS area (Stewart et al. 2014). COSEWIC (2017b) mentions that this stock
appears to have been stable over the past three decades.

Walruses produce a wide variety of sounds throughout the year and use elaborate vocal displays during
courtship (Stirling et al. 1987, Sjare et al. 2003). The range of best hearing for walruses was 1-12 kHz,
with a high sensitivity for 1.5- and 3-kHz signals, and maximum sensitivity (~67 dB re 1 µPa) at 12 kHz
(Kastelein et al., 2002). This range lies within the estimated auditory bandwidth of 75 Hz – 75 kHz for
walruses in water, and 75 Hz – 30 kHz in air (Southall et al. 2007). With their hearing being relatively
sensitive to low frequency sound, Kastelein et al. (2002) hypothesize that the species is likely to be
susceptible to anthropogenic noise.
Distribution
Walruses associate with pack ice for much of the year, but when suitable sea ice is unavailable, both
sexes and all age classes haul out in herds of several to thousands of animals at terrestrial sites (DFO
2019a). Though widely distributed (Figure 12), they occupy a relatively narrow ecological niche, requiring
areas of shallow water (depth < 80 m) supporting an abundance of benthic bivalves for food and in
proximity to suitable haul out locations (Born et al. 1995, Davis et al. 1980). Walruses tend to show strong
site fidelity to established haul out sites (Born and Knutsen, 1997; Born et al., 2005, Higdon 2016).
Habitat-use and range tends to differ by season (Freitas et al. 2009, Heide-Jorgensen et al. 2013) and
sex (Freitas et al. 2009).
48
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Figure 12 Summer distribution of various stocks of the Atlantic walrus O. r. rosmarus.

From NAMMCO (2019a)
49
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Figure 13 Distribution of the Atlantic Walrus, O. r. rosmarus and Pacific Walrus O. r.

divergens. From NAMMCO (2019a))
50
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Figure 14 Walrus Haulouts in the Vicinity of Shipping Routes. From Higdon (2016).
5.3.5.7 Ringed Seal

The ringed seal is considered abundant and an important component of the Arctic marine ecosystem
(Yurkowski et al. 2019). Similar to other seals found in Arctic waters, ringed seals are closely associated
to pack ice and ice floats, which they use to haul out on for molting, rest, and reproduction. The ringed
seal is the smallest of seals (Phocidae) in the Arctic, averaging about 1.5 m and weighing between 50 –
70 kg. The average lifespan is around 25 - 30 years, with females reaching sexual maturity at 4 - 8 years,
and males at 5 - 7 years. Females give birth to a single pup, often in March or April in snow lairs (DFO
2018b). Ringed seals eat a wide variety of small prey including mysids, shrimp, crustaceans, and small
fish (Kelly et al. 2010; Lowry et al. 1980).
Globally, there are five subspecies of ringed seal, which are considered discrete breeding populations
(Kelly et al. 2010). Only one of these is found in Canadian waters; the Arctic subpopulation Phoca hispida
hispida. This subpopulation might consist of additional discrete subpopulations, but the genetic structuring
has not been fully resolved (Kelly et al. 2010). In Canadian waters, this subpopulation is found from the
Labrador Sea to the Bering Sea and as far north as the North pole (NAMMCO 2019a) (see Figure 15)
51
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
throughout the year (Stephenson and Hartwig, 2010) (Figure 2). The species’ range overlaps with the
proposed NWP shipping routes as Yurkowski et al. (2019) identified hotspots (i.e., areas of increased
density) in Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet. Ringed seals are also considered abundant in the region of
Navy Board Inlet and Pond Inlet (Baffinland 2012).
Population Status
The Arctic subpopulation of ringed seals is considered the most abundant of the subspecies (Kelly et al.
2010), and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) estimated at least 1.2 million
ringed seals would be needed to account for a proportion of the seals harvested and killed by polar bears.
Recent population studies in western Hudson Bay estimated the population size in this area to be around
280,000, and a population estimated in the Bering & Chukchi Sea of approximately 1 million individuals
(Kelly et al. 2010). IUCN lists the Arctic ringed seal as species of least concern, and COSEWIC
designated the species to be ‘Not at Risk’ in 1989, but the status is currently being reassessed (Lowry
2016, Government of Canada 2019a). The government of NWT assessed the status of ringed seals in the
province as “secure” (Working Group on General Status of NWT Species 2016).
Vocalizations and Hearing

Ringed seals produce simple barks, yelps and clicks in the frequency range of 0.4 – 16 kHz (DOSITS
2016). Southall et al. (2007) estimated the auditory bandwidth of ringed seals to be 75 Hz – 75 kHz in
water, and 75 Hz – 30 kHz in air. Best sensitivity is approximately 12.8 kHz in water, and 4.5 kHz in air
(Sills 2015). Compared to odontocetes, pinnipeds tend to have lower best frequencies, lower high-
frequency cutoffs, better auditory sensitivity at low frequencies, and poorer sensitivity at the best
frequency (Baffinland 2012, p. 145).
52
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Figure 15 Distribution of the five subspecies of the ringed seal (In Canadian Arctic
waters only one subspecies occurs, P.h. hispida). From NAMMCO 2019b
53
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
5.3.5.8 Bearded Seal

Bearded seals are a member of the true seals (Phocidae) and are the largest of the seals found in the
Arctic, measuring between 2.1 – 2.7 m (Cameron et al. 2010). Bearded seals have a lifespan of
approximately 25 years, with females reaching sexual maturity between 5 – 6 years of age and males
reaching sexual maturity around the age of 6 – 7. Bearded seals are closely associated with sea ice,
which is important for life history periods such as molting and reproduction. Pups are generally born in
late April to May and weaned after approximately 24 days. Bearded seals feed predominantly on benthic
organisms, squid, and fish (Lowry et al. 1980, Finley and Evans 1983).
Based on genetic evidence (Charrier et al. 2013) and geographical differences in vocalizations (Risch et
al. 2007), two subspecies are recognized in the Canadian Arctic: the Atlantic subspecies E.b. barbatus
and the Pacific subspecies E.b. nauticus. The Pacific population can be further divided into two distinct
population segments (DPS): Okholsk and Beringia populations. The Atlantic subspecies E.b. barbatus is
found in Hudson Bay and much of the eastern CAA towards southern Labrador. The Pacific subspecies
E.b. nauticus occurs from the Laptev Sea in the east, including the Sea of Okhotsk, to the central
Canadian Arctic (Figure 16). Though the subspecies are not separated by clear geographic barriers, the
delineation between the two subspecies is typically defined as the 112° W in the Canadian Arctic
(Cameron et al. 2010). Stephenson and Hartwig (2010) mapped areas in the Canadian Arctic where
bearded seals are considered common (Figure 16). The habitat range of both subspecies overlap with the
proposed NWP shipping routes.
Population Status
Bearded seals are considered abundant and an important component to the Arctic marine ecosystem
(Cobb et al. 2019). Current known areas in the Canadian Arctic with relatively high densities of bearded
seals are the Foxe Basin, Hudson Strait, and the western and northern part of Hudson Bay, all of which
are outside of the proposed NWP shipping routes being considered in this report. The population of E.b.
barbatus has an estimated 188,000 individuals, and the E.b. nauticus population has approximately
250,000 individuals (Beringia DPS – 155,000; Okholsk DPS – 95,000) (Cameron et al. 2010). Population
trends of bearded seals in Canadian waters are listed as unknown. COSEWIC status in Canada is data
deficient (DFO 2018b), whereas the IUCN lists bearded seals as Least Concern (Kovacs 2016). The
Government of the province of Northwest Territories has ranked the status of the bearded seal as
Undetermined in 2017 (Working Group on General Status of NWT Species 2016).

There is limited literature available on the hearing range of bearded seals, but it is assumed that the
hearing ability is similar to that of the ringed seal (Baffinland 2012). Southall et al. (2007) mentions an
estimated auditory bandwidth of 75 Hz – 75 kHz for bearded seals in water, and 75 Hz – 30 kHz in air.
Bearded seals have a vast vocal repertoire and produce very distinct trills or frequency-modulated
vocalizations from late March to late June (Cleator et al. 1989), which seems to coincide with their
breeding and pupping season (Van Parijs et al. 2003). Risch et al. (2007) mention that the frequency
54
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
range of trills (long vocalizations that decrease stepwise in frequency) is usually very large (up to 11 kHz).
Underwater, vocalizations can be heard over >30 km, and it is hypothesized that bearded seals can likely
produce sounds of at least 100 dB (Cleator et al. 1989).
Distribution
Bearded seal has a continuous circumpolar distribution and prefer relatively shallow (depth < 150m)
waters with sufficient ice cover (see Hamilton et al. 2018; Kovacs 2018; NAMMCO 2019c; Tynan and
DeMaster 1997), although this species has been observed diving to depths of approximately 400 m
(Hamilton et al. 2018). Annual movements can be northward in summer and southward in winter,
concurrent with changing ice conditions. Changing sea ice conditions potentially also alters species’
behaviour and dietary preferences (Finley and Evans 1983, Smith 1981).
Figure 16 Habitat range of Erignathus barbatus barbatus and Erignathus barbatus

nauticus. From NAMMCO 2019c.
55
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
5.3.6 Marine Birds
For the purpose of this review, marine birds are defined as seabirds plus waterfowl, shorebirds, and
raptors that interact with the marine environment for some portion of the time they are present within the
study area during the open-water season. The study area for this review of marine birds is defined
broadly as the marine waters and coastal areas along the potential shipping routes.
5.3.6.1 Regulatory Overview

Certain marine birds in Canada are afforded federal protection through the Migratory Birds Convention
Act (MBCA) and the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The MBCA applies to migratory bird species that are
identified in the Act and occur on federal, provincial, territorial, and private lands. The MBCA prohibits the
disturbance, destruction, or possession of migratory birds, and their nests or eggs (section 5[9]).
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) provides guidance to protect migratory birds and
avoid the risk of disturbance or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs (ECCC 2019a). Specific to marine
birds, the MBCA protects “regularly occurring” seabirds and waterbirds except cormorants and pelicans,
and their colonies. The federal government provides guidance to avoid disturbance to seabird and
waterbird colonies (ECCC 2019b).
SARA applies to species that are listed on Schedule 1 of the Act. Under SARA, it is prohibited to kill,
harm, harass, capture or take an individual designated as extirpated, endangered, or threatened (section
32[1]). SARA requires the Government of Canada to produce recovery strategies for species on Schedule
1 that are listed as threatened, endangered, or extirpated. Federal recovery strategies are required to
identify critical habitat for listed species and SARA prohibits the destruction of critical habitat. The
following federal recovery strategies are applicable to specific marine bird species that occur within the
study area:
• Recovery Strategy for the Ross’s Gull (Rhodostethia rosea) in Canada (Environment Canada 2007)
• Recovery Strategy for the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) in Canada (Environment Canada 2014)
• Recovery Strategy and Management Plan for the Red Knot (Calidris canutus) in Canada (ECCC
2017)
Additionally, the following are key territorial Acts that apply to wildlife, including marine birds, within the
study area:
• Nunavut Wildlife Act
• Northwest Territories Wildlife Act
• Species at Risk (NWT) Act (non-migratory marine birds only)
56
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
5.3.6.2 Seabirds
Table 8 provides a summary of the conservation status, diet and marine habitat use, breeding presence,
and relative abundance of the 17 seabird species known to regularly occur within study area during the
open-water season. Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle), thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia), northern fulmar
(Fulmarus glacialis), and black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) are the most common (Gaston et al.
2012). Dovekie (Alle alle) can also be notably abundant in Lancaster Sound during migration (Wong et al.
2014; Mallory et al. 2019). Of the 14 species known to breed within the study area, the majority nest in
colonies (Table 8) that are primarily in the eastern portion of the study area (i.e., along Barrow Strait and
Lancaster Sound). Many of the important habitat areas for marine birds identified within the study area
are related to seabirds and, in particular, protection of seabird colonies (see Section 5.4).
There are two seabird species at risk identified within the study area: ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea) and
Ross’s gull (Rhodostethia rosea) (Table 8). Of the two, only the ivory gull is known to breed within the
study area (i.e., Northwestern Brodeur Peninsula Important Bird Area (see Section 5.4)). There is limited
information available on Ross’s gull but known nest sites are to the north and south of the potential
shipping routes (Environment Canada 2007).
Of the four groups of marine birds addressed in this review, seabirds in general are most likely to interact
with shipping because of their reliance on the marine environment and tendency to occupy open water.
57
MARY RIVER PROJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF SHIPPING THROUGH THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Table 8 Seabirds Known to Regularly Occur Within Study Area During Open-Water Season: Conservation Status, Diet
and Marine Habitat Use, Breeding Presence, and Relative Abundance
Common Name Scientific Name Conservation Status Diet and Marine Typically Relative
Habitat Use Breeds within Abundance
NWT1 Nunavut1 COSEWIC2 SARA2
(Non-winter)3 Study Area?4 within Study
Area5
Black guillemot Cepphus grylle SU S5B, S5N, -- -- Piscivore; Yes (colonial) Common
S5M nearshore
Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea S5B S4B, S4M -- -- Piscivore; Yes (colonial) Common
nearshore
Dovekie Alle alle -- S3B,S3M -- -- Piscivore; No Common6
offshore
Thick-billed murre Uria lomvia S2S3B S5B, S5N, -- -- Piscivore; Yes (colonial) Common
S5M offshore
Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis -- S5B, S5M -- -- Piscivore; Yes (colonial) Common
offshore
Sabine’s gull Xema sabini S4B S4S5B, -- -- Scavenger, Yes Less common
S4S5M nearshore
Ross’s gull Rhodostethia rosea -- S1B, S1M T 1-T Scavenger, No Uncommon
nearshore
Ivory gull Pagophila eburnea SHB, S1B, S1N, E 1-E Scavenger; Yes (colonial) Uncommon
S1N S1M offshore
Herring gull Larus argentatus S4S5B S4B, S4M -- -- General predator; No Uncommon
nearshore
Iceland gull Larus glaucoides -- S5B, SUN, -- -- General predator; Yes (colonial) Less common
S5M nearshore
Thayer’s gull Larus glaucoides S3B S4S5B, -- -- General predator; Yes (colonial) Less common
thayeri S4S5M nearshore
Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus S4B S4B, SUN, -- -- General predator; Yes (colonial) Common
S4M nearshore
Black-legged Rissa tridactyla SU S5B, S5M -- -- General predator, Yes (colonial) Common
kittiwake offshore
58
July 12, 2019
Table 8 Seabirds Known to Regularly Occur Within Study Area During Open-Water Season: Conservation Status, Diet
and Marine Habitat Use, Breeding Presence, and Relative Abundance
Habitat Use Breeds within Abundance
(Non-winter)3 Study Area?4 within Study
Area5
Parasitic jaeger Stercorarius SUB S4S5B, -- -- General predator; Yes Common
parasiticus S4S5M offshore
Long-tailed jaeger Stercorarius SUB S5B, S5M -- -- General predator; Yes Common
longicaudus offshore
Pomarine jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus SUB S5B, S5M -- -- General predator; Yes Less common
offshore
Short-tailed Ardenna tenuirostris -- -- -- -- Diving No8 Uncommon
shearwater planktivore;
offshore7
NOTES:
Species list compiled from Lepage et al. 1998; Upun-LGL 2013; Wong et al. 2014; Mallory et al. 2019; IBA Canada Important Bird Areas database
(https://www.ibacanada.ca/explore.jsp?lang=EN, Accessed June 2019); and range maps from Birds of North America (BNA) Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home,
Accessed June 2019)
1
NatureServe 2019; S = Subnational (i.e., territorial or provincial), X = Presumed Extirpated, H = Possibly Extirpated, 1 = Critically Imperiled, 2 = Imperiled, 3 = Vulnerable, 4 =
Apparently Secure, 5 = Secure, U = Unrankable (e.g., insufficient information), NR = Not Rankable (i.e., not yet assessed), B = breeder, N = non-breeder, M = migrant (CESCC
2016)
2
SRPR 2019; COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada): T = Threatened, E = Endangered; SARA (Species at Risk Act): 1-T = Threatened on
Schedule 1, 1-E = Endangered on Schedule 1
3
Habitat use information from Mallory et al. (2019) unless indicated otherwise
4
Based on information from Environment Canada 2007; Wong et al. 2014; Mallory et al. 2019; and range maps from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home,
Accessed June 2019) unless indicated otherwise
5
Based on information from Gaston et al. 2012; Upun-LGL 2013; Wong et al. 2014; Government of Canada 2019b; and range maps from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-
Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019); Common = thick-billed murre, black-legged kittiwake, black guillemot, northern fulmar, dovekie or range map includes entire study area;
Less common = range map does not include entire study area plus not thick-billed murre, black-legged kittiwake, black guillemot, northern fulmar, dovekie or a SARA Schedule 1
species; Uncommon = SARA Schedule 1 species or typical range map does not include study area but other evidence is suggestive of regular occurrence (i.e., Upun-LGL 2013 [for
short-tailed shearwater]; Wong et al. 2014; eBird range map)
6
During migration
7
Wong et al. 2014
8
https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/short-tailed-shearwater
59
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
5.3.6.3 Waterfowl
and relative abundance of the 25 waterfowl species known to use marine environments within the study
area during the open-water season. The six goose species (Anser sp. and Branta sp.) present within the
study area are very abundant; one of the most important breeding grounds for geese in North America is
within the study area (i.e., Queen Maud Gulf Migratory Bird Sanctuary). Other notably abundant species
within the study area are long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), king eider (Somateria spectabilis), and
common eider (S. mollissima) (Mallory et al. 2019). Many of the important habitat areas for marine birds
identified within the study area are related to waterfowl (see Section 5.4).
The eastern population of harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is the only waterfowl species at risk
identified within the study area (Table 9). While the closest identified ranges to the study area are along
the coast of Greenland and at the southern end of Baffin Island (COSEWIC 2013), harlequin duck has
been observed within the study area at the Thomsen River Important Bird Area (Government of Canada
2019b), and a few other scattered locations (see eBird range map at Birds of North America Online [The
Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019]).
60
July 12, 2019
Table 9 Waterfowl known to use marine environments within the study area during the open-water season:
conservation status, diet and marine habitat use, breeding presence, and relative abundance
Conservation Status Relative

Diet and Marine Typically
Abundance
Common Name Scientific Name NWT1 Nunavut1 COSEWIC2 SARA2 Habitat Use (Non- Breeds within
within Study
winter)3 Study Area?4
Area5
Piscivore; coastal;
Yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii SUB S4B, S4M NAR -- Yes Less common
facultative
Piscivore; coastal;
Common loon Gavia immer S5B S5B, S5M NAR -- No Uncommon
facultative
Piscivore; coastal;
Pacific loon Gavia pacifica S5B SUB, SUM -- -- Yes Less common
reliant
Piscivore; coastal;
Red-throated loon Gavia stellata S4B S4B, S4M -- -- Yes Common
reliant
Piscivore; coastal;
Common merganser Mergus merganser S5B SUB, SUM -- -- No Uncommon
facultative
Red-breasted Piscivore; coastal;
Mergus serrator S5B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Less common
merganser reliant
Herbivore; coastal;
Canada goose Branta canadensis S5B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Common
facultative
Herbivore; coastal;
Cackling goose Branta hutchinsii S4B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Common
facultative6
Greater white- Herbivore; coastal;
Anser albifrons S5B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Common
fronted goose facultative
Herbivore; coastal;
Snow goose7 Anser caerulescens S4B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes (colonial) Common
facultative
Herbivore; coastal;
Ross’s goose Anser rossii S4B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Common
facultative
Herbivore; coastal;
Brant Branta bernicla S3B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes (colonial) Common
reliant
Herbivore; coastal;
Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus S5B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Common
facultative
61
July 12, 2019

Abundance
within Study
Area5
S3B, SUN, Molluscivore;
King eider Somateria spectabilis S3S4B -- -- Yes Common
S3M nearshore; reliant
S3B, S3N, Molluscivore;
Common eider Somateria mollissima S3B -- -- Yes (colonial) Less common
Molluscivore; coastal;
Greater scaup Aythya marila S5B SUB, SUM -- -- No Uncommon
facultative
Lesser scaup Aythya affinis S3B SUB, SUM -- -- No Uncommon
facultative
Black scoter Melanitta americana S3B SUB, SUM -- -- No Uncommon
reliant
Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata S3B SUB, SUM -- -- No Uncommon
reliant
White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca S3B SUB, SUM -- -- No Uncommon
reliant
Harlequin duck, Histrionicus Insectivore;
-- SNR SC 1-SC No Uncommon
eastern population histrionicus nearshore; reliant
S4B, SUN, Crustaceavore;
Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis S3B -- -- Yes Common
Omnivore, coastal;
Northern pintail Anas acuta S3B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Less common
facultative8
Omnivore, coastal;
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S5B SUB, SUM -- -- No Uncommon
facultative9
Omnivore, coastal;
Green-winged teal Anas crecca S5B SUB, SUM -- -- No Uncommon
facultative10
62
July 12, 2019

Abundance
within Study
Area5
NOTES:
Species list compiled from Lepage et al. 1998; Mallory et al. 2019; IBA Canada Important Bird Areas database (https://www.ibacanada.ca/explore.jsp?lang=EN, Accessed June
2019); and habitat use information and range maps from Birds of North America (BNA) Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019)
1
NatureServe 2019; S = Subnational (e.g., territorial or provincial), X = Presumed Extirpated, H = Possibly Extirpated, 1 = Critically Imperiled, 2 = Imperiled, 3 = Vulnerable, 4 =
2016)
2
SRPR 2019; COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada): NAR = Not at Risk, SC = Special Concern; SARA (Species at Risk Act): 1-SC = Special
Concern on Schedule 1
3
Habitat use information from Mallory et al. (2019) unless indicated otherwise; reliant = marine environment is principal foraging and/or migratory habitat, facultative = marine
environment is secondary habitat (i.e., habitat used for brief periods or in response to environmental conditions) (Mallory et al. 2019)
4
Based on range maps and behaviour (spacing) information from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019)
5
Based on information from CWSWC 2017; Government of Canada 2019b; and range maps from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June
2019); Common = Geese (Anser sp. and Branta sp.) or range map includes entire study area; Less common = range map does not include entire study area plus not a goose
species (Anser sp. and Branta sp.) or a SARA Schedule 1 species; Uncommon = SARA Schedule 1 species or typical range map does not include study area but eBird range map
includes observations within study area
6
Mowbray et al. 2002
7
Including lesser snow goose and greater snow goose
8
Clark et al. 2014
9
Drilling et al. 2018
10
Johnson 1995
63
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Waterfowl species most likely to interact with shipping are those that are reliant on the marine
environment and common within the study area. Based on Table 9, there are seven waterfowl species
that fit this profile: Pacific loon (Gavia pacifica), red-throated loon (G. stellata), red-breasted merganser
(Mergus serrator), brant (Branta bernicla), king eider, common eider, and long-tailed duck.
5.3.6.4 Shorebirds
and relative abundance of the 18 shorebirds likely to use marine environments within the study area
during the open-water season. Baird’s sandpiper (Calidris bairdii), white-rumped sandpiper (C. fuscicollis),
and American golden plover (Pluvialis dominica) are common and widespread. Some of the important
habitat areas for marine birds identified within the study area support notable concentrations of shorebirds
(see Section 5.4).
There are four shorebird species at risk identified within the study area: red knot islandica subspecies
(Calidris canutus islandica), red knot rufa subspecies (C. canutus rufa), buff-breasted sandpiper (C.
subruficollis), and red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). Of these four species, red-necked
phalarope is likely to be most abundant within the study area.
Shorebirds most likely to interact with shipping are those that use marine habitats within the study area
during the breeding season. Based on Table 10, there are eight shorebird species that fit this profile:
ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), sanderling (Calidris alba), Baird’s sandpiper, purple sandpiper (C.
maritima), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), semipalmated plover (C. semipalmatus), red
phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius), and red-necked phalarope (P. lobatus). Among these species, the
potential for an effect is more likely for the more common species (e.g., Baird’s sandpiper), the species
that spend the most time in marine habitats (i.e., semipalmated plover, phalaropes), and phalaropes,
because they spend time on the water and away from the shore. Shorebirds that use marine habitats only
during migration are less likely to interact with shipping within the study area as the duration of that use
would be relatively short, as they are either arriving to their breeding grounds within the study area or
departing the study area for their overwintering grounds.
64
July 12, 2019
Table 10 Shorebirds Likely to Use Marine Environment Within Study Area During Open-Water Season: Conservation
Status, Diet and Marine Habitat Use, Breeding Presence, and Relative Abundance

Abundance
within Study
Area5
Invertebrates;
rocky and sandy
Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres S3B S3B, S3M -- -- Yes Less common
beaches (B
[limited], M)
Invertebrates; wide
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus S4B S4B, S4M -- -- variety of coastal Marginal Uncommon
habitats (M)
Invertebrates;
sandy beaches (B,
Sanderling Calidris alba S2S4B S3B, S3M -- -- Yes Less common
M), tidal mudflats,
rocky coast (M)
Invertebrates;
Dunlin Calidris alpina S3B S4B, S4M -- -- estuaries, tidal Yes Less common
mudflats (M)
Invertebrates;
Calidris canutus marine and
S1S2B SNRB SC 1-SC Yes Uncommon
islandica estuarine habitats
(M)6
Red knot
Invertebrates;
marine and
Calidris canutus rufa S1S2B S1S2B E 1-E Yes Uncommon
estuarine habitats
(M)6
Insects; beaches
Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii S5?B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Common
(B, M)
White-rumped Invertebrates;
Calidris fuscicollis S4S5B S5B, S5M -- -- Yes Common
sandpiper intertidal (M)
Invertebrates;
Purple sandpiper Calidris maritima SUB S3B, S3M -- -- Yes Less common
intertidal (B, M)
65
July 12, 2019

Abundance
within Study
Area5
Invertebrates; salt
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos S4B S4B, S4M -- -- Yes Less common
marshes (M)
Invertebrates; tidal
Semipalmated
Calidris pusilla S3S5B S3B, S3M -- -- mudflats, beaches Yes Less common
sandpiper
(M)
Invertebrates;
Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla S5B S3B, S3M -- -- mudflats, edges of Yes Less common
tide pools (M)
Invertebrates;
limited to no
Buff-breasted
Calidris subruficollis S2S4B S3B, S3M SC 1-SC marine habitat use, Yes Uncommon
sandpiper
even during
migration
Invertebrates;
Common ringed
Charadrius hiaticula -- S4B, S4M -- -- beaches (B), tidal Yes7 Less common
plover
mudflats (M)7
Invertebrates;
Charadrius
Semipalmated plover S5B S4B, S4M -- -- intertidal, beaches Yes Less common
semipalmatus
(B, M)
Invertebrates;
American golden mudflats,
Pluvialis dominica S3S4B S3B, S3M -- -- Yes Common
plover shorelines,
estuaries (M)
Invertebrates; sand
Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola S3?B S3B, S3M -- -- or mud shores, Yes Less common
intertidal (M)
Red phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius S5B S4B,S4M -- -- Invertebrates, Yes Less common
zooplankton;
66
July 12, 2019

Abundance
within Study
Area5
intertidal,
nearshore (B, M),
offshore (M)
Invertebrates,
zooplankton;
Red-necked
Phalaropus lobatus S3B S3B, S3M SC 1-SC intertidal, Yes Less common
phalarope
nearshore (B, M),
offshore (M)
NOTES:
Species list compiled from Lepage et al. 1998; ECCC 2019c; Government of Canada 2019b; Mallory et al. 2019; IBA Canada Important Bird Areas database
(https://www.ibacanada.ca/explore.jsp?lang=EN, Accessed June 2019); and habitat use information and range maps from Birds of North America (BNA) Online
(https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019)
1
2016)
2
SRPR 2019; COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: NAR = Not at Risk, SC = Special Concern, E = Endangered; SARA (Species at Risk Act): 1-
SC = Special Concern on Schedule 1, 1-E = Endangered on Schedule 1
3
Habitat use from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019) unless indicated otherwise; B = during breeding season, M = during migration
4
Based on range maps from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019) unless indicated otherwise
5
Based on information from COSEWIC 2012, 2014; ECCC 2017; and range maps from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019);
Common = range map includes entire study area; Less common = range map does not include entire study area, not a SARA Schedule 1 species, exception being red-necked
phalarope for which abundance is still relatively high (per COSEWIC 2014); Uncommon = SARA Schedule 1 species (other than red-necked phalarope) or typical range map does
not include study area but eBird range map includes observations within study area
6
ECCC 2017
7
BirdLife International 2016
67
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
5.3.6.5 Raptors
and relative abundance of the three raptor species that use marine environments within the study area
during the open-water season. Of the three species, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius)
is the most closely associated with marine environments, particularly because colonial seabirds,
shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds are its primary prey but also because coastal cliffs are
sometimes used for nesting (COSEWIC 2017b). Gyrfalcon (F. rusticolus) will prey on seabirds on
occasion but ptarmigan is their preferred prey; this species will also nest on rocky coastal areas in the
Arctic (Booms et al. 2008). Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) prey on terrestrial mammals, but this
species may use coastal cliffs for nesting (Bechard and Swem 2002). Some of the important habitat areas
for marine birds identified within the study area support one or more of these raptor species (see Section
5.4). Peregrine falcon is a species at risk.
Of the four groups of marine birds addressed in this review, raptors are the least likely to interact with
shipping within the study area. That said, among the three raptors identified in Table 11, peregrine falcon
and gyrfalcon are more likely to interact with shipping than rough-legged hawk.
68
July 12, 2019
Table 11 Raptors Known to Use Marine Environments Within Study Area During Open-Water Season: Conservation Status,
Diet And Marine Habitat Use, Breeding Presence, And Relative Abundance
Habitat Use (Non- Breeds within Abundance
winter)3 Study Area?4 within Study
Area5
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus S3B/SUB SNRB/SNRB NAR 1-SC Mostly birds; Yes Uncommon
anatum/tundrius coastal cliffs,
seabird colonies6
Rough-legged Buteo lagopus S4?B SUB, SUM NAR -- Small mammals; Yes Less common
hawk coastal cliffs
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus S4? S4 NAR -- Mostly birds, Yes Uncommon
primarily
ptarmigan; rocky
coast
NOTES:
Species list compiled from Government of Canada 2019b; IBA Canada Important Bird Areas database (https://www.ibacanada.ca/explore.jsp?lang=EN, Accessed June 2019); and
habitat use information and range maps from Birds of North America (BNA) Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019)
1
2016)
2
SRPR 2019; COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada): NAR = Not at Risk; SARA (Species at Risk Act): 1-SC = Special Concern on Schedule 1
3
Habitat use from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019) unless indicated otherwise
4
Based on range maps from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019)
5
Based on information from COSEWIC 2017b; IBA Canada Important Bird Areas database (https://www.ibacanada.ca/explore.jsp?lang=EN, Accessed June 2019); and habitat use
information and range maps from BNA Online (https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home, Accessed June 2019); Common = non-winter range map includes entire study area;
Less common = non-winter range map does not include entire study area, not a SARA Schedule 1 species; Uncommon = SARA Schedule 1 species or species likely to be more
common within the study area in the winter (i.e., gyrfalcon)
6
COSEWIC 2017b
69
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
5.4 ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SENSITIVE AREAS (EBSA)

Canada’s Ocean Act promotes the conservation of the marine environment through an ecosystem
approach. Ecological Biological and Sensitive Areas (EBSAs) are used to identify specific areas in the
Canadian Arctic important for conservation efforts (DFO 2011, 2015; Figure 17; Table 12). EBSAs are
created through an effort to consolidate scientific and local and traditional ecological knowledge reports;
identifying significant marine ecosystems in need of management. EBSAs will receive heightened
regulatory and public review, and likely be subject to additional mitigation measures to minimize impacts
to the ecosystem. For example, EBSAs in Lancaster Sound, Peel Sound and Bellot Strait are being used
to help support establishment of MPAs by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Table 12 Ecological and Biological Sensitive Areas Along Routes*
Name Physical Feature Aggregation

Eclipse Sound/ Navy Board • Whale Aggregation • Narwhal rearing/migration
Inlet
Lancaster Sound and • Polynya and associated • Marine mammal migration corridor
Prince Leopold Island sea ice edges • High benthic diversity and production
• Highest density of Polar Bears
• Over 1,000,000 seabirds and seaducks use this
as a nesting and feeding area
• Walrus haul out sites
Prince Regent Inlet • Bowhead nursery area • Bowhead nursery area
• Marine mammal migration • Marine mammal migration pathway
pathway • Narwhal feeding
• Narwhal feeding • Arctic Char migration corridor
• Arctic Char migration • Seaduck molting
corridor
• Seaduck molting
Bellott Strait • Migration Chokepoint • Narwahl migration
• Beluga migration
Peel Sound • Polynya • Largest Canadian Arctic population of Narwhal
King William Island • Tidal mixing zones • Possible enhanced productivity based on mixing
• Ringed Seal and Polar Bear feeding
• High benthic diversity and production
Southern Victoria Island • Estuaries • Arctic Char migration corridor
Coastline
Queen Maud Gulf • Several estuaries • Arctic Char migration corridor
Coastline
Lambert Channel • Polynya • Seabird feeding and staging
• Estuary
Viscount Melville Sound • Deep basin • Beluga feeding
• Polar Bear feeding and rearing habitat
Southern Amundsen Gulf • Polynya and associated • Seaduck staging and feeding
Cape Bathurst Polynya ice-edge • Marine mammal feeding and migration
• Upwelling • Seal feeding and migration
• High benthic diversity and production
70
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Table 12 Ecological and Biological Sensitive Areas Along Routes*
Name Physical Feature Aggregation

Western Banks Island • Flaw lead and associated • Seaduck staging and foraging
ice-edge • Bearded Seal feeding
* Source: DFO (2011, 2015)
71
North Water
¯
e
inc I. t Polynya
Pr rick trai
Pa
t Ha
zen
S
Byam
Grise Fjord
(
$ $
Pe
nn
Martin
y
St
Channel Cardigan Coburg
ra
it
Strait / Island
M'C Penny
lur Queens Hell Gate Jones
e Str Bathurst Strait Eastern Jones Sound Northern
ait Channel Sound
Baffin
Au
Island Baffin Bay
Well
sti
Melville
ingto
Ch
Bay
an
Island
ne
nC
Devon Island
l
Beaufort Western Conwalls
hann
Banks Island
Resolute
el
Island
Sea
Beaufort
Viscount Resolute
Sound
Banks Lancaster Sound
Shelf Break Viscount Lancaster
kon North Slope
and Slope Melville Melville Parry Channel Passage Barrow Strait
Mackenzie
Trough
Sachs
Harbour
Island
Strait
Sound Sound Cunningham C "
)
Prince Leopold Island "
)
B
Kugmallit Wales Inlet Bylot
o f Island
Canyon ce Stefansson
Cape Bathurst /
"
)
in
Island Somerset Arctic A Eclipse Pond
Pr
Ballie Island
Princ
Mackenzie Estuary Cape Sound / Navy
and Nearshore
Liverpool F Bathurst
"
) "
)
Island Bay Board Inlet Inlet
e
Beaufort Shelf D2
Liverpool
Bay Polynya
"
)
E Admiralty
R egent
De Salis Bay
Hadley Bay
Tuktoyaktuk Bay Inlet Scott
Husky Prince Creswell Inlet
Peel Sound
Lakes Horton Bay
Fra of Wales Brodeur
M 'Clin
Southern
nk Amundsen Gulf Minto Inlet
Inl e t
River
Bay lin B
Island Peel Prince Peninsula
Ulukhaktok SoundBellot Regent
Amundsen "
) Baffin Island
toc
Darnley
Da Bay D1 Inlet
rn Strait
kC
Nearshore
Bay ley Gulf
Migration nn
ha
Paulatuk
±
³
and Feeding Prince Alber
t Sound el D1/2
Corridor Diamond Jenness Victoria
Franklin
Island Strait Boothia
Peninsula Gulf of
Revised: 2019-06-25 By: LTrudell
Do Boothia
lph
in Fury and
a nd
Un Gulf of Hecla Igloolik Island
Lambert Channel Strait Igloolik
Taloyoak Boothia
ion
Cambridge
Southern Victoria Committee Rowley
Stra
t
tria
Island Coastline Island
Bay King Bay
it
S
Hall Beach
ia
"
) Foxe
\\Cd1183-f03\Workgroup\1232\projects\121414789\figures\reports\EIS\fig_121414789_EIS_004_Ecological_Biological_and_Sensitive_Areas.mxd
William
tor
Kugluktuk G King William Prince
Vic
Coron
ati
Kent Island Island Charles
on Gu
lf Peninsula
Que
en Gjoa Melville Bay Island
Ma u Kugaaruk
Great Bathurst Inlet d
Queen G ulf Haven Peninsula
Bear
Lake Maud Gulf
Coastline
Chantrey Inlet
Bathurst Inlet
¯
Protected Area or National Park B Mine Location Ecologically and Biologically 0 50 100 150 200 250
A
AKK Significant Area
km
Bathymetry Depth (m) 1:6,500,000 (at original document size of 11x17)
Potential Shipping Route
NA A
Project
A
CA US
<200
D
Location A - Navy Board Inlet

Y
YTT 200 - 1000
B - Lancaster Sound
N
NWWT
T N
NUU 1000 - 2000
C - Northern Route (to M’Clure Strait)
2000 - 3000 Project Location Project Number 121414789
B
BCC D1 - Prince Regent Inlet (through Nunavut NW Passage, Prepared by LTRUDELL on 20190531
> 3000 Discipline Review by USERNAME on 20180101
A
ABB Bellot Strait) Canadian North
GIS Review by USERNAME on 20180101
S
SKK M
MBB Q
QCC
US O
ONN D2 - Peel Sound Client/Project/Report
A
1:100,000,000 Baffinland
D1/2 - Franklin Strait
Notes
Mary River Project: Environmental Review of
1. Coordinate System: Canada Lambert Conformal Conic E - M’Clintock Channel Shipping Through the Northwest Passage
2. Data Sources: DataBC, Government of British Columbia;
Natural Resources Canada F - Prince of Wales Strait Figure No.
17
G - Southern Route (Victoria Strait, Title
Laresen Sound, Queen Maud Gulf, Ecologically and Biologically Significant
Coronation Gulf, and Amundsen Areas
Gulf)
Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
In addition to these more broadly recognized Ecological Biological and Sensitive Areas, there are
locations of important habitat areas for marine birds relative to the proposed NWP shipping routes
(Figure 18). Four types of important habitat areas are shown: 1) Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, 2) Important
Bird Areas, 3) Key Marine Habitat Sites, and 4) Important Areas for Birds in Nunavut. Migratory Bird
Sanctuaries are established by the federal government under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and are
for the protection and conservation of migratory birds (Government of Canada 2019b). Important Bird
Areas are sites that support specific groups of birds (i.e., threatened birds, large groups of birds, or birds
restricted by range or habitat); they are not legally protected but they may be partly or completely within
areas that are legally protected for birds (i.e., Migratory Bird Sanctuaries) (Bird Studies Canada 2019).
Key Marine Habitat Sites are identified in Mallory et al. (2019); these sites are targeted toward seabirds
and sea ducks and, like Important Bird Areas, are not legally protected but may be afforded protection
through overlap with designated protected areas. Important Areas for Birds in Nunavut are catalogued in
Canadian Wildlife Service (2012) and represent a compilation of Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National
Wildlife Areas, Key Terrestrial Habitat Sites, Key Marine Habitat Sites, Important Bird Areas, RAMSAR
wetlands, and “newly” identified important areas (Mallory and Fontaine 2004). The Important Areas for
Birds in Nunavut locations shown on Figure 18 have not been filtered to be specific to marine birds, so
some exclusively terrestrial sites are identified.
Table 13 lists the Important Bird Areas, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, and Key Marine Habitat Sites (from
Figure 18) that overlap or are directly adjacent to the proposed NWP shipping routes and identifies: 1)
key species and other species of interest present, including species that are colonial nesters and species
at risk; and 2) where there are associations between important habitat area types. This latter information
supports the spatial data presented in Figure 18.
73
[
` [
`
¯
e North Water
inc I.
" " " "
ait Inglefield Polynya

Pr rick
" " " "
Str
(
" " " "
" " " "
t zen
Mountains, $ $
Pa Ha Ellesmere Island
" " " " " "
Seymour Nirjutiqarvik
" " " " " "
" " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Island Hell Gate and (Coburg
Byam
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Sabine Peninsula,
[
` Grise Fjord
Pe
Island)
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Cardigan
nn
Melville Island Martin
" " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " "
y
[
`
StraitSydkap Ice Field,
" " " " " " " "
St
Channel
" " " " " " " "
Coburg
[
`
ra
" " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " "
Ellesmere Island
it
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " "
Island
M'C Cheyne Islands
[Queens
`
Eastern
" " " " " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Nasaruvaalik
lur " " " " " " " "
(Unnamed) Island Jones Jones
e Bathurst [Eastern
`
" " " " " " " "
Str
" " " " " " " "
Sound Sound
Channel
" " " " " " " "
ait
Baffin
Au
" " " " " " " "
Island
[ ` [ `
Well
" " " " " " " "
Devon
[ [
`
sti
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Skruis Point,
Melville
n
Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
ingto
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Ch
Devon Island
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Bay
Baillie-Hamilton Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
an
Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
ne
nC
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Devon Island Eastern

" " " " " " "
l
Beaufort Conwalls
" " " " " " "
hann
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Polar Bear Pass, Lancaster
Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Bathurst Island Cape Liddon
Hobhouse Inlet, and Radstock Sound
Resolute
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
el
[
` [
[ Lancaster Sound`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Bay, Devon
IslandIsland
Sea
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Devon
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Banks Viscount `
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Parry Channel Barrow Strait

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Melville Prince
Sachs
"
)
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Browne
"
)
Cape Hay and Cape
Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
C Leopold B
Sound
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Island Graham Moore,

[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Strait
Island
Harbour
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Bylot Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
les Baillarge Bay, Bylot

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Wa
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
f Northwestern Brodeur Baffin Island

eo [
` Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Peninsula, Baffin Island

[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
c Stefansson Creswell Bay,
" " " " " " " " " " " "
"
)
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
[
A `
in
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Island Somerset
Somerset Arctic Pond
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Pr
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Princ
" " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Island
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"
) Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Bay Inlet Buchan Gulf,

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Liverpool F
"
)
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
e
Baffin Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
D2
"
)
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Batty Bay,
Bay
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
R egent
Hadley Bay
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Tuktoyaktuk Somerset
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Prince
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Island Scott Inlet,
Peel Sound
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Baffin Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Fra of Wales
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Brodeur
M 'Clin
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
nk Minto Inlet
Inl e t
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Bay lin B
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Island Peninsula
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Ulukhaktok
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Amundsen "
) Berlinguet
Baffin Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
toc
D1
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Da " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Inlet, Baffin
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
rn
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
kC
Bay ley
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Gulf
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
nn [
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
ha
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Paulatuk
±
³
Prince Alber el
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " "
D1/2
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
t Sound
Victoria
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Franklin
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Strait Boothia
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Gulf of
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Peninsula
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Do
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
lph
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Boothia
in
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
a nd Southwestern
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Un " " " " " " " " " " " "
Victoria
" " " " "
Igloolik
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
North
Revised: 2019-06-25 By: LTrudell
Island
Taloyoak
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
ion
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Cambridge Committee
Spicer
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Lambert " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Stra
Foxe Basin
[
`
t
[
`
Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
tria
Channel
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
[Bay
` Bay [
` Islands
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Cambridge Bay Area, King

it
S
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Hall Beach [
Prince`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
ia
Foxe
Victoria Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
)
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
William
tor
Kugluktuk G
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Melbourne
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Rasmussen
Vic
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Kent Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Coron
[
`
Island Lowlands Charles
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
ati Jenny
Bay
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
[ Que
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
on Gu Peninsula
` [
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
lf Lind
Island
Gjoa
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Melville
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
en M
\\Cd1183-f03\Workgroup\1232\projects\121414789\figures\reports\EIS\fig_121414789_EIS_002_Seabirds_Protected_Areas.mxd
Island
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Kugaaruk
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
aud
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Great Haven Peninsula

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Gul
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Bear f
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Lake Foxe Basin

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
Bathurst Inlet
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
[
`
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
[
`
¯
Protected Area or National Park B Mine Location Important Areas for Birds in Nunavut 0 50 100 150 200 250
A
AKK km
Bathymetry Depth (m) Tallurutiup Imanga / Lancaster Sound 1:6,500,000 (at original document size of 11x17)
Potential Shipping Route
NA A
Project
A
NMCA
CA US
<200
D
Location A - Navy Board Inlet

Y 200 - 1000 Migratory Bird Sanctuary
YTT B - Lancaster Sound
N
NWWT
T N
NUU 1000 - 2000 National Wildlife Area
C - Northern Route (to M’Clure Strait) " " " " "
2000 - 3000
" " " " "
" " " " " Key Terrestrial Habitat Site Project Location Project Number 121414789
B
BCC D1 - Prince Regent Inlet (through " " " " "
Prepared by LTRUDELL on 20190531
> 3000 Key Habitat Sites for Migratory Birds Nunavut NW Passage,
Discipline Review by USERNAME on 20180101
A
ABB Bellot Strait) Canadian North
GIS Review by USERNAME on 20180101
S
SKK M
MBB Q
QCC
US O
ONN D2 - Peel Sound Client/Project/Report
A
1:100,000,000 Baffinland
D1/2 - Franklin Strait Mary River Project: Environmental Review of
Notes
1. Coordinate System: Canada Lambert Conformal Conic E - M’Clintock Channel Shipping Through the Northwest Passage
2. Data Sources: DataBC, Government of British Columbia;
Natural Resources Canada F - Prince of Wales Strait Figure No.
18
G - Southern Route (Victoria Strait, Title
Laresen Sound, Queen Maud Gulf, Important Habitat Area for Marine Birds
Coronation Gulf, and Amundsen
Gulf)
Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
July 12, 2019
Table 13 Important Habitat Areas for Marine Birds Directly Applicable to the Proposed NWP Shipping Routes
Important Habitat Area Includes Associated Important

Marine Bird Species Present2 Terrestrial Habitat Areas
Name Type1 ID #
Habitat? (see Figure 18)1
Banks Island Migratory Bird IBA NT017 Snow goose, brant, king eider, common eider, long- Yes Banks No. 1 MBS
Sanctuary tailed duck, Sabine’s gull, glaucous gull, red
phalarope, tundra swan
Cape Bathurst Polynya IBA NT039 Waterbirds No Amundsen Gulf and Bathurst
Polynya KHMS
Harrowby Bay IBA NT040 Canada goose, greater white-fronted goose, brant, Yes --
snow goose, long-tailed duck, scoters, scaups,
eiders, red-breasted merganser, glaucous gull
Cape Parry IBA NT041 Thick-billed murre, king eider, common eider, long- Yes Cape Parry MBS
tailed duck, black guillemot, glaucous gull, yellow-
billed loon
Thomsen River IBA NT043 Brant, snow goose Yes Banks No. 2 MBS
Cape Hay IBA NU004 Thick-billed murre, black-legged kittiwake Yes Bylot Island MBS
Prince Leopold Island IBA NU006 Northern fulmar, black-legged kittiwake, thick-billed Yes Prince Leopold Island KMHS,
murre, black guillemot, brant, common eider, Prince Leopold Island MBS
parasitic jaeger, glaucous gull
Queen Maud Gulf IBA NU009 Snow goose, Ross’s goose, tundra swan, greater Yes Queen Maud Gulf MBS
white-fronted goose, Canada goose, brant, king
eider, northern pintail, pectoral sandpiper,
semipalmated sandpiper, American golden plover,
peregrine falcon
Southwest Bylot IBA NU013 Snow goose, American golden plover, Baird's Yes Bylot Island MBS
sandpiper, long-tailed jaeger
Lancaster Sound Polynya IBA NU058 Dovekie No Eastern Lancaster Sound
KMHS
Cape Liddon IBA NU059 Northern fulmar Yes Cape Liddon KMHS
Hobhouse Inlet IBA NU060 Northern fulmar, glaucous gull, Thayer’s gull, black Yes Hobhouse Inlet KMHS
guillemot
75
July 12, 2019

Name Type1 ID #
Creswell Bay IBA NU062 White-rumped sandpiper, red phalarope, black- Yes --
bellied plover, sanderling, American golden plover,
ruddy turnstone, Baird’s sandpiper, snow goose,
king eider, long-tailed duck, northern fulmar, black-
legged kittiwake, peregrine falcon
Northwestern Brodeur IBA NU065 Ivory gull Yes --
Peninsula
Baillarge Bay IBA NU067 Northern fulmar Yes Baillarge Bay KHMS
Jenny Lind Island IBA NU088 Snow goose, Ross’s goose, Canada goose, Yes --
shorebirds
Browne Island KMHS 6 Key species: black-legged kittiwake Yes --
Other species: Thayer’s gull, glaucous gull
Cape Liddon KMHS 7 Key species: thick-billed murre No Cape Liddon IBA
Other species: northern fulmar, black-legged
kittiwake, black guillemot
Hobhouse Inlet KMHS 8 Key species: thick-billed murre No Hobhouse Inlet IBA
Other species: northern fulmar, glaucous gull, black
guillemot
Eastern Lancaster Sound KMHS 9 Key species: black-legged kittiwake, northern No Lancaster Sound Polynya
fulmar, thick-billed murre IBA
Other species: black guillemot, Arctic tern,
phalaropes, jaegers, sea ducks
Prince Leopold Island KMHS 10 Key species: thick-billed murre, black-legged Yes Prince Leopold Island IBA,
kittiwake, northern fulmar, black guillemot Prince Leopold Island MBS
Other species: glaucous gull
Cape Hay KMHS 11 Key species: thick-billed murre, black-legged Minimal Cape Hay IBA, Bylot Island
kittiwake MBS
Other species: black guillemot, dovekie
76
July 12, 2019

Name Type1 ID #
Baillarge Bay KMHS 12 Key species: northern fulmar No Baillarge Bay IBA
Other species: black guillemot
Batty Bay KMHS 13 Key species: black-legged kittiwake No --
Other species: eiders
Amundsen Gulf and Bathurst KMHS 17 Key species: king eider, common eider, long-tailed Minimal Cape Bathurst Polynya IBA
Polynya3 duck
Other species: black guillemot, glaucous gull,
yellow-billed loon, ivory gull, Ross’s gull
Lambert Channel KMHS 18 Key species: common eider No --
Other species: long-tailed duck, yellow-billed loon,
geese, other ducks, and raptors
Bylot Island MBS -- Key species: thick-billed murre, black-legged Yes Cape Hay IBA, Southwest
kittiwake, snow goose Bylot IBA, Cape Hay KMHS
Other species: black guillemot, glaucous gull,
northern fulmar, Sabine’s gull, American golden
plover, Arctic tern, black-bellied plover, common
ringed plover, American golden plover, long-tailed
jaeger, pectoral sandpiper, peregrine falcon, red
knot, ruddy turnstone, white-rumped sandpiper,
king eider, long-tailed duck, red-throated loon
Prince Leopold Island MBS -- Key species: black guillemot, black-legged Yes Prince Leopold Island IBA,
kittiwake, glaucous gull, northern fulmar, thick-billed Prince Leopold Island KMHS
murre
Other species: brant, common eider, parasitic
jaeger
77
July 12, 2019

Name Type1 ID #
Queen Maud Gulf MBS -- Key species: brant, buff-breasted sandpiper, Yes Queen Maud Gulf IBA
Canada goose, dunlin, greater white-fronted goose,
pectoral sandpiper, peregrine falcon, Ross's
goose, snow goose, tundra swan
Other species: Arctic tern, black-bellied plover,
glaucous gull, American golden-plover, herring gull,
king eider, long-tailed duck, long-tailed jaeger,
Pacific loon, parasitic jaeger, red phalarope, red-
necked phalarope, red-throated loon, rough-
legged hawk, Sabine’s gull, semipalmated plover,
semipalmated sandpiper, ruddy turnstone, red
knot, white-rumped sandpiper, yellow-billed loon
Banks No. 1 MBS -- Key species: snow goose, brant, king eider, long- Yes Banks Island Migratory Bird
tailed duck, tundra swan, Ross’s goose Sanctuary IBA
Other species: yellow-billed loon, Pacific loon, red-
throated loon, semipalmated plover, black-bellied
plover, American golden plover, ruddy turnstone,
whimbrel, white-rumped sandpiper, Baird's
sandpiper, semipalmated sandpiper, sanderling, red
phalarope, pomarine jaeger, long-tailed jaeger,
glaucous gull, Sabine's gull, Arctic tern, peregrine
falcon
Banks No. 2 MBS -- Key species: snow goose, Canada goose, glaucous Yes Thomsen River IBA
gull, Baird's sandpiper, peregrine falcon,
gyrfalcon, rough-legged hawk, pomarine jaeger,
sanderling, semipalmated sandpiper, Sabine's gull
Other species: Pacific loon, yellow-billed loon, long-
tailed jaeger, red phalarope, buff-breasted
sandpiper, black-bellied plover
78
July 12, 2019

Name Type1 ID #
Cape Parry MBS -- Key species: thick-billed murre, black guillemot Yes Cape Parry IBA
Other species: king eider, common eider, long-
tailed duck, glaucous gull, Pacific loon, red‑throated
loon
Notes:
1 IBA = Important Bird Area, KMHS = Key Marine Habitat Site, MBS = Migratory Bird Sanctuary
2 Marine birds as identified in Section 5.3.6; species in bold are on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act and species in italics are typically colonial nesters
within the study area
79
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
5.5 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

5.5.1 Marine Environment
The ocean, fjords, and freshwater lakes surrounding Inuit communities are very important to the way of
life and culture of the Inuit people. Water bodies provide a means of transportation, habitation, a
connection between communities, a source of food, and habitat for a variety of marine species that are
important culturally and for subsistence (QIA 2019a).
5.5.2 Hunting and Fishing
Season, length of day, weather, ice conditions, temperature, and animal migratory patterns all influence
Inuit hunting patterns and success. Entire families participate in spring hunting trips, with some moving to
outpost camps for the summer (Nunavut Planning Commission 2000, QIA 2019a).
Some marine species are mainly hunted during the winter months, such as polar bear. Some of the most
important wildlife that Inuit harvest are seal, walrus, Arctic char, and whale. These marine mammals are
harvested on the floe edge or by boat during Upirgaaq and Aujaq (the Inuit late spring and summer
seasons), apart from seals and Arctic char which are available year-round (QIA, 2019).
Bowhead whales, beluga whales, and narwhals are harvested along the floe edge and in open water
periods, primarily between May and September (QIA 2019a). Under certain weather conditions, narwhal
may remain into October and November and harvesters are able to capture late migrating animals.
Bowhead whales travel to the eastern Baffin coast near the floe edge in May/June, where they are hunted
(QIA 2018).
Walruses are an important part of the Inuit subsistence economy and are traditionally hunted from the floe
edge in November to early July and in open water from July to August (QIA 2018).
Arctic and Greenland cod are harvested through the ice during the winter. Commercial fisheries include
Greenland halibut, Arctic char, northern shrimp, and striped pink shrimp. In Nunavut, these fisheries have
been expanding over the last 50-80 years (Hurtubise 2016). The Arctic char commercial fishery began in
the 1940s and is found in Cumberland Sound and Cambridge Bay. Northern and striped pink shrimp
fisheries began in the late 1970s and Greenland halibut fisheries launched in the 1980s.
5.5.3 Important Marine Areas
There are a number of important marine areas in the Canadian Arctic that may be relevant to shipping.
Polynyas, for instance, are nutrient-rich, biologically productive areas that support a diversity and
abundance of wildlife. Polynyas are important to the Inuit culture and hunting practices as places where
marine mammals congregate throughout winter (Nunavut Planning Commission 2016). Inuit have
accessed these formations from camps and settlements on nearby shores, as well as by traveling and
often living on landfast ice. The Lancaster Sound polynya is located along the proposed shipping route.
80
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
This polynya is an essential component of a proposed National Marine Conservation Area (Nunavut
Planning Commission 2016).
Valuable areas have been identified by hunters of Pond Inlet in the Eclipse Sound region, between Bylot
Island and northern Baffin Island. Valuable areas are also found in Tremblay Sound, Qinngua and at the
floe edge by Button Point. A concentration of narwhal habitat was identified in Tremblay Sound and
Qinngua, including near Bruce Head (QIA 2019a). Valuable fishing areas were identified at Mary River,
Tugaat Lake, Qinngua, Tremblay Inlet and the surrounding areas. Community members prefer to return
to the same fishing locations and many fishing sites are intimately connected to camps and dwelling
locations (QIA 2019a).
5.5.4 Seasonal Travel
Inuit movements follow a seasonal pattern. Winter camps are located on sea ice to access ringed seals.
Spring camps are near shores to take advantage of sea ice hunting for whales and seals, and fall camps
are located near rivers to catch Arctic char during annual migrations (QIA 2018).
Important trails can be found on the sea ice in Eclipse Sound towards the floe edge at Guys Bight, down
Navy Board Inlet to the floe edge at Lancaster Sound, and from Eclipse Sound to Qinngua. The Phillips
Creek watershed is also an area where Inuit have travelled on trails to Igloolik and into the interior regions
of Baffin Island (QIA 2019a).
Warming climate and melting sea ice make it difficult for Inuit to travel along some of their traditional travel
routes; some routes and traditional camp sites have become inaccessible. Earlier melt of lake, river, and
sea ice has made some travel routes unsafe in the spring; thawing permafrost is also creating hazards for
travel across land by ATV (all-terrain vehicle) in the summer (ITK 2017).
81
PASSAGE
Potential Interactions
July 12, 2019
6.0 POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS
The following is a characterization of potential interactions of VCs (consistent with other Project reports)
with marine shipping along the Northwest Passage. The potential for Project shipping through the
Northwest Passage to interact with each VC is described in Table 14. The description of potential
interactions focuses on issues of greatest concern. Where there is potential for substantial interaction,
these VCs are discussed in more detail in subsequent subsections.
Table 14 Consideration of Potential for Substantive Interactions Between the

Shipping in the Northwest Passage and VCs
Potential Substantive
Valued Components Potential Pathway for Interaction
Interaction? (Y/N)
Climate Y Vessels release emissions as a result of fuel combustion
during transits. Shipping through the Northwestern
Passage route will involve redirecting vessels that now
navigate through Eclipse Sound and Baffin Bay, without
the addition of more ships. Though the Northwest Passage
route distance will likely be longer in total length to market
destinations, only a fraction of total ships will be redirected
to this route, and it is therefore predicted that the route
through the Northwest Passage will not substantively
change the total GHG emissions estimates for the Project.
The route through the Northwest Passage travels a further
distance through Canadian waters and Arctic regions. This
results in higher contributions of BC in the Arctic, a region
especially sensitive to BC impacts.
Air Quality N Vessels release emissions as a result of fuel combustion
during transits. Emissions of air contaminants in Canadian
waters could increase because of increased travel
distances in Canadian waters. Emission factors for marine
vessels are higher when operating at lower loads;
emissions while in transit through the shipping routes
would be less than those while in transit in the port. While
in transit through the Northwest Passage, the marine
vessels pass by any given land location quickly, and
combined with lower emission rates, ground level effects
are expected to be less than those modelled in the port
(presented in TSD-07), which met ambient criteria.
Atmospheric Noise N Marine vessels produce noise as they transit. In-air noise
from ships are not expected to be noticeable at onshore
locations during most times. As such, no substantive
interaction is expected. Ambient noise interactions with
marine mammals is considered under species included
below
83
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019

Interaction? (Y/N)
Marine Ice, Water, and N Shipping through the Northwest Passage will occur only
Sediment Quality through open water; no ice breaking is required. As such,
interactions with marine ice are not anticipated.
If they were to occur, releases from vessels could affect
water and sediment quality. Project-related vessels will
comply with a zero-discharge policy (i.e., there would be no
discharge of grey or black water, no discharge of waste,
and no exchange of ballast waters along the Northwest
Passage). Accordingly, substantive interactions with
marine water and sediment quality are not anticipated.
Marine Habitat and Biota N If they were to occur, releases from vessels could affect
(including Fish) marine habitat and biota. Project-related vessels will
comply with a zero-discharge policy (i.e., there would be no
discharge of grey or black water, no discharge of waste,
and no exchange of ballast waters along the Northwest
Passage). Accordingly, substantive interactions with
marine habitat and biota are not anticipated.
Polar Bears Y As a result of the physical presence of vessels, and
underwater sound generated by vessels, interactions with
polar bears are possible. Shipping through the Northwest
Passage may result in
• Change in Behaviour (e.g. Disruption of feeding
opportunities, avoidance)
• Change in Mortality (strikes)
Ringed and Bearded Y As a result of the physical presence of vessels, and
Seal underwater sound generated by vessels, interactions with
Ringed and Bearded Seal are possible. Shipping through
the Northwest Passage may result in
opportunities, avoidance, communication masking due
to noise)
Narwhal Y As a result of the physical presence of vessels, and
barwhal are possible. Shipping through the Northwest
to noise)
84
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019

Interaction? (Y/N)
Beluga Whale Y As a result of the physical presence of vessels, and
beluga whale are possible. Shipping through the
Northwest Passage may result in
to noise)
Bowhead Whale Y As a result of the physical presence of vessels, and
bowhead whale are possible. Shipping through the
Northwest Passage may result in
to noise)
Walrus Y As a result of the physical presence of vessels, and
walrus are possible. Shipping through the Northwest
to noise)
Marine Birds Y As a result of the physical presence of vessels, and sound
generated by vessels, interactions with marine birds are
possible. Shipping through the Northwest Passage may
result in
opportunities, avoidance))
Human Environment Y Arctic residents rely heavily on marine resources for
subsistence and the local economy. Shipping vessels may
disturb nets or harvesting equipment, interfere directly with
hunting, and noise from shipping may disrupt harvested
marine species. These changes may lead to a loss or
change of Inuit culture.
6.1 CLIMATE
The proposed shipping routes through the NWP (summarized in section 2.2) are longer and travel a
farther distance through Canadian waters and Arctic regions than the route to Rotterdam that was
assessed for Phase 2 of the Project. The average distance of the NWP routes is approximately 2450 nm
85
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
one-way through Canadian Arctic waters, compared to the 350 nm through Canadian Arctic waters for the
route to Rotterdam (originally assessed for Phase 2; Baffinland 2012). the longer travel routes will require
more fuel consumption and thus production of BC in the Arctic.
BC emissions from shipping activities in Canadian waters related to Phase 2 of the project were
estimated to be 15.6 tonnes annually, at maximum operation (2025-2035). Shipping activities included
emissions from tugs, harbour crafts, ships during docking, ore carriers, sealift vessels, and tankers. Of the
total BC emissions, 4.5 tonnes were from tugs, harbour crafts, and the emissions from the ships while
docked at the port, which will remain consistent due to the consistent number of ships (i.e., the total
number of Project vessels will not change, only the shipping routes and destination of some ore carriers).
The remaining 11.1 tonnes were related to the total shipping of ore carriers, sealift vessels, and tankers,
based on the 700 nm of shipping in Canadian waters (two-way trip). This equates to approximately 63.2
kg per ship, per year in the Canadian Arctic. The route through the NWP is approximately 7-fold greater
distance, resulting in estimated BC emissions of 442.7 kg per ship per year in the Canadian Arctic. The
tonnes per year cannot be accurately calculated as it is unknown how many ships will travel each route
per year.
Sands et al. 2013 estimated the global annual mean (fossil fuel and biofuel) BC emissions to be 5.5 Tg/yr.
Averaged over the Arctic (60–90°N) and midlatitudes (28–60°N), the emissions are 0.07 Tg/yr (70,000
tonnes/yr) and 2.6 Tg/yr, respectively (Sand et al. 2013). Based on this, Phase 2 Project-related shipping
emissions represent 0.02% of the total Arctic inventory. Assuming a worst case of all future, Project-
related shipping to use the longer NWP routes, then the Project would represent up to 0.16% of the total
BC contribution from Arctic emissions. In comparison to estimates from a more recent Canadian inventory
of BC (i.e., the total BC emissions in Canada were 34,921 tonnes [ECCC 2018]), then a worst case
Project scenario would represent up to 0.31% of Canadian BC emissions into the Arctic.
6.2 MARINE MAMMALS

6.2.1 Polar Bears
6.2.1.1 Change in Behaviour

Change in polar bear behaviour due to vessel traffic during the open water season may occur due to
disruption of feeding opportunities and vessel avoidance. Polar bears typically summer on the pack ice or
onshore locations; away from ice free conditions. There are several Polar Bear Summer Retreats
identified along Route A, B, D1, D2, D1/2, and E (Figure 11) (ERM Rescan 2015), where polar bears
summer on land. During the summer, their sensitivity to disturbance may be higher due to summer
nutritional stress (Stirling et al 2008, Armstrup et al 2006). Vessels may also encounter polar bears in
open water, as individuals have been documented to swim great distances (Mauritzen et al. 2003; Durner
et al. 2011).
Vessel noise can affect polar bears behavior through physical, visual or acoustic disturbance. Noise is
measured in two metrics: Frequency (Hertz) and loudness (decibels). Marine mammal species generally
prefer a specific frequency range; where this range overlaps with anthropogenic noise, impact can occur.
86
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Of the Arctic marine mammals, polar bear is the least vulnerable to vessel noise due to low exposure and
sensitivity (Hauser et al. 2018). Polar bears have in-air noise frequency sensitivity between 8 Hz - 25 kHz
(Nachtigall et al. 2007, Owen and Bowles 2011). The range of dominant frequencies of typical in-water
ore vessel is 50 and 300 Hz (NRC 2003). In water vessel noise impacts to polar bear are considered
minimal due to their ability to swim with their head above water. Potential change in behavior are more
likely due to direct visual interaction or indirect acoustic interactions (i.e., through noise affecting their
prey).
6.2.1.2 Change in Mortality

Vessel strikes on polar bear during normal operations would be rare and have not been documented
(Hauser et al. 2018). Although swimming polar bears may be hard to see, it is anticipated that either the
vessel could avoid polar bears or the polar bear would avoid approaching vessels, thus mitigating risk
associated with this potential interaction
6.2.2 Ringed Seal and Bearded Seal

Ringed seals and bearded seals are abundant throughout the NWP. During the summer, some seals use
terrestrial haulouts and occupy ice-free water, while others will move with the sea ice. Seals in open water
could interact with project vessels, given vessels will be limited to ice-free conditions.
Ringed and bearded seal changes in behavior from visual observations of vessels are individual and
variable. Seals appear to have less of a response if in open water than if disturbed while resting on sea
ice (Brueggeman et al. 1992, Golder 2019b, Blees et al. 2010). Seals resting on land have moved into the
water in response to vessels (Brasseur 1993 in Richardson et al. 1995).
Ringed seals are sensitive in the 50 Hz to 86 kHz range (NMFS 2018), which overlaps with the range of
dominant frequencies of typical in-water ore vessel produced noise of 50 and 300 Hz (NRC 2003). The
estimated auditory bandwidth for bearded seals in water is 75 Hz – 75 kHz (Southall et al. 2007). Vessel
noise may cause disruption of normal biological behaviour (e.g., feeding, mating) (Lusseau et al. 2007).
Ringed seals have been shown to avoid areas with the highest sound levels (Davis and Malme 1997), but
some follow ships, feeding in wake-related disturbances (Brewer et al. 1993).
Ringed seal vocalizations are in the 400 Hz to 16 kHz range, just above the majority of shipping noise
(Stirling 1973, Cummings et al. 1984). Bearded seals have a vast vocal repertoire and produce very
distinct trills and have been recorded to range in frequency from 130 Hz to 10 500 Hz (Cleator et al.
1989). The interaction of shipping noise and seal vocalizations may cause auditory masking, which is
disruptive to seal communication. Ultimately, shipping noise may cause avoidance behaviours of an area,
or interrupt courting and mating opportunities if auditory masking occurs in spring during the breeding
season (Stirling et al. 1973).
87
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019

Ship strikes of ringed and bearded seals could occur during transit if seal and boat interact in open
waters. Ringed seals are anticipated to have low vulnerability to ship strikes given their speed and
maneuverability (Laist et al. 2001, Jensen and Silber 2003), especially given ore carriers will be under
speed restrictions and in open water during transit. Similarly, the risk of vessel strikes of bearded seals is
also anticipated to be low (Cameron et al. 2010).
6.2.3 Narwhal

Narwhals are some of the most vulnerable species to vessel traffic in the NWP (Hauser et al. 2018,
Hovelsrud et al. 2008). They have been shown to have behavioural changes (primarily avoidance) when
in close range to similar types of vessels (Golder 2019a, Thomas et al. 2016, Moulton et al. 2016).
Narwhals are classified as Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (150 Hz to 160 kHz, NMFS 2018), which borders
the range of dominant frequencies of typical vessel produced noise (50 and 300 Hz [Richardson et al.
1995; NRC 2003]). Auditory masking may be particularly important for narwhals. They use vocalizations
(300 Hz to 24 kHz) to communicate within pods (Marcoux 2011; Marcoux et al. 2012). They avoid
predatory killer whales through auditory detection (Breed et al. 2017). They also are highly social, using
sound to interact within their pod (Marcoux 2011).
Narwhals have been shown to avoid vessel at long distances, and vessel noise may cause changes to
migration routes. Narwhals also are present in shipping zones; and further research is needed to
understand their interactions (Watt et al. 2016). Continued noise disturbance could potentially disrupt
behaviour.

The high densities of narwhal adults and calves in summer along the proposed routes may result in
serious injury or death from ship strikes. Vessel speed has previously been shown to be correlated with
vessel strikes, with 12 knots being a critical threshold for lethal strikes for large whales (Vanderlaan and
Taggart 2007). Project-related vessels will maintain speed restrictions of 9 knots when in transit see
section 2.3). Narwhals are relatively maneuverable and may be able to detect and avoid vessels. If one
individual is subject to a ship strike, many others in the pod may be also vulnerable due to the inherent
gregariousness of the species.
6.2.4 Beluga Whale

Belugas may be encountered at any time during transit of the NWP. During the open water season,
beluga spend their time in nearshore and offshore waters feeding on seasonal prey. Each fall, belugas
retreat with the closing sea ice, to winter in open water.
88
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Belugas are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (150 Hz to 160 kHz, NMFS 2018), but appear most
sensitive to sounds in the 400 Hz to 120 kHz range (Schevill and Lawrence 1949; Sjare and Smith 1986;
Awbrey et al. 1988). This indicates they likely perceive and are sensitive to the dominant range of vessel-
produced noise (50 and 300 Hz, Richardson et al. 1995; NRC 2003). Beluga have been shown to react to
vessel activity at great distances, and recent work has demonstrated how they may be more sensitive to
background anthropogenic noises then originally appreciated (Finley et al. 1990, Castellote et al 2018).
Vessel noise may affect their ability to communicate, hunt for prey, and perceive their environment (Erbe
and Farmer 2000, Johnson et al 1989). Erbe and Farmer (2000, in Halliday et al. 2017) studied noise
levels and behavioural disturbance in belugas in the Beaufort Sea. This study set the behaviour
disturbance threshold of their playback survey at 81 dB re 1 μPa at the 5 kHz 1/3 octave band. Results
from their survey estimated that, with the scenario studied, belugas would be disturbed by a vessel 35 km
away when in shallow water or 48 km away when on the surface in deep water. Belugas have been
shown to change call characteristics during vessel encounters, potentially to increase detectability
(Lesage et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 1995).
Belugas may be particularly sensitive at seasonal congregation areas as disturbance during such times
may cause missed feeding opportunities (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2011). Timing of vessel routing
to avoid these locations would reduce effects to beluga.

Ship strikes could cause mortality for beluga whales, although is anticipated to be low risk. Between 1978
and 2011, only one potential vessel strike of a beluga was recorded in Alaskan waters (Neilsen et al.
2012) and vessel strikes are not considered to be a major cause of mortality for beluga in other areas
(Lesage and Kingsley 1998). Beluga’s longer distance avoidance of vessels may reduce the likelihood of
ship strikes, and particularly if vessels avoid known beluga congregation areas.
6.2.5 Bowhead Whale

During the open water season, bowheads feed on marine invertebrates in nearshore and offshore areas,
migrating north in spring with opening sea ice and south with the closing sea ice. The Western Arctic
population occupies the western edge of the proposed routes, and they overwinter in the Bering Sea. The
Eastern Canadian/West Greenland population winters in the Northern Atlantic, using many of the
proposed shipping routes for seasonal migration.
Vessel traffic may temporarily interfere with seasonal migration. Bowhead whales are classified by NMFS
as Low-Frequency Cetaceans (7 Hz to 35 kHz, NMFS 2018), which includes the range of vessel-
produced noise. Bowheads avoid vessels underway (Richardson and Malme 1993, Koski and Johnson
1987). In response, bowheads typically stop feeding, attempt to out-swim the vessel, and/or dive when
the vessel approaches (Richardson et al. 1985, Koski and Johnson 1987, Wartzok et al. 1989).
Masking of bowhead auditory signals and behavioural avoidance of shipping routes may result from
vessel operations. Bowhead calls are dominant in the 75-500 Hz range, which overlaps with the dominant
89
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
range of vessel-produced noise (50 and 300 Hz) (Richardson et al. 1995, NRC 2003, Clark et al. 1986,
Cummings and Holliday 1987, Wursig and Clark 1993).
Change in Mortality
Ship strikes on bowheads are rare (George et al. 1994, Rosa 2009), but may cause direct mortality.
Bowheads are susceptible due to their large size and slow maneuverability. Surfacing whales can also
suddenly appear directly in front of vessels, with little warning or maneuvering time for vessel operators.
Ship strikes may be of greater concern during migration (spring and fall) and on feeding grounds because
there will be a higher number of potential interactions between ships and whales. Maintaining ship speeds
below 12 knots is correlated with reduced severe injury or mortality (Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007);
speed restrictions for project vessels is 9 knots (section 2.3).
6.2.6 Walrus

A vulnerability assessment of Arctic marine mammals to shipping rated walrus as being highly vulnerable
(Hauser et al. 2018). This rating was in part due to the potentially high sensitivity to climate change and
small subpopulations along northern sea routes including the NWP.
Feeding or transiting walrus may change their behaviour in proximity to a vessel. Walrus are traveling
greater distances and in open water between haulout locations and traditional feeding grounds due to
reductions in sea ice (Jay et al. 2012). Avoidance behaviour around vessels may further increase the
stress on walrus populations.
There are known walrus haulouts adjacent to proposed shipping routes (e.g. Devon Island and Navy
Board Inlet). Hauled out walrus can startle and stampede into the water due to vessel presence
(Richardson et al. 1995), which can be particularly stressful for mothers with young and lethal for smaller
individuals (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). Walruses that encounter vessels in the open water have less of a
response to vessels then when they are hauled out (Richardson et al. 1995).
Walrus’s underwater range of hearing is between 1 and 12 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2002), which overlaps
vessel-produced noise. Walruses are gregarious, and underwater calls are frequent during the breeding
season (Stirling et al. 1987, Sjare et al. 2003). Walrus underwater hearing is relatively sensitive to low-
frequency sounds and thus potentially susceptible to anthropogenic noise, including masking (Kastelein
et al. 2002). Vessels should avoid concentrations of walrus where possible.

The primary cause of mortality to walruses is from disturbances at haulouts that cause stampedes and
potential injury or mortality from trampling or smothering. Vessel routes that remain in offshore waters
would limit potential disturbances to hauled out walruses.
90
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Ship strikes may also cause walrus mortality, but walrus are expected to have low vulnerability due to
their maneuverability. Vessel strikes are not listed as a threat to the Atlantic walrus by COSEWIC
(COSEWIC 2006).
6.3 MARINE BIRDS

Vessels can physically disturb colonies and EBSAs by approaching too close to sensitive areas. Canada
has published minimum guidelines for vessels to reduce disturbance to colonies (ECCC 2019b). While
there are not prescriptive distances for vessels, they include avoiding close encounters with birds,
avoiding loud noises, and traveling at steady speeds.
Vessel presence can affect the behaviour of marine birds, particularly while foraging (Ronconi and Clair
2002, Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Vessel traffic can flush birds from foraging hot-spots and other
preferred habitat. When combined with other environmental stressors, this can further increase the
bioenergetic stress on birds and have potential consequences to fitness.
Vessels transiting the proposed routes have the potential to disturb marine birds due to ship lighting
(Montevecchi 2006). Lights (both from ships and facilities) can attract birds (Wiese et al. 2001),
particularly in low visibility conditions (e.g. fog), and lead to disorientation and/or collisions. For the open
water season, such interactions could occur after mid-August when twilight and darkness starts returning
to areas along the NWP (Day et al. 2005). Ship lighting shielded to the sky and the closing of window
blinds generally mitigates risk to birds associated with this interaction.

Vessel strikes can also cause mortality among seabirds, though are unlikely. Large vessels create
localized updrafts, which some birds exploit to conserve energy while flying. Species are also attracted to
the lighting or feeding opportunities from wake disturbance. These behaviours can increase the risk for
vessel strikes.
6.4 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

While shipping offers benefits to Inuit communities through increased community re-supply, there is
potential that vessels may cause avoidance behaviours in mammals and birds needed for subsistence
(Arctic Council 2009). Residents of Pond Inlet have reported that they have noticed changes to the
marine environment since marine shipping began in the area, including negative effects to narwhal
hunting sites (QIA 2019a).
Shipping-related disturbances have been attributed to changes in prey distributions and abandonment of
traditional hunting sites, which has required hunters to search farther afield for and spend longer times
away from t their families and communities during seasonal hunts (Carter et al. 2018a). The presence of
vessels can also interfere with hunts directly as hunters must wait for a ship to be at least 1.6 km (1 mile)
away before shooting, during which time the opportunity for a kill shot may be lost (Carter et al. 2018a).
91
PASSAGE
July 12, 2019
Hunters in small hunting boats cannot cross ship wakes safely, and must wait for waves to subside, and
have concerns about being washed away or having boats damaged by larger ship (Carter et al. 2018a).
Changes in the ability to hunt would affect culture (Carter et al. 2018a).
A network of low-impact shipping corridors have been proposed to mitigate the impact of shipping on
significant marine areas, communities, and the existing environment (Figure 5). Proposed shipping routes
A, B, D1, D2, and G are within the low-impact shipping corridor (Figure 1, Figure 5). Proposed shipping
routes C, E, F intersect important marine areas that contribute to community members’ subsistence
harvesting and livelihood activities (Figure 17). Many of the important marine areas are located in the
heart of the NWP, where ship traffic has increased the most in recent decades. Discussions with Inuit
communities along the proposed shipping routes, and organizations such as the KIA and QIA, are
necessary to determine the extent to which shipping can operate within the low impact shipping corridors
that Inuit have identified.
Discussion between Baffinland and harvesters, hunting and trapping organizations, and Inuit communities
regarding potential effects of marine shipping through the NWP and recommended mitigation measures,
such as speed restrictions and transit via low-impact shipping corridors, is required to mitigate potential
interactions between project vessels and the Human Environment.
92
PASSAGE
Summary and Conclusions

July 12, 2019
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report provides an overview of shipping routes through the NWP being considered for the project,
the existing environment and VCs along those shipping routes, and a description of potential interactions
between Project vessels and VCs. In general, the Project is considering transport of some ore west
through Navy Board Inlet and the NWP instead of east through Eclipse Sound and Baffin Bay (as is
currently done). There are several optional routes through the NWP between Lancaster Sound and the
Beaufort Sea, which are shown in Figure 1.. Available IQ has been incorporated into this overview.
The alternative routes being considered here overlap a number of ecological and biological sensitive
areas (EBSA). In addition, there are a number of important habitat areas for seabirds and walrus haulouts
along the route alternatives, with some overlap with EBSAs.
Valued Components (VCs) carried forward for focused discussion of potential interactions include: air
quality, marine ice and snow; marine mammals (polar bear, ringed seal, bearded seal, narwhal, beluga
whale, bowhead whale, and walrus); marine birds; and the human environment.
Shipping-related emissions, including BC and GHG emissions, will be higher per transit using the NWP
routes because they are longer than the current eastern route.
Potential effects on marine mammals range from physical disruption of behaviours and auditory masking
to vessel strikes resulting in potential injury or death. Narwhal is one of the most vulnerable species to
vessel traffic in the NWP, showing avoidance behaviour at long distances due to vessel noise.
Shipping through the NWP would occur during open water only, so interactions with marine mammals,
marine birds, and humans involving the use of ice are not anticipated. The use of wider route options
would allow for route alterations to avoid coastal areas in use by walrus, polar bear, seals, marine birds,
and hunters. However, low impact shipping corridors identified by Carter et al. (2018a) are considered to
reduce the effect of shipping on important marine areas, communities and the existing environment, and
generally coincide with the use of route options A, B, C, D1, D2, and G. More southern routes pose more
complex navigational challenges than the northerly routes (C and F), with more areas of constricted
waters and bathymetry limitations as these areas contain numerous islands, reefs, and shoals which limit
a vessel’s draft to <10 m (AMSA 2009). Low-impact shipping corridors have also been identified by Inuit
communities (Figure 5).
Existing plans developed to mitigate potential effects from Project shipping would apply to the routes in
the NWP, with updates to provide local information on EBSAs and important areas for sea birds, and site-
specific mitigative measures that may be developed in consultation with harvesters, hunting and trapping
organizations, and Inuit communities.
93
PASSAGE
Summary and Conclusions

July 12, 2019
Current mitigation measures that reduce the potential for adverse interactions between ships and the
marine environment include, but are not limited to:
• Speed limits through Navy Board Inlet and other areas along the NWP as necessary
• No release of waste in transit
• Spill at sea response plan
• Avoidance of aggregations of marine mammals and birds such as walrus haul outs, beluga spring
lead systems, and seabird colonies.
• Federal minimum guidelines for vessels to minimize disturbance to seabird colonies (ECCC 2019b)
94
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
8.0 REFERENCES
Aars, J., M. Andersen, A. Breniere, and S. Blanc. White-beaked dolphins trapped in the ice and eaten by
polar bears. Polar Res., 34 (2015)
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme). 2018. AMAP Assessment 2018: Arctic Ocean
Acidification. Tromsø, Norway. 187pp
AMSA (Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment). 2009. Arctic Council Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment
2009 Report.
https://pame.is/images/03_Projects/AMSA/AMSA_2009_report/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.p
df
Amstrup, S.C., G.M. Durner, I. Stirling, N.J. Lunn, and F. Messier. 2000. Movements and distribution of
polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78: 948–66.
Amstrup, S.C., G.M. Durner, T.L. McDonald, D.M. Mulcahyl, and, G.W Garner. 2001. Comparing
movement patterns of satellite-tagged male and female polar bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology
80:2147 –2158
Amstrup, S.C., T.L. McDonald, and G.M. Durner. 2004. Using satellite radio telemetry data to delineate
and manage wildlife populations. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32:661-679.
Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, T.S. Smith, C. Perham and G.W. Thiemann. 2006. Recent observations of
intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea. Polar
Biology, 29(11), p.997.
Ardyna, M., M. Gosselin, C. Michel, M. Poulin, and J. Tremblay. 2011. Environmental forcing of
phytoplankton community structure and function in the Canadian High Arctic: contrasting
oligotrophic and eutrophic regions. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 442: 37–57.
Awbrey, F.T., J.A. Thomas, and R.A. Kastelein. 1988. Low‐frequency underwater hearing sensitivity in
belugas, D elphinapterusleucas. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84(6),
pp.2273-2275.
Baffinland (Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation). 2012. In Mary River Project, Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Volume 8 Marine Environment.
Banci, V. and R. Spicker. (Compliers, Editors & GIS). 2014. Naonaiyaotit Traditional Knowledge Project –
Hannigayok (Sabina Gold and Silver Corp. Proposed Black River Project). Results from Data
Gaps Workshops, Final Report (June 2014). Kitikmeot Inuit Association, Kugluktuk NU.
95
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Barrow, A.K., C.W. Clark and J.H. Johnson. 1984. The sounds of the bowhead whale, Balaena
mysticetus, during the spring migrations of 1979 and 1980. Canadian Journal of Zoology
62(7):1436- 1441.
Bechard, M.J. and T.R. Swem. 2002. Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus), version 2.0 in: The Birds of
North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Beecham, J.J. .1980. Population characteristics, denning, and growth patterns of black bears in Idaho.
Missoula, Montana, USA: University of Montana
Bell, T. and T.M. Brown. 2018. From Science to Policy in the Eastern Canadian Arctic: An Integrated
Regional Impact Study (IRIS) of Climate Change and Moderization. ArcticNet, Quebec City, 560
pp.
Bentzen, T.W., E.H. Follmann, S.C. Amstrup, G.S. York, M.J. Wooler and , T.M. O’Hara. 2007. Variation
in winter diet of southern Beaufort Sea polar bears inferred from stable isotope analysis. Can. J.
Zool. 85:596- 608.
Bezeau, P., M. Sharp, and G. Gascon. 2015. Variability in Summer Anticyclonic Circulation over the
Canadian Arctic Archipelago and West Greenland in the Late 20th/Early 21st Centuries and its
Effect on Glacier Mass Balance. International Journal of Climatology. 35: 540-557.
Bird Studies Canada. 2019. What is an Important Bird Area? Available at:
https://www.ibacanada.ca/iba_what.jsp?lang=en. Accessed June 2019.
BirdLife International. 2016. Charadrius hiaticula. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22693759A86575756.en
Accessed June 2019.
Blais, M., M. Ardyna , M. Gosselin, D. Dumont, S. Bélanger, J-É. Tremblay, Y. Gratton, C. Marchese and
M. Poulin. 2017. Contrasting interannual changes in phytoplankton productivity and community
structure in the coastal Canadian Arctic Ocean. Limnology and Oceanography. 62:2480-2497
Blees, M.K., K.G. Hartin, D.S. Ireland and D. Hannay. 2010. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
during open water seismic exploration by Statoil USA E&P Inc. in the Chukchi Sea, August-
October 2010: 90-day report. LGL Rep. P119. Report from LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc.,
LGL Ltd., and JASCO Research Ltd. for Statoil USA E&P Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service,
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 102 pp+ App.
Bluhm, B. and R. Gradinger. 2008. Regional variability in food availability for arctic marine mammals.
Ecological Applications, 18(2) Supplement,. S77–S96
96
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Bluhm, B., A. Gebruk, R. Gradinger, R. Hopcroft, F. Huettmann, K. Kosobokova, B, Sirenko and J.

Weslawski. 2011. Arctic Marine Biodiversity: An Update of Species Richness and Examples of
Biodiversity Change. Oceanography, 24(3), 232-248. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24861318
Booms, T.L., T.J. Cade, and N.J. Clum. 2008. Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus), version 2.0 in: The Birds of
North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Born, E. W., and L. Ø. Knutsen. 1992. Satellite-linked radio tracking of Atlantic walruses (Odobenus
rosmarus rosmarus) in northeastern Greenland, 1989-1991. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 57(5),
275-287.
Born, E. W., I. Gjertz, and R. R. Reeves. 1995. Population assessment of the Atlantic walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus rosmarus L.). Norsk Polarinstitutt Meddelelser Nr. 138. 100 pp.
Bradstreet, M., J. Finley, A. Sekerak, B. Griffiths, C. Evans, M. Fabijan, and H. Stallard. 1986. Aspects of
the feeding biology of Arctic cod (Boreogudus saida) and its importance in arctic marine food
chains. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1491. 193 p.
Breed, G.A., C.J. Matthews, M. Marcoux, J.W. Higdon, B. LeBlanc, S.D. Petersen, J. Orr, N.R. Reinhart
and S.H. Ferguson. 2017. Sustained disruption of narwhal habitat use and behavior in the
presence of Arctic killer whales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(10),
pp.2628-2633.
Brewer, K., M. Gallagher, P. Regos, P. Isert, and J. Hall. 1993. ARCO Alaska, Inc. Kuvlum #1 exploration
prospect site specific monitoring program final report. Report prepared by Coastal & Offshore
Pacific Corporation, Walnut Creek, California for ARCO Alaska Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 80 pp.
Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Green, R.A. Grotefendt, M.A. Smultea, D.P. Volsen, R.A. Rowlett, C.C. Swanson,
C.I. Malme, R. Mlawski, and J.J. Burns. 1992. 1991 marine mammal monitoring program (walrus
and polar bear) Crackerjack and Diamond prospects Chukchi Sea. Rep. from EBASCO
Environmental, Bellevue, WA, for Shell Western E & P Inc. and Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Bystriansky, J.S., N.T. Frick, J.G. Richards, P.M. Schulte, and J.S. Ballantyne. 2007. Failure to up-
regulate gill Na+, K+-ATPase α-subunit isform α1b may limit seawater tolerance of land-locked
Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A. 148: 332-338.
Cameron, M.F., J.L. Bengtson, P.L. Boveng, J.K. Jansen, B.P. Kelly, S.P. Dahle, E.A. Logerwell, J.E.
Overland, C.L. Sabine, G.T. Waring, and J.M. Wilder. 2010. Status Review of the Bearded Seal
(Erignathus barbatus). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-211,246 p.
https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-211.pdf
Campbell, K., C. Mundy, D. Barber and M. Gosselin. 2014. Remote Estimates of Ice Algae Biomass and
Their Response to Environmental Conditions during Spring Melt. Arctic: 67 (3) 375 – 387.
97
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Riewe, R. R., Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, & du Nunavut, F.T. 1992.
Nunavut Atlas [cartographic Material]. Canadian Circumpolar Institute and the Tungavik
Federation of Nunavut.
Canadian Wildlife Service. 2012. Important Areas for Birds in Nunavut. Environment Canada, Yellowknife,
NWT
Carter, N.A., J. Dawson, J. Joyce, A. Ogilvie, and M. Weber. 2018a. Arctic Corridors and Northern
Voices; governing marine transportation in the Canadian Arctic (Pond Inlet, Nunavut community
report). Ottawa: University of Ottawa. http://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37271
Carter, N.A., J. Dawson, J. Knopp, J. Joyce, M. Weber, Z. Kochanowicz, and O. Mussells. 2018b. Arctic
Corridors and Northern Voices: governing marine transportation in the Canadian Arctic
(Cambridge Bay, Nunavut community report). Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
http://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37325 DOI: 10.20381/RUOR37325
Carter, N.A., J. Dawson, C. Parker, J. Cary, H. Gordon, Z. Kochanowicz, and M. Weber. 2018c. Arctic
Corridors and Northern Voices: governing marine transportation in the Canadian Arctic (Paulatuk,
Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories community report). Ottawa: University of
Ottawa. http://hdl.handle.net/10393/38040 DOI: 10.20381/RUOR38040
Carter, N.A., J. Dawson, C. Parker, J. Cary, H. Gordon, Z. Kochanowicz, and M. Weber. 2018d. Arctic
Corridors and Northern Voices: governing marine transportation in the Canadian Arctic (Sachs
Harbour, Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories community report). Ottawa:
University of Ottawa. http://hdl.handle.net/10393/38039 DOI:10.20381/RUOR38039
Castellote, M., B. Thayre, M. Mahoney, J. Mondragon, M. Lammers and R. Small. 2018. Anthropogenic
Noise and the Endangered Cook Inlet Beluga Whale, Delphinapterus leucas: Acoustic
Considerations for Management. Marine Fisheries Review 80(3).
Cattet, M.R.L. 2000. Biochemical and Physiological Aspects of Obesity, High Fat Diet, and Prolonged
Fasting in Free-ranging Polar Bears (Vet. Pathol. Ph.D.) University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatchewan, p. 167
CESCC (Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council). 2016. Wild Species 2015: The General
Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group.
Charrier, I., N. Mathevon, and T. Aubin. 2013. Bearded seal males perceive geographic variation in their
trills. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67(10), 1679-1689.
Circumpolar Action Plan: Conservation Strategy for Polar Bears. A Product of the Representatives of the
Parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. 2015.
98
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Clark, C.W., W.T. Ellison and K. Beeman. 1986. An acoustic study of bowhead whales Balaena
mysticetus, off Point Barrow, AK, during the 1984 spring migration. Rep. from Marine Acoustics,
Clinton, MA, for North Slope Borough Dept. of Wildlife Management,
Clark, R.G., J.P. Fleskes, K.L. Guyn, D.A. Haukos, J.E. Austin and M. R. Miller. 2014. Northern Pintail
(Anas acuta), version 2.0 in: The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Cleator, H.J., I. Stirling and T.G. Smith. 1989. Underwater vocalizations of the bearded seal (Erignathus
barbatus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67(8), 1900-1910.
Cobb, D.G., S. MacPhee, J. Paulic, K. Martin, V. Roy, J. Reist, C. Michel, A. Niemi, E. Richardson and A.
Black. 2019. Information in support of the Identification of Ecologically Significant Species,
Functional Groups and Community Properties (ESSCP) in the Western Arctic Biogeographic
Region. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2019/027. In press.
Conlan, K., A. Aitken, E. Hendrycks, C. McClelland and H. Melling. 2008. Distribution patterns of
Canadian Beaufort Shelf macrobenthos. Journal of Marine Systems. 74: 864-886.
Cooke, J.G., and R. Reeves. 2018. Balaena mysticetus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2018: e.T2467A50347659. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-.RLTS.T2467A50347659.en
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2004a. COSEWIC assessment
and update status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 50 pp.
(www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm)
COSEWIC. 2004b. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the beluga whale
Delphinapterus leucas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Ottawa. ix + 70 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).
COSEWIC. 2009. Update Status Report on the Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus): Bering-Chukchi-
Beaufort Population, Eastern Canada-west Greenland Population in Canada. 49 p.
COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua in
Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa xiii + 105 pp.
COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites
subruficollis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.
x + 44 pp.
COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Harlequin Duck Histrionicus
histrionicus Eastern population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada. Ottawa, ON. ix + 38 pp.
99
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus
lobatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. x +
52 pp.
COSEWIC. 2017a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
(pealei subspecies – Falco peregrinus pealei and anatum/tundrius – Falco peregrinus
anatum/tundrius) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa,
ON. xviii + 108 pp.
COSEWIC. 2017b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Atlantic Walrus Odobenus rosmarus
rosmarus, High Arctic population, Central-Low Arctic population and Nova Scotia-Newfoundland-
Gulf of St. Lawrence population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada. Ottawa. xxi + 89 pp.
http://www.registrelepsararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1
Crawford R.E., and J. Jorgenson. 1990. Density distribution of fish at the Admiralty Inlet landfast ice
edge, in the presence of whales. Arctic 43:21522.
Cummings, W.C., and D.V. Holliday. 1987. Sounds and source levels from bowhead whales off Pt.
Barrow, AK. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82(3):814-821.
Cummings, W.C., D.V. Holliday, and B.J. Lee. 1984. Potential impacts of man-made noise on ringed
seals: Vocalizations and reactions. Anchorage, AK: USDOI, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, pp.86-
0021.
CWSWC (Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Committee). 2017. Population Status of Migratory Game
Birds in Canada: November 2017. CWS Migratory Birds Regulatory Report Number 49.
Davis, R.A., K.J. Finley and W.J. Richardson. 1980. The present status and future management of arctic
marine mammals in Canada. Department of Information, Government of the Northwest
Territories.
Davis, R.A. and C.I. Malme. 1997. Potential effects on ringed seals of ice-breaking ore carriers
associated with the Voisey’s Bay nickel project. LGL Report No. TA2147-1. Rep. by LGL Limited
for Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company Limited.
Dawson, J., L. Copland, O. Mussells, and N. Carter. 2017. Shipping Trends in Nunavut 1990-2015: A
report prepared for the Nunavut General Monitoring Program. Ottawa, Canada and Iqaluit,
Nunavut.
Day, R., A. Prichard, and J. Rose. 2005. Migration and collision avoidance of eiders and other birds at
Northstar Island, Alaska, 2001-2004: final report. Prepared by ABR, Inc. – Environmental and
Research Services for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. Fairbanks, Alaska.
100
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, and I. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integr. Comp. Biol. 44,
163– 176.
Derocher, A.E., O. Wiig, and M. Andersen. 2002. Diet composition of polar bears in Svalbard and the
western Barents Sea. Polar Biol., 25, pp. 448-452
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2011. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant
Areas (EBSA) In the Canadian Arctic. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory
Report 2011/055
DFO. 2013. Integrated fisheries management plan for narwhal in the Nunavut Settlement Area.
DFO. 2015. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in Canada’s Eastern Arctic Biogeographic
Region, 2015. Canadian Science Advisory Report 2015/049
DFO. 2016. Bowhead Whale (Eastern Canada-West Greenland population) Balaena mysticetus.
https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/bowheadwhale-baleineboreale2-
eng.html. Assessed May 27, 2019.
DFO. 2018a. Fraser River Chinook Salmon. Profiles: Arctic char. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-
especes/profiles-profils/arctic-char-omble-chevalier-eng.html.
DFO. 2018b. Ringed Seal. Accessed at http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-

profils/ringedseal-phoqueannele-eng.html
DFO. 2019a. Mitigation Buffer Zones for Atlantic Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in the Nunavut
Settlement Area. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2018/055.
DFO. 2019b. Bowhead Whale Distribution (Eastern Canada – West Greenland population). Accessed
from https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/bowheadwhale-baleineboreale2-
eng.html
DFO. 2019c. Bowhead Whale Distribution Bowhead Whale Distribution (Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea
population). Accessed from https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-
profils/bowheadwhale-baleineboreale1-eng.html
DFO. 2019d. Narwhal Distribution. Accessed from https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-

profils/narwhal-narval-eng.html
DFO. 2019e. Beluga Whale Distribution: Eastern High Arctic Population. Accessed from https://www.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/beluga-east-beluga-est-eng.html
Dolman, S., V. Williams-Grey, R. Asmutis-Silvia, and S. Isaac. 2006. Vessel collisions and cetaceans:
What happens when they don’t miss the boat. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Science
Report. 25 p.
101
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Doney, S.C., V.J. Fabry, R.A. Feely and J.A. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2
Problem. Annual Review of Marine Science. 1: 169-192.
Dowsley, M., and G.W. Wenzel. 2008. The time of the most polar bears: A Co-management conflict in
Nunavut. Arctic, 61, 177–189. Recorded comments during NWMB public meeting in April 2008 in
Pond Inlet, Nunavut.
DOSITS (Discovery of Sound in the Sea). 2016. Ringed Seal Sounds. https://dosits.org/galleries/audio-
gallery/marine-mammals/pinnipeds/ringed-seal/. Accessed on July 4 2019.
Drilling, N., R.D. Titman, and F. McKinney. 2018. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), version 1.1 in: The Birds
of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, R. Nielson, and T. McDonald. 2004. Using discrete choice modeling to
generate resource selection functions for female polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. In: S.
Huzurbazar (ed.). Resource Selection Methods and Applications: Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Resource Selection, 13–15 January 2003, Laramie, Wyoming. p
107–120.
Durner, G.M., D.C. Douglas, R.M. Nielson, and S.C. Amstrup. 2006. Model for Autumn Pelagic
Distribution of Adult Female Polar Bears in the Chukchi Seas, 1987–1994. Final Report to
USFWS, USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.
Durner, G.M., D.C. Douglas, R.M. Nielson, S.C. Amstrup, T.L. McDonald, and I. Stirling. 2009.
Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models. Ecol. Monogr.,
79 (2009), pp. 25-58
Durner, G.M., J.P. Whiteman, H.J. Harlow, S.C. Amstrup, E.V. Regehr, and M. Ben-David. 2011.
Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female polar
bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat. Polar Biology, 34(7), pp.975-984.
Dvoretsky, V.G. and A.G. Dvoretsky. 2015. Zooplankton in the Areas of Polynya Formation in the Seas
of the Arctic Ocean. Russian Journal of Marine Biology. Vol 41, No. 4. pp. 223-237.
ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2017. Recovery Strategy and Management Plan for
the Red Knot (Calidris canutus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, ON. ix + 67 pp.
ECCC. 2018. Canada’s Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions Projections. Available at
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/eccc/En1-78-2018-eng.pdf
ECCC. 2019a. Guidelines to reduce risk to migratory birds. Last updated June 20, 2019. Available at:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-
birds/reduce-risk-migratory-birds.html. Accessed June 2019.
102
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
ECCC. 2019b. Guidelines to avoid disturbance to seabird and waterbird colonies in Canada. Last
updated October 30, 2018. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-
change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/avoid-disturbance-seabird-waterbird-colonies-
canada.html. Accessed June 2019.
ECCC. 2019c. Arctic Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring. Last updated May 26,
2017. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/bird-
surveys/shorebird/arctic-program-regional-international-monitoring.html. Accessed June 2019.
ECCC. 2019d. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Progress towards Canada's

greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-
climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/progress-towards-canada-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-reduction-target.html
ECCC. 2019e. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Sea Ice in Canada. Consulted on June
26, 2019. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-
change/services/environmental-indicators/sea-ice.html.
Environment Canada. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Ross’s Gull (Rhodostethia rosea) in Canada.
Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. iv + 18 pp.
Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) in Canada.
Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. iv+ 21 pp.
Erbe, C. 2002. Hearing abilities of baleen whales. Defence R&D Canada. Contractor Report. DRDC
Atlantic CR 2002-065. 40 p.
Erbe, C. and D.M. Farmer. 2000. Zones of impact around icebreakers affecting beluga whales in the
Beaufort Sea. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(3), pp.1332-1340.
ERM Rescan. 2015. Back River Project: Shipping Sensitivity Report. Prepared for Sabina Gold & Silver
Corp. by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., an ERM company
Evans, M.S., D.C.G. Muir, J. Keating, and X. Wang. 2015. Anadromous char as an alternate food choice
to marine animals: A synthesis of Hg concentrations, population features and other influencing
factors. Science of the Total Environment 509-510: 175-194.
Falardeau, M., C. Bouchard, D. Robert, and L. Fortier. 2017. First records of Pacific sand lance
(Ammodytes hexapterus) in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Polar Biology 40(11): 2291 – 2296.
Falk-Petersen, S., P. Mayzaud , G. Kattner and J. Sargent. 2009. Lipids and life strategy of Arctic
Calanus , Marine Biology Research, 5:1, 18-39, DOI:10.1080/17451000802512267
Finley, K.J., and C.R. Evans. 1983. Summer diet of the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) in the
Canadian High Arctic. Arctic, 36(1), 82-89.
103
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Fischbach A.S., S.C. Amstrup, and D.C. Douglas. 2007. Landward and eastward shift of Alaskan polar
bear denning associated with recent sea ice changes. Polar Biol 30: 1395−1405
Fischbach, A.S., D.H. Monson and C.V. Jay. 2009. Enumeration of Pacific walrus carcasses on beaches
of the Chukchi Sea in Alaska following a mortality event, September 2009. US Geological Survey
Open-File Report 2009-1291, Reston, VA. 10 p.
Fisheries Joint Management Committee. 2013. Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan. 4th Amended
Printing Inuvik, Northwest Territories.
FJMC (Fisheries Joint Management Committee). 2013. Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan. 4th
Amended Printing Inuvik, Northwest Territories.
Fleming, I.A. 1998. Pattern and variability in the breeding system of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), with
comparisons to other salmonids. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(S1): 59–76. doi:10.1139/d98-009.
Forest, A., V. Galindo, G. Darnis, S. Pineault, C. Lalande, J.-E. Tremblay, and L. Fortier. 2011. Carbon
Biomass, Elemental Ratios (C:N) and Stable Isotopic Composition (δ13C, δ15N) of Dominant
Calanoid Copepods during the Winter-to-Summer transition in the Amundsen Gulf (Arctic Ocean).
Journal of Plankton Research. 33(1): 161-178.
Frederking, R., T. Sanderson, and E. Wessels. 1983. Ice Behavior around a Small Arctic Island. The
Seventh International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions. 2:
875-887.
Freitas, C., K.M. Kovacs, R.A. Ims, M.A. Fedak and C. Lydersen. 2009. Deep into the ice: overwintering
and habitat selection in Atlantic walruses. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 375:247-261. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps07725
Thiemann, G.W., S.J. Iverson, and I. Stirling. 2008. Polar bear diets and arctic marine food webs:
insights from fatty acid analysis. Ecol. Monogr., 78, pp. 591-613
Garlich-Miller, J., J.G. MacCracken, J. Snyder, R. Meehan, M. Myers, J.M. Wilder, E. Lance, and A. Matz.
2011. Status review of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Marine Mammals Management, January 2011, Anchorage, AK, 155 pp.
Gaston, A.J., M.L. Mallory, and H.G. Gilchrist. 2012. Populations and trends of Canadian Arctic
seabirds. Polar Biology 35(8):1221–1232.
George, J.C., L.M. Philo, K. Hazard, D. Withrow, G.M. Carroll, and R. Suydam. 1994. Frequency of killer
whale (Orcincus orca) attacks and ship collisions based on scarring on bowhead whales (Balaena
mysticetus) of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea stock. Arctic 47(3):247-255.
Gilchrist, G., M. Mallory and F. Merkel. 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife
management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society, 10(1).
104
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Golder. 2019a. 2017 Narwhal Tagging Study – Technical Data Report. Mary River Project, Baffin Island,
Nunavut. Submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. 1663724-082-R-Rev0
Golder. 2019b. 2018 Ship-based Observer Program. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines
Corporation. Report No. 1663724-088-R-RevA. 31 January 2019.
Government of Canada. 2011a. Species Profile – Narwhal https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-

risk-registry/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=306Accessed on June 19, 2019.
Government of Canada. 2011b. Species Profile – Beluga Whale. Available online at: https://wildlife-
species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=150 Accessed on
June 19, 2019.
Government of Canada. 2011c. Species Profile – Polar Bear. Available online at: https://wildlife-
species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=167. Accessed on
June 20, 2019.
Government of Canada. 2019a. COSEWIC status report in preparation with anticipated assessment
dates. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/committee-status-
endangered-wildlife/status-reports-preparation.html. Accessed on July 4 2019.
Government of Canada. 2019b. Migratory Bird Sanctuaries Across Canada. Available at:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/migratory-bird-
sanctuaries/locations.html. Accessed June 2019.
GNWT (Government of the Northwest Territories). 2019. Polar bear.

https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/en/services/polar-bear
Greenan, B.J.W., T.S. James, J.W. Loder, P. Pepin, K. Azetsu-Scott, D. Ianson, R.C. Hamme, D. Gilbert,
J-E. Tremblay, X.L. Wang, and W. Perrie. 2018. Changes in oceans surrounding Canada;
Chapter 7 in (eds.) Bush and Lemmen, Canada’s Changing Climate Report; Government of
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 343–423.
Halliday, W.D., S.J. Insley, R.C. Hilliard, T. de Jong, and M.K. Pinea. 2017. Potential impacts of shipping
noise on marine mammals in the western Canadian Arctic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 123: 73–82.
Hammill, M.O. 2009. Ringed Seal: Pusa hispida. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 972-974).
Academic Press.
Hannah, C.G., F. Dupont, and M. Dunphy. 2008. Polynyas and Tidal Currents in the Canadian Arctic
Archipelago. The Arctic Institute of North America. 62(1): 83-95.
Harwood, L., L. Quakenbusg, R. Small, J. George, J. Pokiak, C. Pokiak, E. Lea and H. Brower. 2017.
Movements and Inferred Foraging by Bowhead Whales in the Canadian Beaufort Sea during
August and September, 2006–12. Arctic. 70(2): 161-176.
105
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Harwood, L.A. and J.A. Babaluk, 2014. Spawning, overwintering and summer feeding habitats used by
anadromous Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) of the Hornaday River, Northwest Territories,
Canada. Arctic 67(4): 449-461.
Hauser, D.D., K.L. Laidre, and H.L. Stern. 2018. Vulnerability of Arctic marine mammals to vessel traffic
in the increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 115(29), pp.7617-7622.
Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., R. Guldborg Hansen, K. Westdal, R.R. Reeves, and A. Mosbech. 2013.
Narwhals and seismic exploration: Is seismic noise increasing the risk of ice entrapments? Biol.
Cons. 158:50-54.
Higdon, J.W., and D.B. Stewart. 2018. State of circumpolar walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) populations.
Prepared by Higdon Wildlife Consulting and Arctic Biological Consultants, Winnipeg, MB for
WWF Arctic Programme, Ottawa, ON. 100 pp.
Hodgson, R., K. Martin, and H. Melling. 2015. Marine Protected Area Network Planning in the Western
Arctic Bioregion: Development and use of a Classification System to Identify Ecological Units as
Required Planning Components. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research
Document 2015/020.pp 41.
Hop, H., H.E. Welch, and R.E Crawford. 1997. Population structure and feeding ecology of Arctic cod
schools in the Canadian High Arctic. In: Reynolds JB, editor. Fish Ecology in Arctic North
America. American Fisheries Society Symposium 19, Bethesda, Maryland, p 6880.
Hopky, G.E., M.J. Lawrence, and D.B. Chiperzak. 1994. NOGAP B2; Zooplankton data from the
Canadian Beaufort Sea shelf, 1987 and 1988. Can. Data Rep. Fish Aquat. Sci. 912: v+219 p.
Hovelsrud, G.K., M. McKenna, and H.P. Huntington. 2008. Marine mammal harvests and other
interactions with humans. Ecological Applications, 18(sp2), pp.S135-S147.
Howell, S.E.L., A. Tivy, J.J. Yackel, and S. McCourt. 2008. Multi-Year Sea-Ice Conditions in the Western
Canadian Arctic Archipelago Region of the Northwest Passage: 1968-2006. Atmosphere-Ocean.
46(2): 229-242.
Hunter, C.B., H. Caswell, M.C. Runge, E.V. Regehr, S.C. Amstrup and I. Stirling. 2007. Polar bears in
the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and population growth in relation to sea ice
conditions. USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Administrative Report.
Hurtubise, J. 2016. Evolution of subsistence and commercial Inuit fisheries in the Territory of Nunavut,
Canada: Research and summation of landings, quotas, gear type, significance, use and status of
hunted marine species. (Marine Affairs Program Technical Report #14). Available at Marine
Affairs Program:
https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sites/fishwiks/MAPTechnicalReport14.pdf
106
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
IHT (Inuit Heritage Trust). 2016. Place Names Program. http://ihti.ca/eng/place-names/pn-

index.html?agree=0 Accessed on June 20, 2019.
Ingvaldsen, R.B., H. Gjøsæter, E. Ona and K. Michaelsen. 2017. Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) feeding
over deep water in the high Arctic. Polar Biol 40: 2105 – 2111.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014a: Climate Change 2013 - The Physical Science Basis.
Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014b. Climate Change 2014 - Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.
Inuuvik Community Corporation. 2006. INUVIALUIT SETTLEMENT REGION TRADITIONAL

KNOWLEDGE REPORT. http://www.capekrusenstern.org/docs/icc_study_2006.pdf Accessed on
July 9 2019
ITK (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami). 2017. Inuit Perspectives on the Northwest Passage Shipping and Marine
Issues. https://www.itk.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/NilliajutTextPages_Draftv4_english_web.pdf Accessed on May 29,
2019.
IUCN/SSC PBSG. 2015. Summary of polar bear population status per 2014. IUCN Species Survival
Commission Polar Bear Specialist Group. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
(accessed June 2019)
Jay, C.V., A.S. Fischbach and A.A. Kochnev. 2012. Walrus areas of use in the Chukchi Sea during
sparse sea ice cover. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 468, pp.1-13.
Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber. 2003. Large whale ship strike database. U.S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/OPR 25. 37pp.
Joint Secretariat. 2017. Inuvialuit Settlement Region Polar Bear Joint Management Plan. Joint
Secretariat, Inuvialuit Settlement Region. vii + 66 pp.
Johnson, C.S., M.W. McManus and D. Skaar. 1989. Masked tonal hearing thresholds in the beluga
whale. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(6), pp.2651-2654.
Johnson, K. 1995. Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca), version 2.0 in: The Birds of North America (A. F.
Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
107
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Kastelein, R. A., P. Mosterd, B. Van Santen, M. Hagedoorn and D. de Haan. 2002. Underwater
audiogram of a Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) measured with narrow-band
frequency-modulated signals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(5), 2173-
2182.
Kastelein, R.A., P. Mosterd, C.L. van Ligtenberg, and W.C. Verboom. 1996. Aerial hearing sensitivity
tests with a male Pacific walrus (Ododbenus rosmarus), in the free field and with headphones.
Aquatic Mammals 22: 81–93.
Kelly, B.P., J.L. Bengtson, P.L. Boveng, M.F. Cameron, S.P. Dahle, J.K. Jansen and J.M. Wilder. 2010.
Status review of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida)
Kenchington, E., H. Link, V. Roy, P. Archambault, T. Siferd, M. Treble and V. Wareham. 2011.
Identification of Mega- and Macrobenthic Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs)
in the Hudson Bay Complex, the Western and Eastern Canadian Arctic. DFO Can. Sci. Advis.
Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/071. vi + 52 p.
Kingsley, M.C.S., I. Stirling, and W. Calvert. 1985. The distribution and abundance of seals in the
Canadian High Arctic, 1980–1982. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 1189–1210.
Klemetsen, A., P.A. Amundsen, J.B. Dempson, B. Jonsson, N. Jonsson, M.F. O’Connell, and E.
Mortensen. 2003. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr
Salvelinus alpinus L.: a review of aspects of their life histories. Ecol. Fresh. Fish. 12(1): 1-59.
Koski, W. and S. Johnson. 1987. Behavioral studies and aerial photogrammetry. Section 4 in:
Responses of bowhead whales to an offshore drilling operation in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea,
autumn 1986. Report by LGL Limited, King City, Ont. And Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa
Barbara, CA for Shell Western E & P Inc., Anchorage, AK 371 pp.
Kovacs, K.M. 2016. Odobenus rosmarus ssp. rosmarus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2016: e.T15108A66992323. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-
1.RLTS.T15108A66992323.en. Downloaded on 18 June 2019.
Kovacs, K.M. 2018. Bearded Seal: Erignathus barbatus. In Encyclopedia of marine mammals (pp. 83-
86). Academic Press.
Kovacs, K.M., C. Lydersen, J.E. Overland, and S.E. Moore. 2011. Impacts of changing sea-ice
conditions on Arctic marine mammals. Mar. Biodivers., 41 pp. 181-194, 10.1007/s12526-010-
0061-0
Kowalik, Z. 2005. Tides. In: Encyclopedia of the Arctic. pp 2027-2029.
Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions Between Ships
and Whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1):35-75.
108
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Lazier, J.R.N. and D.G. Wright. 1992. Annual Velocity Variations of the Labrador Current. Journal of
Physical Oceanography. 23: 659-678.
Lepage, D., D.N. Nettleship and A. Reed. 1998. Birds of Bylot Island and Adjacent Baffin Island,
Northwest Territories, Canada, 1979 To 1997. Arctic 51(2):125–141.
Lesage, V., and M.C.S. Kingsley. 1998. Updated status of the St. Lawrence River population of the
Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 112:98-113.
Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M.C.S. Kingsley and B. Sjare. 1999. The Effect of Vessel Noise on the Vocal
Behaviour of Belugas in the St. Lawrence River Estuary, Canada. Marine Mammal Science, Vol.
15 (1), p.65 – 84.
Ljungblad, D.K., P.O. Thompson and S.E. Moore. 1982. Underwater sounds recorded from migrating
bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, in 1979. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
71(2):477-482.
Lønne, OJ, and B. Gulliksen. 1989. Size, age and diet of polar cod, Boreogadus saida (Lepechin 1773),
in ice covered waters. Polar Biology 9:18791.
Lowry, L.F., K.J. Frost, and J.J. Burns. 1980. Variability in the diet of ringed seals, Phoca hispida, in
Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:2254-2261.
Lowry, L. 2016. Pusa hispida. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41672A45231341.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T41672A45231341.en. Downloaded on 04 July
2019.
Lusseau, D., J.E.S. Higham, and M. Luck. 2007. Understanding the impacts of noise on marine
mammals. Marine wildlife and tourism management: Insights from the natural and social
sciences, pp.206-218.
Mäkelä, A., U. Witte, and P. Archambault. 2017. Benthic macroinfaunal community structure, resource
utilization and trophic relationships in two Canadian Arctic Archipelago polynyas. PLoS ONE
12(8): e0183034. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183034
Mallory, M.L., A.J. Gaston, J.F. Provencher, S.N. Wong, C. Anderson, K.H. Elliott, H.G. Gilchrist, M.
Janssen, T. Lazarus, A. Patterson, L. Pirie-Dominix, and N.C. Spencer. 2019. Identifying key
marine habitat sites for seabirds and sea ducks in the Canadian Arctic. Environ. Rev. 00: 1–26
(0000).
Manley, T.O., and K. Hunkins. 1985. Mesoscale eddies of the Arctic Ocean. Journal of Geophysical
Research. 90: 4911–4930.
Marcoux, M. 2011. Narwhal communication and grouping behaviour: a case study in social cetacean
research and monitoring (Vol. 72, No. 09).
109
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Marcoux, M., M. Auger‐Méthé, and M.M. Humphries. 2012. Variability and context specificity of narwhal
(Monodon monoceros) whistles and pulsed calls. Marine Mammal Science, 28(4), pp.649-665.
Mauritzen, M., S.E. Belikov, A.N. Boltunov, A.E. Derocher, E. Hansen, R.A. Ims, Ø. Wiig, and N. Yoccoz.
2003. Functional responses in polar bear habitat selection. Oikos 100, 112–124.
McKinney, M.A., S.J. Iverson, A.T. Fisk, C. Sonne, F.F. Rigét, and R.J. Letcher. 2013. Global change
effects on the long-term feeding ecology and contaminant exposures of East Greenland polar
bears. Glob. Chang. Biol., 19, pp. 2360-2372
McKinney, M.A., T.C. Atwood, S.J. Iverson, and E. Peacock. 2017. Temporal complexity of southern
Beaufort Sea polar bear diets during a period of increasing land use. Ecosphere, 8
McLaughlin, F.A., E.C. Carmack, R.G. Ingram, W.J. Williams and C. Michel. 2004. Oceanography of the
Northwest Passage. The Sea. 14: 1211-1242.
Melling, H. 2002. Sea Ice of the Northern Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Journal of Geophysical
Research. 107(C11).
Mikhail, M.Y. and H.E. Welch. 1989. Biology of Greenland cod, Gadus ogac, at Saqvaqjuac, northwest
coast of Hudson Bay. Environmental Biology of Fishes 26: 49-62.
Mohammed, A. and E. Grainger. 1974. Zooplankton data from the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, 1962.
Fisheries and Marine Service, Environment Canada. Technical Report 460. 135 p.
Montevecchi, W.A. 2006. Influences of artificial light on marine birds. Ecological consequences of
artificial night lighting, pp.94-113.
Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.). Marine mammal and
acoustical monitoring of WesternGeco’s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort
Sea, 2001. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara,
California, for WesternGeco, Houston, Texas, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage,
Alaska, and Silver Spring, Maryland. LGL Rep. TA2564 4. 3-1 to 3-48.
Mowbray, T.B., C.R. Ely, J.S. Sedinger, and R.E. Trost. 2002. Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii),
version 2.0 in: The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, M. Amundin, B. Röken, T. Møller, T.A. Mooney, K.A. Taylor, and M. Yuen.
2007. Polar bear Ursus maritimus hearing measured with auditory evoked potentials. Journal of
Experimental Biology 210: 1116-1122
NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission). 2019a. Atlantic Walrus.

https://nammco.no/topics/atlantic-walrus/ Accessed June 18, 2019.
NAMMCO. 2019b. Ringed Seal. https://nammco.no/topics/ringed-seal/
110
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
NAMMCO. 2019c. Bearded Seal. https://nammco.no/topics/bearded-seal/. Accessed June 14, 2019.
NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. The National Academies
Press, Washington, D.C. 192 pp.
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer. Available at:

http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species. Accessed June 2019.
Neilsen, J.L., C.M. Gabriele, A.S. Jensen, K. Jackson, and J.M. Straley. 2012. Summary of reported
whale-vessel collisions in Alaskan waters. Journal of Marine Biology 2012:1-18.
Nelson, R.J. 2013. Development of Indicators for Arctic Marine Biodiversity Monitoring in Canada. DFO
Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/123. iv + 35 p.
Newton, S., L. Brown, T. Suluk, and D. Fraser. 2012. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area
Consultation Tour. Summary Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. ii+56p. http://www.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca/Library/345736.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2019.
Nielsen, J.R. and R. Morin. 1993. Bibliography of Greenland cod, Gadus ogac, Richardson 1780-1992.
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2191. Iii + 28pp.
Niessen, F., J. Matthiessen, and R. Stein. 2009. Sedimentary Environment and Glacial History of the
Northwest Passage (Canadian Arctic Archipelago) Reconstructed from High Resolution Acoustic
Data. Polarforschung. 79(2): 65-80.
NIRB (Nunavut Impact Review Board). 2018. NIRB and QIA Preliminary Findings Report – Strategic
Environmental Assessment in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. NIRB File No. 17SN034
NMFS. 2018. 2018 Revision to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound
on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and
Temporary Threshold Shifts. Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59
NOAA. 2017. Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas): Beaufort Sea Stock. Accessed from
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-
assessment-reports-species-stock
Nunavut Planning Commission. 2000. North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan.
Nunavut Planning Commission. 2016. Nunavut Land Use Plan.

https://www.nunavut.ca/sites/default/files/2016_draft_nunavut_land_use_plan_0.pdf Accessed
June 16, 2019.
NWMB (Nunavut Wildlife Management Board). 2004. The Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study. Final Report.
111
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Outridge, P.M., W.J. Davis, R.E.A. Stewart and E.W. Born. 2003. Investigation of the stock structure of
Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in Canada and Greenland using dental Pb
isotopes derived from local geochemical environments. Arctic 56:82-90.
Overland, J.E., and M. Wang. 2013. When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free? Geophys. Res.
Lett., 40, pp. 2097-2101
P. Wassmann, C.M. Duarte, S. Agustí, and M.K. Sejr. 2011. Footprints of climate change in the Arctic
marine ecosystem. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, pp. 1235-1249, 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010. 02311.x
Padman, L., M. Levine, T. Dillon, J. Morison, and R. Pinkel. 1990: Hydrography and microstructure of an
Arctic cyclonic eddy. Journal of Geophysical Research. 95: 9411–9420.
Pagano, A.M., K.D. Rode, A. Cutting, M.A. Owen, S. Jensen, J.V. Ware, C.T. Robbins, G.M. Durner, T.C.
Atwood, M.E. Obbard, K.R. Middel, G.W. Thiemann, and T.M. Williams. 2017. Using tri-axial
accelerometers to identify wild polar bear behaviors. Endanger. Species Res., 32, pp. 19-33
Pedersen, A. 1945. Der Eisbär: Verbreitung and Lebensweise. E. Bruun, Copenhagen
Pomerleau, C., G. Winkler, A. Sastri, R. Nelson, S. Vagle, V. Lesage, and S. Ferguson. 2011. Spatial
patterns in zooplankton communities across the eastern Canadian sub-Arctic and Arctic waters:
insights from stable carbon (d13C) and nitrogen (d15N) isotope ratios. Journal of Plankton
Research. 33(12) 1779-1792.
Post, E., U.S. Bhatt, C.M. Bitz, J.F. Brodie, T.L. Fulton, M. Hebblewhite, J. Kerby, S.J. Kutz, I. Stirling,
and D.A. Walker. 2013. Ecological consequences of sea-ice decline. Science 341, 519e524
QIA (Qikiqtani Inuit Association). 2018. Qikiqtaaluk Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit Qaujimajangit
Iliqqusingitigut for the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait Marine Environment. Prepared by Heidi Klein,
Sanammanga Solutions Inc. for submission to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for the Baffin
Bay and Davis Strait Strategic Environmental Assessment.
QIA. 2019a. Tusaqtavut for Phase 2 Application of the Mary River Project. FINAL REPORT. June 14,
2019.
QIA. 2019b. Uqausirisimajavut: What we have said. Summary Document. https://www.qia.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2019/03/QIA-SEA-Summary.pdf Accessed on July 4 2019
Reeves, R.R., and E.D. Mitchell. 1989. Distribution and seasonality of killer whales in the Eastern
Canadian Arctic. Rit Fiskideildar 11:136–160
Regan, H. C., C. Lique, and T.W.K. Armitage. 2019. The Beaufort Gyre Extent, Shape, and Location
Between 2003 and 2014 from Satellite Observations. Forum for Arctic Modeling and Observation
Synthesis (FAMOS) 2: Beaufort Gyre Phenomenon. 124(2)
112
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Regehr, E.V., S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2006. Polar bear population status in the southern Beaufort
Sea. USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK. Open File Report 1337.
Regehr, E.V., K.L. Laidre, H.R. Akçakaya, S.C. Amstrup, T.C. Atwood, N.J. Lunn, M. Obbard, H. Stern,
G.W. Thiemann, and Ø. Wiig. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in
relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biol. Lett., 12, Article 20160556, 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0556
Reimnitz, E., L. Marincovich, M. McCormick, and W.M. Briggs. 1992. Suspension Freezing of Bottom
Sediment and Biota in the Northwest Passage and Implications for Arctic Ocean Sedimentation.
Canadian Journal of Earth Science. 29: 693-703.
Richardson, W., B. Wursig and C, Greene Jr. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus,
to seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America. 79 (4) 1117-1128.
Richardson, W.J. and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioral responses. pp. 631-787p in:
J.J. Burns, J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles (eds.) The bowhead whale book. Special Publication
of No.2., The Society for Marine Mammalogy. Lawrence, KS.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise.
Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.
Richardson, W.J., R.S. Wells, and B. Wursig. 1985. Disturbance responses of Bowheads, 1980-1984.
pp. 255-306 in: W.J. Richardson (ed.) Behavior, disturbance responses, and distribution of
bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus in the Eastern Beaufort Sea, 1980-84. OCS Study MMS
85-0034. USDOI, Minerals Management Services, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK.
Rikardsen, A.H., O.H. Diserud, J.M. Elliot J.B. Dempson, J. Sturlaugsson, and A.J. Jensen. 2007. The
marine temperature and depth preference of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and sea trout
(Salmo trutta), as recorded by data storage tags. Fish Oceano 16: 436 – 447.
Risch, D., C.W. Clark, P.J. Corkeron, A. Elepfandt, K.M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, and S.M. Van Parijs.
2007. Vocalizations of male bearded seals, Erignathus barbatus: classification and geographical
variation. Animal Behaviour, 73(5), 747-762.
Rode K.D., E.V. Regehr, D.C. Douglas, G. Durner, A.E. Derocher, G.W. Thiemann, S.M. Budge. 2014.
Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and
reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 76 – 88.
Rode, K.D., S.C. Amstrup, and E.V. Regehr. 2009. Reduced body size and cub recruitment in polar
bears associated with sea ice decline. Ecological Applications; in press.
Rode, K.D., R.R. Wilson, E.V. Regehr, M. St. Martin, D.C. Douglas, and J. Olson. 2015. Increased land
use by Chukchi Sea polar bears in relation to changing sea ice conditions. PLoS One, 10, Article
e0142213, 10.1371/journal.pone.0142213
113
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Rodgers, J., Jr. and S. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds
from disturbances by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology
16:216-224
Ronconi, R.A. and C.C.S. Clair. 2002. Management options to reduce boat disturbance on foraging
black guillemots (Cepphus grylle) in the Bay of Fundy. Biological conservation, 108(3), pp.265-
271
Rosa, C. 2009. A summary of dead, stranded bowhead whales reported in the Chukchi and Beaufort
seas over the last twenty-five years. IWC paper #SC/61/E12. International Whaling Commission.
Sand, M., T.K. Berntsen, Ø, Seland, and J.E. Kristjánsson. 2013. Arctic surface temperature change to
emissions of black carbon within Arctic or midlatitudes. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, 118(14), 7788-7798.
Sawatsky C.D., D. Michalak, J.D., Reist, T.J. Carmichael, N.E. Mandrak and L.G. Heuring. 2007.
Distributions of freshwater and anadromousfishes from the Mainland Northwest
Territories,Canada. Can Manuscr Rep Fish Aquat Sci;2793:239.
Schevill, W.E. and B. Lawrence. 1949. Underwater listening to the white porpoise (Delphinapterus
leucas). Science, 109(2824), pp.143-144.
Schliebe, S., K. Rode, J. Gleason, J. Wilder, K. Proffitt, T. Evans, and S. Miller. 2008. Effects of sea ice
extent and food availability on spatial and temporal distribution of polar bears during the fall open-
water period in the Southern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biol., 31, pp. 999-1010
Shafer, A.B.A., C.S. Davis, D.W. Coltman, and R.E.A. Stewart. 2014. Microsatellite assessment of
walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) stocks in Canada. NAMMCO Sci. Pub. 9: 15–31.
Sills, J. M., B. L. Southall, and C. Reichmuth. 2015. Amphibious hearing in ringed seals (Pusa hispida):
underwater audiograms, aerial audiograms and critical ratio measurements. Journal of
Experimental Biology, 218(14), 2250-2259
Sjare, B., I. Stirling, and C. Spencer. 2003. Structural variation in the songs of Atlantic walruses breeding
in the Canadian High Arctic. Aquatic Mammals, 29(2), 297-318.
Sjare, B.L. and T.G. Smith. 1986. The vocal repertoire of white whales, Delphinapterus leucas,
summering in Cunningham Inlet, Northwest Territories. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 64(2),
pp.407-415.
Smith, T.S., S.T. Partridge, S.C. Amstrup and S. Schliebe. 2007. Post-den emergence behavior of polar
bears (Ursus maritimus) in northern Alaska. Arctic 60:187-194.
Smith, T.G. 1981. Notes on the Bearded Seal, Erignathus barbatus, in the Canadian Arctic
114
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Søreide, J.E., H. Hop, M.L. Carroll, S. Falk-Petersen, and E.N. Hegseth. 2006. Seasonal food web
structures and sympagicpelagic coupling in the European Arctic revealed by stable isotopes and
a two-source food web model. Progress in Oceanography 71:5987.
Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R.J. Greene, D. Kastak, D.R.
Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P. Tyack 2007. Marine
mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33, 411-
521.
Species at Risk Committee. 2012. Species Status Report for Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) in the
Northwest Territories. Species at Risk Committee, Yellowknife, NT.
SRPR (Species at Risk Public Registry). 2019. A to Z Species Index. Available from:
http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm. Accessed June 2019.
Steiner, N.S., J.R. Christian, K.D. Six, A. Yamamoto, and M. Yamamoto-Kawai. 2014. Future Ocean
Acidification in the Canada Basin and Surrounding Arctic Ocean from CMIP5 Earth System
Models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. 119: 332-347.
Stephenson, S.A., and L. Hartwig. 2010. The Arctic Marine Workshop: Freshwater Institute Winnipeg,
Manitoba, February 16-17, 2010. Can. Manuscript Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2934: vi+67p.
Stern, G. and A. Gaden. 2015. From Science to Policy in the Western and Central Canadian Arctic: An
Integrated Regional Impact Study (IRIS) of Climate Change and Modernization. ArcticNet,
Quebec City, 432 pp.
Stewart, R.E., E.W. Born, J.B. Dunn, W.R. Koski, and A.K. Ryan. 2014. Use of multiple methods to
estimate walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) abundance in the Penny Strait-Lancaster Sound
and West Jones Sound stocks, Canada. NAMMCO Scientific Publications, 9, 95-122
Stirling , I., D. Andriashek, and W. Calvert. 1993. Habitat preferences of polar bears in the western
Canadian Arctic in late winter and spring. Polar Record 29, 13– 24.
Stirling, I., and W.R. Archibald. 1977. Aspects of predation of seals by polar bears. J. Fish. Board
Canada 34, 1126– 1129.
Stirling, I. 1973. Vocalization in the ringed seal (Phoca hispida). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
of Canada 30(10):1592-1594.
Stirling, I. 2001. Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: A Synthesis of
Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades. Arctic, 55 (1): 56-76.
Stirling, I. and C.L. Parkinson. 2006. Possible effects of climate warming on selected populations of
polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59:261-275.
115
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Stirling, I., W. Calvert, and D. Andriashek. 1984. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) ecology and
environmental considerations in the Canadian High Arctic. In Northern ecology and resource
management. Edited by R. Olson, F. Geddes, and R. Hastings. University of Alberta Press,
Edmonton. pp. 201–222.
Stirling, I., W. Calver, and C. Spencer. 1987. Evidence of stereotyped underwater vocalizations of male
Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 65(9):2311-
2321.
Stirling, I., D. Andriashek, C. Spencer, and A. E. Derocher. 1988. Assessment of the polar bear
population in the eastern Beaufort Sea. Final Report to the Northern Oil and Gas Assessment
Program. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Stirling, I., E. Richardson, G. W. Thiemann, and A. E. Derocher. 2008. Unusual predation attempts of
polar bears on ringed seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea: possible Significance of Changing
Spring Ice Conditions. Arctic 61:14–22
Stirling, I., N. J. Lunn, and J. Iacozza. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in
Western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic 52: 294-306.
Stirling, I., T.L. McDonald, E.S. Richardson, and E.V. Regehr. 2007. Polar bear population status in the
Northern Beaufort Sea. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007, Administrative Report, iv
+ 33 pp. 2002. Species at Risk Act, SC. C. c.29, S-15.3.
Taylor, M.K., J.L. Laake, P.D. Mcloughlin, H.D. Cluff, and F. Messier. 2006. Demographic parameters
and harvest-explicit population viability analysis for polar bears in M’Clintock Channel, Nunavut.
Journal of Wildlife Management, 70: 1667-73.
Taylor, M., and J. Lee. 1995. Distribution and abundance of Canadian polar bear populations: A
management perspective. Arctic 48(2):147–154.
Taylor, M.K., S. Akeeagok, D. Andriashek, W. Barbour, E.W. Born, W. Calvert, D. Cluff, S. Ferguson, J.
Laake, A. Rosing-Asvid, I. Stirling, and F. Messier. 2001. Delineation of Canadian and
Greenland polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations by cluster analysis of movements. Can. J.
Zool. 79: 690-709
Taylor, M.K., J. Laake, P.D. McLoughlin, E.W. Born, H.D. Cluff, S.H. Ferguson, A. RosingAsvid, R.
Schweinsburg, and F. Messier. 2005. Demography and population viability of a hunted
population of polar bears. Arctic 58:203-214.
Taylor, M.K., J. Laake, H.D. Cluff, M. Ramsay, and F. Messier. 2002. Managing the risk from hunting for
the Viscount Melville Sound polar bear population. Ursus 13:185–202.
Taylor, M.K., P.D. McLoughlin, and F. Messier. 2008. Sex-selective harvesting of polar bears Ursus
maritimus. Wildlife Biology, 14(1), 52-61.
116
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2019. Birds of North America. https://birdsna.org/Species-

Account/bna/home. Accessed on July 4 2019
Thomas, T.A., S. Raborn, R.E. Elliott and V.D. Moulton. 2016. Marine mammal aerial surveys in Eclipse
Sound, Milne Inlet and Pond Inlet, 1 August – 17 September 2015. LGL Report No. FA0059-3.
Prepared by LGL Limited, King City, ON for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation, Oakville, ON. 76
p.
Thomson, D.H. 1982. Marine benthos in the eastern Canadian high arctic: Multivariate analyses of
standing crop and community structure. Arctic 35(1):61-74.
Timmermans, M. L., J. Toole, A. Proshutinsky, R. Krishfield, A. Plueddemann. 2008. Eddies in the

Candian Basin, Arctic Ocean, Observed from Ice-Tethered Profiliers. Journal of Physical
Oceanography. 38: 133-145.
Timmermans, M. L., R. Krishfield, S. Laney, and J. Toole. 2010. Ice-tethered Profiler Measurements of
Dissolved Oxygen under Permanent Ice Cover in the Arctic Ocean. Journal or Atmospheric and
Oceanic Technology. 27: 1936-1949.
Tynan, C.T., and D.P. DeMaster. 1997. Observations and predictions of Arctic climatic change: potential
effects on marine mammals. Arctic, 308-322.
Upun-LGL. 2013. Atlas of the Birds of the Offshore Canadian Beaufort Sea. Prepared for Beaufort
Regional Environmental Assessment, Northern Petroleum and Mineral Resources Branch,
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.
Vanderlaan, A.S. and C.T. Taggart. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury
based on vessel speed. Marine mammal science, 23(1), pp.144-156.
Wartzok, D., W. Watkins, B. Wursig, and C. Malme. 1989. Movements and behavior of bowhead whales
in response to repeated exposures to noises associated with industrial activities in the Beaufort
Sea. Report by Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana, for Amoco Production Company,
Anchorage, AK. 228 pp.
Watt, C.A., J.R. Orr, and S.H. Ferguson. 2016. Spatial distribution of narwhal (Monodon monoceros)
diving for Canadian populations helps identify important seasonal foraging areas. Canadian
journal of zoology, 95(1), pp.41-50.
Waugh, D., Pearce, T., Ostertag, S. K., Pokiak, V., Collings, P., & Loseto, L. L. 2018. Inuvialuit traditional
ecological knowledge of beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) under changing climatic conditions
in Tuktoyaktuk, NT. Arctic Science, 4(3), 242-258.
Wheeler, B., M. Gilbert and S. Rowe. 2012. Definition of critical summer and fall habitat for bowhead
whales in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Endangered species Research. 17:1-16.
117
PASSAGE
References
July 12, 2019
Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond and J. Linke. 2001.
Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the North-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
42(12), pp.1285-1290.
Wiig, Ø., S. Amstrup, T. Atwood, K. Laidre, N. Lunn, and M. Obbard. 2015. Ursus maritimus. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22823A14871490.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T22823A14871490.en.
Williams, W. and E. Carmack. 2008. Combined effect of wind-forcing and isobath divergence on
upwelling at Cape Bathurst, Beaufort Sea. Journal of Marine Research, 66, 645–663
Wong, S.N., C. Gjerdrum, K.H. Morgan, and M.L. Mallory. 2014. Hotspots in cold seas: The composition,
distribution, and abundance of marine birds in the North American Arctic. J. Geophys. Res.
Oceans 119:1691–1705.
Woodgate R. 2013. Arctic Ocean Circulation: Going Around at the top of the World. Nature Education
Knowledge. 4(8):8
Working Group on General Status of NWT Species. 2016. NWT Species 2016-2020 – General Status
Ranks of Wild Species in the Northwest Territories, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT. 304 pp.
Wursig, B., and C. Clark. 1993. Behavior. Pp. 157-199 in: J.J. Burns, J.J. Montague and C.J. Cowles
(eds.), The Bowhead Whales. Special Publ. 2, Society for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence, KS.
Wursig, B., E.M. Dorsey, W.J. Richardson, C.W. Clark and R. Payne. 1985. Normal behavior of
bowheads, 1980-84. Pp. 13-88 in: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Behavior, Disturbance Responses and
Distribution of Bowhead Whales Balaena mysticetus in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1980-84. Rep.
from LGL Ecol. Res. Assoc. Inc., Bryan, TX, for U.S. Minerals Management Service, Reston, VA.
NTIS PB87-124376.York, J., Dowsley, M., Cornwell, A., Kuc, M. and Taylor, M. 2016.
Demographic and traditional knowledge perspectives on the current status of Canadian polar
bear subpopulations. Ecology and evolution, 6(9), 2897-2924.
Yurkowski, D.J., Young, B.G., Dunn, J.B., and Ferguson, S.H., 2019. Spring distribution of ringed seals
(Pusa hispida) in Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet, Nunavut: implications for potential ice-breaking
activities. Arctic Sci. 5(1): 54-61.
118

190712-08mn053-Bimc NWP Shipping Review-Pt 2-Ia1e

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

190712-08mn053-Bimc NWP Shipping Review-Pt 2-Ia1e

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MARY RIVER PROJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF SHIPPING THROUGH THE NORTHWEST

5.3.4.1 Arctic Char

5.3.4.2 Arctic/Polar Cod

5.3.4.3 Atlantic Cod

5.3.4.4 Greenland Cod

5.3.5 Marine Mammals

5.3.5.1 Regulatory Overview

Common Scientific Conservation Status Populations

Common Scientific Conservation Status Populations

• Inuvialuit Final Agreement

• Environmental Protection Act

• Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act

• Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act

• Species at Risk Act (SARA)

• Marine Mammal Regulations

• Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Areas Regulations

(d) in the manner authorized under the Species at Risk Act.

5.3.5.2 Bowhead Whales

Figure 8 Bowhead populations: Eastern (left) and Western population (right)

Vocalization and Hearing

Vocalization and Hearing

Figure 9 Narwhal Populations (DFO 2019d)

Vocalization and Hearing

5.3.5.5 Polar Bear

Vocalization and Hearing

Vocalization and Hearing

Figure 12 Summer distribution of various stocks of the Atlantic walrus O. r. rosmarus.

Figure 13 Distribution of the Atlantic Walrus, O. r. rosmarus and Pacific Walrus O. r.

5.3.5.7 Ringed Seal

Vocalizations and Hearing

5.3.5.8 Bearded Seal

Vocalization and Hearing

Figure 16 Habitat range of Erignathus barbatus barbatus and Erignathus barbatus

5.3.6 Marine Birds

5.3.6.1 Regulatory Overview

• Nunavut Wildlife Act

• Northwest Territories Wildlife Act

• Species at Risk (NWT) Act (non-migratory marine birds only)

Conservation Status Relative

Conservation Status Relative

Conservation Status Relative

Conservation Status Relative

Conservation Status Relative

Conservation Status Relative

5.4 ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SENSITIVE AREAS (EBSA)

Table 12 Ecological and Biological Sensitive Areas Along Routes*

Name Physical Feature Aggregation

Table 12 Ecological and Biological Sensitive Areas Along Routes*

Name Physical Feature Aggregation

Location A - Navy Board Inlet

ait Inglefield Polynya

Devon Island Eastern

Parry Channel Barrow Strait

Island Graham Moore,

les Baillarge Bay, Bylot

f Northwestern Brodeur Baffin Island

Peninsula, Baffin Island

Bay Inlet Buchan Gulf,

Island Scott Inlet,

Cambridge Bay Area, King

Great Haven Peninsula

Lake Foxe Basin

Location A - Navy Board Inlet