Risk assessment regarding piloting service or pilot exemption certificate on Svalbard:

Transcription

1 Risk assessment regarding piloting service or pilot exemption certificate on Svalbard: Report to Norwegian Coastal Administration, Maritime Safety Department Rapport no.: ENG 4 March 2010

2

3 1.0 Summary Introduction Background for the project Project scope Current guidelines for vessel traffic in Svalbard and the Norwegian Coastal Administration's proposed introduction of requirements to polar pilot or PEC Today s islos service on Svalbard Measures proposed by the Norwegian Coastal Administration amending the guidelines for the use of pilot or PEC by vessel traffic in the area around Svalbard Qualification requirement for polar pilots Vessel traffic and registered events in the areas around Svalbard Vessel traffic around Svalbard and requirements for use of polar pilot Overview of registered accidents in the waters around Svalbard Assessment of accident rates for different vessel types in Svalbard waters Potential spill from vessel traffic in Svalbard waters Analysis model and scale for the risk analysis Event categories being considered in the risk analysis Probability / frequency scale for the assessment of risk Assessment of environmental consequences and impact scale for use in risk analysis Data used as a basis for the environmental impact assessment Overall risk associated with vessel traffic in selected areas around Svalbard Expected impact from the introduction of requirements for polar pilot or Pilot Exemption Certificate (PEC) Risk associated with vessel traffic in Magdalena (Magdalenabåen) Assessment of vessel traffic and threats Assessment of possible environmental impacts of events in Magdalena fjord Assessment of the risk associated with vessel traffic in Kongsfjorden / Krossfjorden (Kroneflua) Assessment of vessel traffic and threats Assessment of possible environmental impacts Assessment of the risk associated with vessel traffic in Isfjorden (Revneset) Assessment of vessel traffic and threats Assessment of possible environmental impacts Assessment of the risk associated with vessel traffic in Hinlopenstretet (Torellneset/Perthesøya) Assessment of vessel traffic and threats Assessment of possible environmental impacts...74

4 11.0 Assessment of the risk associated with vessel traffic in Recherchefjorden Assessment of vessel traffic and threat Assessment of possible environmental impacts...83 Appendix I Reference list...92

5 Page Summary (DNV) has assessed the environmental risks associated with today's shipping traffic in selected of fjords on Svalbard on behalf of the Norwegian Coastal Administration (NCA). The risk assessment is intended as a basis for the Coastal Administration s recommendations on piloting service or Pilot Exemption Certificate (PEC) for maritime traffic around Svalbard. Vessel traffic to and from Van Mijenfjorden (Svea) is not part of the scope of this analysis. NCA has already initiated work to introduce a state organized pilot service for this traffic. Conclusions: Risks associated with expedition cruise vessels and overseas cruise vessels may in some areas involve critical risk to the environment on Svalbard. DNV considers the introduction required polar pilot or Pilot Exemption Certificate to have a moderate to high effect on the reduction of environmental risks associated with vessel traffic in the selected areas around Svalbard. Especially when considering expedition cruise vessels and overseas cruise vessels. In the analysis, DNV has focused on the vessel types that are expected to be covered by the piloting requirements on Svalbard. DNV has assessed the risk associated with the operational pattern for the relevant vessel types in the selected fjords indicated in the table below and the expected effect from introducing requirements for the use of polar pilot. Relevant vessel types in each of the selected fjords are marked with R in the table below: Relevant areas of operation Vessel categories Magdalenafjorden Recherchefjorden Isfjorden Kongs-fjorden/ Krossfjorden Hinlopenstretet Overseas Cruise vessels R R R R Expedtion Cruise vessels R R R R R & Research vessels Cargo Ship R R Tanker R R The following types of events have been analyzed for each of the fjords. The event code is based on a combination of the vessel code and the event code. Types of events that are analyzed Events involving Overseas cruise vessels - C - Events involving Expedition cruice vessels (Research vessels) - E - Events involving Cargo Vessels Events involving Tankers - L - - T - Events that have impact on habitats/natural areas - H - C-H E-H L-H T-H Events that have impact on seabirds and sea mammals - S - C-S E-S L-S T-S

6 Page 2 Figure 1-1 shows the overall risk picture associated with vessel traffic and potential environmental impacts in the areas around Svalbard. Introduction of requirements for the use of polar pilot or Pilot Exemption Certificate (PEC) is expected to reduce the likelihood that incidents occur in most of the fjords. Introducing polar pilot is expected to have a limited effect on the reduction of the consequences. It must be emphasized, however, that knowledge of emergency preparedness, communications and emergency depot locations in Svalbard, may help to reduce the consequences of an event. The effects from the introduction of a polar pilot service are indicated by arrows shown in Figure 1.1, and the risk after introduction of requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC is indicated by a green circle: 5 Very high likelihood / Occurs frequently 4 High likelihood/ Occurs relatively frequent 3 - Moderate likelihood / Occurs E-H E-S 2 Low likelihood / Very rare E-H E-S C-H C-S 1 Very low likelihood / Occurs very rarely 0 - Unlikely/ Theoretically possible but will most likely not occur L-H L-H L-S L-S T-H T-H T-S T-S C-H C-S Frequency Insignificant environmental damage Minor environmental damage Moderate environmental damage Significant environmental damage Serious environmental damage Consequence With Pilot Without Pilot Classification of risk Critical Risk reducing actions must be implemented. These factors usually require immediate attention Signigicant Risk reducing actions must be evaluated. Risks should as a minimum be monitored Negligible Risk reducing actions are not necessary and shall only be implemented if it is cost effective Figure 1-1 Overall Risk Matrix Potential events with vessels in selected areas around Svalbard

7 Page 3 Risks associated with vessel traffic are considered as follows: Expedition cruise vessels are considered to pose a significant risk to the habitats and natural areas on Svalbard. In Magdalenafjord, this vessel type represents a critical risk. This vessel type is visiting a number of the most sensitive areas around Svalbard and has the highest accident rate of the vessel types that are analyzed. The frequency of accidents involving discharge of pollutants into the environment is expected to be substantially lower. The expected impact of a potential event in which oil is leaking out and the prohibition of the use of heavy oil results in a moderate expected overall environmental impact. In Magdalenafjorden there may however be serious environmental consequences. Overseas cruise vessels are generally considered to pose a significant risk to the environment on Svalbard. In Magdalenagfjord, this vessel type represents a critical risk. This vessel type only visits a limited part of Svalbard. Only one incident is recorded with this vessel type in Svalbard in the recent years, and without registered spill of pollutants to the environment. This vessel type is expected to bring large amounts of oil. Environmental impact from an incident with oil spill with this vessel type is generally considered to be significant. Most critical is Magdalenafjord, where the environmental consequences can be severe. Magdalenafjord and the surrounding areas have a very rich bird life. Tankers are considered to pose a negligible risk to habitat and natural areas on Svalbard due to the expected low frequency of events, however, events with this vessel type can have considerable consequences for seabirds and marine mammals. This vessel type only visits a limited part of Svalbard and is not expected to be impacted by the prohibition of the use of heavy oil. Heavy oil is expected only to be used as fuel while the oil cargo will consist of lighter oil types. There is one registered event involving an oil tanker in recent years, but no registered spill to the environment. The frequency of incidents with this type of vessels which leads to impact from leakage to the environment is considered to be very low. Oil that could potentially leak out is considered to have moderate impact on the environment in the fjords where tankers can be expected to operate. Cargo vessels are considered to pose a negligible risk to the environment on Svalbard. This vessel type visits only a limited part of Svalbard and is not expected to be covered by the prohibition of the use of heavy oil. As a result of the operational pattern, the areas they navigate and the low number of visits per year in Svalbard, the frequency of incidents with the release to the environment from this type of vessel is expected to be very low. Expected environmental impact is assessed to be moderate. In DNV s risk assessment, it is assumed that the competence of a polar pilot (as is suggested by the Norwegian Coastal Administration) is a combination of a pilot and an Ice Navigator in accordance with the recommendations from IMO. DNV has used the following presumption about the regulation as a basis for evaluation of the effects from the introduction of the polar pilot scheme on Svalbard: There are clear requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC on Svalbard Requirements for PEC corresponds to the requirements on the mainland Common criteria are established for the polar pilot service There are common qualification requirements and duties of the polar pilots An approval certificate issued by the Norwegian Coastal Administration is established

8 Page 4 Contact and use of the polar pilots is organized and formalized Qualification of polar pilots is harmonized with the recommendations of the International Maritime Organization The expected effect on reduction of risk by the introduction of polar pilot is based on the following considerations: Collision with iceberg: High effect The likelihood of collisions with icebergs, especially bergy bits and growlers that have fallen from the glaciers in connection with calving, is relatively high in many areas around Svalbard. The risk is especially high in the fjords visited by cruise vessels of all sizes. o o o o o Glaciers are one of the major attractions for tourists Cruise and expedition vessels visit Svalbard mainly in the summer, which is when most glaciers calve Cruise and expedition vessels have a tendency to approach the glaciers to distances that are not appropriate given the risk of calving from glaciers Bergy bits can be difficult to distinguish from the more harmless sea ice. Assuming the pilot is a qualified and experienced ice navigator, a polar pilot will reduce the likelihood that collision with icebergs will occur. They are also expected to know the dangers of approaching a glacier, and will thus reduce the likelihood that the vessel is navigating too close to the glacier front. Collision with sea ice: Moderate effect The likelihood of damage from sea ice is relatively low in most areas the NCA has asked DNV to consider, given the limitation of vessel operation to the summer months, when the tourism industry operates. o The most important exception is Hinlopenstretet, where significant amounts of ice (up to 10 tenths concentration) can fill the sound within 24 hours. Here, a polar pilot with local knowledge of ice conditions in the strait will reduce the likelihood that a ship becomes stuck and damaged by ice. In the autumn, winter and spring period the ice conditions around Svalbard are such that a qualified ice navigator should be required, as required by the IMO Guidelines /09/. Collision with other vessels: Low effect DNV considers that the overall risk of collision between vessels in and around Svalbard is less than the global average for all types of ships included in the analysis. This is due to the low vessel density in these waters. A polar pilot may reduce this further, but the effect is considered to be marginal given the already low likelihood of collision.

9 Page 5 Grounding: Moderate effect Risks related to grounding increases when operating near the glaciers, icebergs and sea ice. Partly due to the following: o o o o It is more likely to experience the fall wind from a glacier or a high mountain ridge in a fjord. This can set an unsuspecting and unprepared vessel into shallow water very quickly. It is also known that ships at anchor can experience drifting by the anchor as a result of fall winds. The need to manoeuvre around icebergs and sea ice in a narrow fjord may force a vessel to navigate into shallow waters. A ship navigating in large concentrations of sea ice can be enclosed and drift due to the moving ice pack. Ships approaching glaciers may end up in uncharted waters. This is especially a risk in the waters in front of retracting glaciers. The glacier may have deposited rocks and boulders, this means that even if the ship keeps a respectable distance from the glacier front to avoid calving from the glacier, they may accidentally get into uncharted areas and run aground. Use of polar pilot with sufficient local knowledge about conditions around Svalbard will reduce the likelihood that the vessel encounters most of the above situations. With regard to fall winds, a sufficiently qualified polar pilot should be aware of the risks and should be prepared to take immediate action if the vessels are exposed to these winds.

10 Page Introduction 2.1 Background for the project In 2007 the Norwegian Coastal Administration prepared the report Polarlostjeneste på Svalbard /01/ on behalf of the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs. The report presents recommendations and proposals for the establishment of guidelines for the pilot service or pilot exemption certificate (PEC) on Svalbard. From 2010 the updated Havne og farvannsloven came in force, this also has influence on Svalbard. The Coastal Administration has also put forward a new proposal for the regulation of the use of pilots which will have an impact on vessel traffic on Svalbard. The Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs has assigned the Norwegian Coastal Administration with the task to contract an external risk assessment to look into today's shipping traffic around Svalbard with respect to the introduction of a pilot service - or pilot exemption certificate that should be introduced for all ship traffic around Svalbard, with the exception of coal traffic out of the Van Mijenfjorden (Svea), where an initiative looking into the introduction of a state-pilot service is already ongoing. As a response to this, the Norwegian Coastal Administration has contracted DNV to conduct a risk assessment for selected areas around Svalbard. 2.2 Project scope DNV's analysis is based on information from Sysselmannen, Longyearbyen Harbor, collection of information from navigational and environmental experts with knowledge of vessel traffic, the environment and conditions on Svalbard, laws, regulations, various maritime statistics and a number of reports that deal with maritime activity in the Arctic waters and areas around Svalbard. See Appendix I for a list of most relevant references. The risk assessment covers the following: Assessment of the expected event rate with the current traffic picture and the current mitigating elements. The consequences of potential accidents: o The extent of potential oil spills in the coastal zone or on land o Potential impacts from oil spills on vulnerable wildlife in the area o Potential impact on important fishing and spawning grounds for fish, as well as identification of the most vulnerable species. Assessing the effect of the proposed polar pilot or PEC service on the likelihood of unwanted events that may occur in the waters around Svalbard. To present the most complete risk contribution picture, the assessment has focused on all vessels types that will be subject to piloting requirements or may be issued a PEC in accordance with the pilot law (losloven).

11 Page 7 NCA has limited the risk assessment to concentrate on the environmental consequences in the following areas: Magdalena Fjord (Magdalenabåen) Kongsfjorden / Krossfjorden (Krone fly) Isfjorden (Revneset) Hinlopenstretet (Troll Ness / Perth Island) Recherchefjorden 2.3 Current guidelines for vessel traffic in Svalbard and the Norwegian Coastal Administration's proposed introduction of requirements to polar pilot or PEC This chapter provides a summary of the most important guidelines that is will apply to vessel traffic on Svalbard. The NCA s assessment of the current "islos" service on Svalbard is also presented. Finally a summary of the main implications in the NCA s suggested requirement to the introduction a polar pilot or PEC is presented. The Norwegian Harbour Law Havne- og farvannsloven on Svalbard Reporting requirements for vessels around Svalbard In order to improve safety at sea and the ability to manage port operations on Svalbard, the law Havne og farvannsloven was made applicable to Svalbard in 2008 through a separate regulation. This meant that similar systems and regulations that apply on the mainland also apply to Svalbard. An updated law came into effect from 1 January 2010, which also includes regulations relating to Svalbard. Requirements for position reporting for vessels in waters near Svalbard are introduced, in addition to its own provisions for harbour protection. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure an overview of vessels positions and movements in the interest of maritime safety and the environment in the waters around Svalbard. The vessels are required to report their positions to the Norwegian Coastal Administration when they go into and out of the waters off Svalbard. This includes when the vessel arrives in or leave from a port, and when the vessels anchor or move from an anchorage. They must also report every twelfth hour when the vessel is underway /19/. A new regulation, regulating the establishment of bird sanctuaries and larger protected areas on Svalbard came into force on The regulation is also governing the use of fuel and movement on Svalbard.

12 Page 8 Translated from changes in verneforskriften. Laid down by Royal Decree 4 September 2009 pursuant to the Act of 15 June 2001 nr.79 on Environmental Protection on Svalbard (Svalbard Environmental Protection Act/svalbardmiljøloven) 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 39, 42 and 99, see 102 Promoted by the Ministry of the Environment.: 2. Chap. V, section II, paragraph 1, new letter f. shall be as follows: For ships calling at the national parks it is not allowed to bring or use other fuel than quality DMA according to ISO 8217 Fuel Standard, with the exception of the shortest safe route through: the northwestern part of South Spitsbergen National Park for sailing to and from the Svea mine the northern part of Forlandet National Park and the southern part of Northwest Spitsbergen National Park for sailing to and from Ny-Ålesund until Northwest Spitsbergen National Park for sailing to and from Magdalenefjorden until Through this regulation, a prohibition of shipping and use of heavy oils in the national parks around Svalbard is introduced. Figur 2-1 below describes the zones where the prohibition of the use of heavy oil is introduced. Figur 2-1 Protected areas on Svalbard where prohibition of heavy oil is introduced (source: Sysselmannen.no) Consequence for DNV s assessment: The regulation s prohibition of shipping and use of heavy oil does not include Isfjorden, but includes all the other areas covered by this assessment. However, an exception until 2015 for some traffic in the other fjords is included. This means in practice that the sailing pattern is not expected to change significantly until The assessment will therefore take into account

13 Page 9 that the vessels with an operational pattern that naturally will follow the shortest safe route can carry and use heavy oils in the passage of: Magdalenafjorden Kongsfjorden / Krossfjorden Recherchefjorden Isfjorden For DNV s assessment the exception implies that cargo ships and overseas cruise vessels that go directly to Ny-Ålesund can use heavy oil, and that overseas cruise ships that visit Magdalenafjord can use heavy oil until It is assumed that expedition cruise vessels have an operational pattern that will be covered by the prohibition of heavy oil and therefore will not have heavy oil on board. A detailed assessment of the consequences for each of the fjords to be analyzed is presented in chapter 7.0 to chapter Today s islos service on Svalbard Today s islos service is used by overseas cruise vessels and larger expedition cruise vessels, but is not used by all cruise vessels. There is disagreement between the players about what the role of the "islos" should be. The points below summarize the Coastal Administration's evaluation related to the scheme. The evaluations are taken from the Norwegian Coastal Administration report from 2006 /01/: The "islos" embarks and disembarks in ports on the mainland No formal contract is established between the islos and the ship in connection with the assignment The islos embarks as one of the passengers The islos has no responsibility for the advice they give The islos service is not organized, missions can come directly from the shipping companies, or through a ship agent The work is provided on the spare time from other professions There is no formal contact between different Islos Scope of the islos service vary widely and can include everything from: o Active participation in the planning and execution of navigation o Polar bear guard when passengers go ashore There are no procedures for communication between ships Not all people operating as islos have formal nautical education Overseas cruise ships are normally calling at Longyearbyen and Ny Ålesund Requests for change of sailing itinerary has occurred underway Approximate duration of assignment: o Assistance to overseas cruise lasts about 5 days o Assistance to larger expedition cruise vessel lasts up to two weeks

14 Page 10 o o Long service periods may occur without adequate rest, sometimes more than a day straight The islos also practice islos service in Greenland waters. Cruise ships must report to the authorities on the arrival and departure from the Greenlandic waters. 2.5 Measures proposed by the Norwegian Coastal Administration amending the guidelines for the use of pilot or PEC by vessel traffic in the area around Svalbard The Norwegian Coastal Administration is proposing the introduction of new guidelines for vessel traffic around Svalbard. The changes involve the use of pilots or PEC for selected vessel types with guidelines similar to the regulations on the mainland. In their report from 2006 the NCA recommended limits for vessels subject to pilot requirement. The proposed regulation suggests similar requirements for vessel traffic around Svalbard as for vessel traffic on the mainland. The text box below summarizes the proposed vessel limits required to use polar pilot on Svalbard. NCA's recommendation on piloting requirements on Svalbard is being updated in line with the requirements that apply on the mainland. Proposed vessel limits requirements for the use of Polarlos on Svalbard /01/ Vessels over 70 meters. Vessel that pushes, or tow one or more objects, where the object or objects, have a total length of more than 50 meters. Vessels with double hull carrying dangerous or polluting cargo in bulk (...) length greater than 50 meters. Vessels with a single hull carrying dangerous or polluting cargo in bulk (...) with a length greater than 35 meters. Nuclear-powered vessels. Vessels with a length greater than 50 meters and carrying more than 12 passengers. Vessels over 50 meters in the waters defined by the NCA. The report also takes into account the possibility to issue Pilot Exemption Certificate (PEC) to navigators in order to satisfy the piloting requirements:

15 Page 11 Proposed guidelines for the use of Pilot Exemption Certificate (Farledsbevis) on Svalbard /01/ When it comes to PEC, the project recommends to categorize vessels with pilot requirements into two groups based on the risk the vessels represent: a group of vessels that represent a low or medium risk where PEC can be used, and a group of vessels that represent a high risk where PEC can not be used. The latter group will have to use a pilot. This will apply to all vessels with a length of 150 meters, vessels with double hull that carry dangerous or polluting cargo in bulk and having a length of more than 90 meters, vessels with single hull carrying dangerous or polluting cargoes in bulk and having a length of more than 70 meters, passenger vessels carrying over 500 passengers which do not have permission for personnel transport under the Act No. 45, and vessels with a length of 150 meters navigating into waters defined by the NCA. Four models for the organization of the piloting service is discussed in the NCA report Polarlostjeneste på Svalbard / 01 /. In principle it is intended that all four models shall be able to ensure the safety of vessel traffic around Svalbard. The models imply that the following regulation be introduced on Svalbard: There are clear requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC on Svalbard Requirements for PEC are the same as on the mainland A common criteria for the content and design of the piloting service is established There are common requirements for qualifications and duties for the polar pilots An approval certificate issued by the Norwegian Coastal Administration is established Distribution of the polar pilots is organized and formalized This implies that a successful introduction of the suggested measures will have the same impact on environmental risks associated with vessel traffic in Svalbard, regardless of which model is chosen, given the requirements to the qualification and competence set by the NCA. In this assessment DNV has been asked to focus on environmental risks. Environmental risk should in principle, given the conditions above, be the same regardless of the choice of model. DNV has suggested a specification of the requirements in Chapter 2.6 in order to give the NCA the best possible decision basis for a recommended model for the organisation of the piloting service on Svalbard. This can be used by the Norwegian Coastal Administration as a basis for determining the recommendation of a model, based on which of the proposed models will be best suited to fulfil the competency requirements in an efficient manner. 2.6 Qualification requirement for polar pilots In their 2006 report /01/ the NCA has proposed a set of requirements to the education of polar pilots. The proposal is presented below:

16 Page 12 Navigational exam The candidate must participate as observer on at least two cruises from the mainland and back to the mainland with an experienced polar pilot (current islos ). All relevant fjords and places on the west side of Spitsbergen must be surveyed. Ice navigation course The candidate must undergo a special course in ice navigation. The course must include a module on the weather conditions on Svalbard. Candidates with considerable experience in ice navigation may be exempted from the course. General knowledge of Svalbard The candidate must acquire a general knowledge of the circumstances of any nature, fauna and flora, which takes up the important provisions in laws and regulations that apply to Svalbard, and dealing with the Sysselmann s authority. A compendium should be developed. The knowledge can also be made available as a lecture in the ice navigation course. Candidates who are exempt from the ice navigation course must be able to confirm that he has read the compendium and gone through the lecture, for example, on a DVD. Pilots are typically licensed by a coastal administration for a specific locality and route. A licensed pilot is an expert on the waters for which he is licensed. Pilots are expected to know the peculiarities of those waters: winds, weather, tides, currents, depths, shoal waters, aids to navigation, landmarks, etc. The knowledge of the local conditions extensively augments the information that is available from the charts and sailing instructions. An Ice Pilot or islos is an informal term that has no generally accepted definition. They may be licensed or un-licensed, and competence levels may or may not be defined. For this reason, it is best to avoid the term Ice Pilot and adopt instead the terminology used by the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters. The IMO Guidelines set expectations for the operation of ships in polar waters, including the waters of the northern Barents Sea and the Svalbard archipelago. The IMO Guidelines are intended to address those additional provisions deemed necessary for consideration beyond existing requirements of the SOLAS Convention, in order to take into account the climatic conditions of polar ice-covered waters and to meet appropriate standards of maritime safety and pollution prevention. The Guidelines are recommendatory. The IMO Guidelines state that all ships operating in polar ice-covered waters should carry at least one Ice Navigator qualified in accordance with chapter 14 of the Guidelines. "Ice Navigator" means any individual who, in addition to being qualified under the STCW Convention, is specially trained and otherwise qualified to direct the movement of a ship in ice covered waters. Continuous monitoring of ice conditions by an Ice Navigator should be available at all times while the ship is underway and making way in the presence of ice. Chapter 14 of the Guidelines states that the Ice Navigator should have documentary evidence of having satisfactorily completed an approved training program in ice navigation. Such a training program should provide knowledge, understanding and proficiency required for operating a ship in Arctic ice-covered waters, including recognition of ice formation and characteristics, ice indications; ice manoeuvring, use of ice forecasts, atlases and codes, hull stress caused by ice, ice escort operations, ice-breaking operations and effect of ice accretion on vessel stability.

17 Page 13 In summary, an Ice Navigator is a licensed deck officer that is competent in navigating a ship in ice-infested waters. However, it is important to point out that when it comes to navigating in the waters of a particular geographic area, such as Svalbard, an Ice Navigator does not necessarily have the detailed local knowledge of those waters that would be expected of a Pilot. At present, Norway has not specified the criteria for an approved training program in ice navigation. Possible criteria for such an approval can be found in the following references: IMO STW 40/7/25: Training requirements for ships operating in ice-covered waters. Proposal submitted by Norway to amend Chapter V of the STCW Convention and Code (2008) /10/ IMO STW 40/7/X: Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualifications of masters, deck officers on operation of ships in ice-covered waters. Proposal submitted by the Russian Federation to amend Chapter V of the STCW Convention and Code (2008) /11/ DNV Standard for Certification No : Competence of Officers for Navigation in Ice (2008) /03/ For the purposes of this risk evaluation, DNV has assumed that the Polar Pilot proposed by the Norwegian Coastal Administration is, or should be, a combination of a Pilot and an Ice Navigator as described above. 3.0 Vessel traffic and registered events in the areas around Svalbard This chapter starts with a summary of ship traffic in the area around Svalbard and the proposed requirements for the use of polar pilot based on the Norwegian Coastal Administration report Polarlostjeneste på Svalbard /01/is presented. The second part of the chapter summarizes and collects statistical information about incidents related to various types of vessels in general /04/ and the Svalbard area in particular /07/. In this process, DNV has been in contact with the Sysselmann on Svalbard through information consultant Liv Asta Ødegaard and Longyearbyen Harbour through Harbour Manager Kjetil Braten. DNV has received information regarding ship types, ship traffic and new regulations and rules in connection with traffic in the Svalbard area. This includes accident statistics regarding ship accidents in the Svalbard area, call statistics for different ship types to Longyearbyen from 1995 to 3 rd quarter 2009, information on restricted areas (cultural), prohibition of heavy oil in selected areas around Spitsbergen and the Nordaustlandet and information on the AIS system in the Svalbard region (number of receivers, coverage etc). DNV has had access to information about ship traffic collected by the AIS system, through cooperation with the Norwegian Coastal Administration. 3.1 Vessel traffic around Svalbard and requirements for use of polar pilot Each of the chapters below give a short summary of the characteristics of the different types of vessels operating on Svalbard, including size, operational pattern and the expected requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC Overseas cruise vessels Includes vessels with a length between 100 and 300 meters

18 Page 14 Stay 1-2 days in Svalbard waters per visit Normally let people ashore at 1-2 locations, mainly on the west coast of Spitsbergen AIS data and information on the operational pattern for Cruise vessels indicates that vessels primarily visit a select few and relatively narrow locations. Most visited places are Magdalena Fjord, Ny-Ålesund and Longyearbyen (see Figure 3-1). Only one incident (grounding) has been registered with passenger ships over 120 meters in the period from 1981 to The average number of port calls from overseas cruise ships in the period is about 30, with an increase in recent years to between 40 and 55 port calls per year. Policies suggested by NCA imply that these vessels will be covered by the pilot requirements for Svalbard Vessels of more than 150 meters or with more than 500 passengers will not be able to get PEC Figure 3-1 Most common route for overseas cruise traffic around Svalbard (ref /01/) Expedition cruise vessels Vessel size varies from about 40 to 120 meters Make trips of varying lengths. Typical duration is 3-14 days Operates all around Svalbard, see Figure 3-2 Lands passengers in more locations than the overseas cruise ships

19 Page 15 The vessels normally do not go to the shore, but must set out smaller boats for tourists to come ashore Expedition Cruise vessels with a length of 50 meters or a passenger capacity of over 12 will be covered by the pilot requirements according to criteria set by the NCA NCA expects that most skippers on expedition cruise vessels are eligible for a PEC Figure 3-2 Most common route and most common places to visit during expedition cruises (/01/) Day cruise vessels Small boats, feet Make day cruises from Longyearbyen to Isfjorden with landing in Barentsburg, Pyramiden, and occasionally some other places in the Isfjord area (see Figure 3 3) Will most likely be exempt for polar pilot requirements and PEC Figure 3-3 Area of operations for the day cruise vessels on Svalbard (indicated by red circle) (ref /01/)

20 Page Sailing boats / yachts Between 50 and 100 private yachts have visited Svalbard in the summer period every year in recent years These vessels are below the vessel limits covered by polar pilot requirements Cargo and tanker vessels (except traffic to and from the Svea) Typical vessel size is between 70 and 110 meters Number of port calls to Longyearbyen per year from cargo vessels has varied between 50 and 80 in the period NCA estimates that 4-5 port calls per year are tank vessels Four incidents involving cargo vessels have been recorded in the period from One of those with vessels was carrying oil The vessels are expected to be subject to polar pilot requirements Frequent visits suggests that most of the vessels are expected to be eligible for PEC Fishing vessels Typical vessel size is between 25 and 60 meters The fishing takes place mainly in the cod and shrimp areas south and west of Svalbard The Fishing vessels usually do not visit Longyearbyen. Since 2003 the number of port calls from fishing boats to Longyearbyen ranged between 15 and 30 per year. Since 1981 fishing vessels have accounted for over 60% of events in the waters around Svalbard. In total there are 48 recorded incidents involving fishing vessels in the period from 1981 to The last 10 years, however, there has only been recorded three incidents involving fishing vessels. Fishing vessels over the vessel limits will be subject to polar pilot requirements. The NCA expects that most fishing vessels will be eligible for PEC Public, educational and research vessels This category includes, educational and research vessels, Navy and Coast Guard vessels and vessels belonging to the Sysselmann 2 events involving icebreakers and 7 incidents with research-related vessels have been recorded in the period from 1981 to 2008 Navy and Coast Guard vessels are exempt from the polar pilot requirements. All other vessels over the vessel limits will be subject to polar pilot requirements The majority of these vessels are expected to be eligible for PEC 3.2 Overview of registered accidents in the waters around Svalbard DNV's assessment of accidents in the areas around Svalbard is based on international maritime statistics /04/ and NMD statistics Svalbard /07/.

21 Page 17 Distribution of types of accidents Figure 3-4 Overview of different types of registered vessel incidents in Norwegian waters /05/ Figure 3 4 shows an overview of different types of events that are recorded in different areas along the Norwegian coast, including the area around Svalbard. The figure indicates that the proportion of accidents due to grounding is far greater on Svalbard than along the mainland coast. This may be due to several factors: The density of traffic in the waters around Svalbard is low The waters around Svalbard are less charted compared to the mainland coast There are fewer navigational aids in the waters around Svalbard Different operational pattern, and a proportionately large number of cruise vessels Figure 3 5 shows a chart indicating the accidents reported to the Norwegian Maritime Directorate from 1981 to This gives an indication of which areas have the greatest frequency of incidents. The chart shows that the number of registered events is particularly large in the Isfjorden, which also has the largest vessel traffic on Svalbard. It must be emphasized that the chart does not show all the events. Grounding Collission Structural failure Fire/explosion

22 Page 18 Figure 3-5 Accidents reported to the Norwegian Maritime Directorate in the period (Source: Norwegian Coastal Administration's GIS database) Figure 3 6 shows the types of vessel accidents recorded in the waters in the geographic area of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bear Island from July 2008 according to the Norwegian Maritime Directorate accident database/06/. Vessel traffic on Svalbard is mainly limited to the summer months (June to September). This means that the number of vessels calling at and operating around Svalbard is higher in the summer period from May to September than the rest of the year. As shown in the figure grounding accounts for more than half of the incidents in the waters. All registered accidents in the narrow coastal waters and 79% of the registered accidents in the outer coastal waters are due to grounding. Collisions in the area around Svalbard are primarily between fishing vessels. 13 out of 14 recorded collisions in the area during the period involve fishing vessels. Kollisjon; Collision 14 Other Annen accidents ulykke; 18 Brann/Explosjon Fire/explosion ; 7 Grunnstøting; Grounding 37 Figure 3-6 The distribution between types of incidents which have occurred in the area around Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bear Island in the period from (ref /07/)

23 Page 19 Figure 3 7 and Figure 3 8 shows the distribution of the 76 recorded incidents which have occurred with different vessel types in the period between 1981 and As shown in the figure, fishing vessels account for 64% of the registered events, while cruise ships and passenger traffic together account for 18%. Research vessels, icebreakers and other supply vessels; 9 Marine, Coast guard, public; 1 Yachts, Sailboats; 1 Cruise; 10 Day Cruises and other smaller vessels; 3 Cargo vessels; 4 Fishing / trawler; 48 Figure 3-7 Registered events with different vessel types in the area around Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bear Island in the period Environmental damage / pollution Leakage Contact Damage, Quays, Bridges etc Collision Heavy Weather Damage Capsizing Grounding Fire / Explosjon Other accident 0 Cruise Day Cruises and other smaller vessels Cargo vessels Fishing / trawler Marine, Coast guard, public Research vessels, icebreakers and other supply vessels Yachts, Sailboats Figur 3-1 Distribution of types of registered incidents with different vessel types in the area around Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bear Island in the period (Note: The category cruise ship includes expedition cruises) Assessment of the number of incidents involving each of the different vessel types over a given period of time can be used as indication of the return period for accidents in the waters around Svalbard for each of the different vessel types. Return period between events with different vessel types is related to the vessel type s operational pattern and the number of visits to

24 Page 20 Svalbard. This gives an indication of how often one can expect that events occur with a given type of vessel in the waters around Svalbard. Table 3 1 shows the return periods between events with different vessel types and is based on the statistics for the area in the period It must be emphasized that the statistical basis for Svalbard is very limited, which implies that the table must be considered as an indication. (For example, a single, extra event with one of the vessel types with few registered incidents in the period will lead to a significant reduction in the estimated return period). Table 3-1 Expected return period for events with different types of boats in the waters around Svalbard Vessel Type Return Period event (statistically expected average number of years between each event) Overseas Cruise 27,0 Expedition Cruises 3,0 Day Cruises and other smaller vessels 9,0 Cargo ship 6,8 Fishing / trawler 0,6 Marine, Coast guard, public 27,0 Research vessels, icebreakers and other support 3,0 vessels Yachts, Sailboats 27,0 Total 0,4 3.3 Assessment of accident rates for different vessel types in Svalbard waters The AIS coverage on Svalbard and accident statistics from the waters around Svalbard is limited. To assess the likelihood of accidents on Svalbard, DNV has therefore chosen to combine the statistical data from Svalbard with registered generic accident frequencies (ref /04/). The analysis is limited to the vessel categories operating in the selected areas around Svalbard and from the NCA's proposed guidelines are expected to be the subject to the polar pilot or PEC requirements. Skip categories that will be exempt from the pilot requirements will not be included in the scenario analysis. Fishing vessels only operate on to a small extent in the areas to be covered by the analysis and will therefore not be included in the analysis although this vessel group historically has had the greatest frequency of accidents. Based on the condition of required use of polar pilot or PEC, DNV has assessed the probability of events for the following vessel types: Overseas cruise vessels Expedition cruise and research vessels Cargo vessels Tankers (Please note that the traffic associated with the Svea mine is not included in the scope of the analysis) The overall accident rates are given for certain types of accidents for specific ship categories per year. The number ship year per period is calculated for each category in order to assess vessels exposure and estimate the frequency of different types of accidents for vessels operating in waters around Svalbard. The calculation is based on the estimated number of port calls from different types of ships and average expected sailing time between each port of call on Svalbard. It has not been possible to separate the accident rate for educational and

25 Page 21 research vessels as a separate category in the overall statistics. Therefore, educational and research vessels are evaluated in the context of Expedition cruise vessels. Both vessels groups are roughly equal, have roughly equal fuel capacity and can be expected to operate in the same areas around Svalbard. Overview of the average number of calls in recent years and the estimated exposure for the various categories are given in the table below. These numbers are associated with uncertainty, and must be viewed as an estimate of actual sailing activity for these ship types in Svalbard waters. Table 3-2 Average number of port calls in recent years and the estimated exposure for the different vessel categories Est. Travel time between registered Exposure port calls (Ship Year) Vessel type Average port calls (A) per year Min Max Average number of days exposed (D) Overseas cruise vessels ,26 Expedition cruise ,5 3,62 Cargo vessel ,5 0,14 Tanker ,5 0,02 A*D 365 By looking at the generic accident frequency in relation with the amount of traffic on Svalbard, it is possible to estimate the statistical expected frequency of accidents on Svalbard. In the following table this is represented by the return period in years. This will indicate how many years you can expect to pass between every incident in a random area which is visited by a similar numbers of vessels as on Svalbard. Table 3-3 Estimated number of years between events in any area with similar traffic as Svalbard Return Period general Estimated number of years between events in any area with similar traffic as Svalbard (based on general statistics) Vessel categories included in the analysis Non serious incidents Serious incidents Total loss Overall Overall Return Period Svalbard. Estimated number of years between events on Svalbard (based on statistics for Svalbard) Overseas cruise vessels Expedition cruise Cargo vessel Tanker If we compare the overall return period with the results in Table 3 1, we see that the correlation between events related to cruise and expedition cruise vessels are reasonably good, while the correlation for cargo vessels and tankers are very poor. This is partly due to lack of statistical basis from Svalbard. In the analysis, the general statistics is therefore given most weight, but area specific evaluations from navigational experts are also included as part of the evaluation. This is evaluated in relation to the actual statistics from Svalbard.

26 Page Potential spill from vessel traffic in Svalbard waters Bunker and cargo capacity for the most relevant vessels for each of the areas to be analyzed is estimated on the basis of information about the ships operating in waters around Svalbard, and their expected operational pattern. Potential spills as a result of an event are evaluated for registered visits to Svalbard and general statistics on the average oil spill frequency and amount per type of vessel. In the scenario analysis potential emissions are estimated based on the assumption that the vessel will be near full bunker capacity for safety reasons and that the design of the fuel tanks will limit the amount of oil spill. The analysis is based on statistical spill, estimated on the basis of average proportion of incidents with the different vessel types that result in oil spill to the environment. Note that the average size of vessels that operates on Svalbard will be smaller than the average size for each vessel type included in the general statistics. It is assumed that approximately 40% of total bunker capacity may be discharged in any given incident. Other hazardous substances such as hydraulic oil, lubricating oil, etc. are included in the estimate of oil spills. These volumes are considered to have less impact compared to the volume of fuel; the only exception will be oil tankers. An incident will not necessarily result in spill of oil to the environment. General statistics and lessons learned from Svalbard show that the probability that an event will actually result in the discharge of oil to the environment is very low. Table 3.4 shows the overall statistics for events with oil spill seen in the context of the different vessel types and the registered vessel density on Svalbard. Note that that there is great uncertainty regarding the relationship between vessel accidents and actual emissions to the environment. Table 3-4 Statistical correlation between the incidents and spills in areas with similar traffic Svalbard Vessel categories included in the analysis General return period between events that may cause emissions to the environment % proportion of accidents that are expected to result in the discharge of oil into the environment (rounded based on general statistics) Statistically expected return period between oil spills from various types of vessels (the average number of years between each oil spill given the current level of activity) Average size of oil spills (statistically expected number of tonnes per spill) Cruiseskip, oversjøiske 32 1,5% Ekspedisjonscruise 2 1,5% Lasteskip 120 1,0% Tankskip ,0% Overseas cruise vessels and tankers that call at Longyearbyen with petroleum products have the greatest potential for emissions from and incident. Expedition cruise vessels, as well as Coast Guard and Navy vessels operating in waters around Svalbard are also expected to have a relatively large bunker capacity. Coast Guard and Navy vessels will not be subject polar pilot requirements and will therefore not be included in the analysis. (Vessels that are not included in the analysis are indicated in gray in the table below)

27 Page 23 Table 3-5 Vessel types and potential oil spill per area to be assessed Potential oil spill per area Overseas cruise vessels Expedition cruise vessels Cargo vessels HFO/ MDO NA (HFO)/ MDO/MGO HFO NA NA NA Fuel tankers MDO/MGO NA NA NA Research MDO/MGO vesels Day Cruise MDO/MGO NA NA NA Yacht / Sailing Boats Marine / Coast Guard vessel Fishing vessels MDO 2 0,1 NA 2 0,1 2 0,1 2 0,1 2 0,1 MDO/MGO MDO / MGO Not included in the analysis because not relevant for the assessment of the pilot or PCA NA NA NA NA NA The analysis examines the consequences of incidents with the different vessel types in each of the fjords to be analyzed. The table below shows which types of vessels are operating in the different fjords. Table 3-6 Relevant operational areas where potential events with the different vessel types are considered NCA Vessel types Ammount of bunker Hinlopenstretet Magdalenafjorden Isfjorden Kongsfjorden /krossfjorden Recherchefjorden Type of oil Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min ID Vessel categories Relevant operational areas Magdalenafjorden Recherchefjorden Isfjorden Kongs-fjorden/ Krossfjorden Hinlopenstretet 1 Overseas cruise R R R R vessels 2 Expedition Cruises R R R R R (research vessels) 3 Cargo ship R R 4 Tanker R R

28 Page Analysis model and scale for the risk analysis For each of the areas selected by the Norwegian Coastal Administration to be part of the analysis, DNV has assessed threats and possible consequences, and looked at the barriers that contribute to reducing the likelihood that threats actually lead to the undesirable event, grounding or collision. Figure 4 1 illustrates the overall picture used as basis for the assessments in each scenario. Critical Will have significant influence on the traffic in the area Significant May influence the traffic in the area Negligible Will have insignificant influence on the traffic in the area Figure 4-1 Overall description of the relationship between threats that can lead to an event with possible consequences and classification of threats Probability of grounding: The waters around Svalbard are generally poorly charted compared with the waters around mainland Norway. This, in combination with operations in areas with sea ice and icebergs, implies that the probability of grounding increases. Grounding may occur as a result of: wrong navigation lack of or unclear charts

29 Page 25 misinterpretation of the navigational instruments and radar image manoeuvring as a result of ice underestimation of the heavy fall winds Probability of collision: As discussed in the evaluation above, collision risk in the areas around Svalbard is considered to be less than what we see in the general statistics. This is partly due to the low vessel density in the waters. Collision with the iceberg, especially bergy bits or growlers, has a high probability in many areas around Svalbard. This risk is particularly high in the fjords visited by overseas cruise vessels and expedition cruise vessels. The following factors contribute to this risk scenario: These areas are one of the main attractions for tourists Cruise visits take place primarily during the summer months, which is the period of years where glaciers calve most Cruise and expedition ships have a tendency to move closer to glacier fronts than recommended and are extra vulnerable to the dangers of calving from the glacier It can be difficult to separate the small pieces of glacier ice from the more harmless sea ice, which may result in underestimation of the danger of collision 4.1 Event categories being considered in the risk analysis DNV has used the international definition of risk as basis for the analysis, where the risk is described as the relationship between the frequency of a given event and the consequences that is expected to follow if the event occurs: Risk = Frequency of a given event X Expected consequences if the event occurs Risk is plotted in a risk matrix according to the assessment of the frequency of an event occurring (vertical axis) and the consequences if that event occurs (horizontal axis), see Figure 4 2 Risk Matrix and classification of risk.

30 Page 26 5 Very high likelihood / Occurs frequently 4 High likelihood/ Occurs relatively frequent 3 - Moderate likelihood / Occurs 2 Low likelihood / Very rare 1 Very low likelihood / Occurs very rarely 0 - Unlikely/ Theoretically possible but will most likely not occur Frequency Insignificant environmental damage Minor environmental damage Moderate environmental damage Significant environmental damage Serious environmental damage Consequence Classification of risk Critical Risk Reducing actions must be implemented. These factors usually require immediate attention Signigicant Risk reducing actions must be evaluated. Risks should as a minimum be monitored Negligible Risk reducing actions are not necessary and shall only be implemented if it is cost effective Figure 4-2 Risk Matrix and classification of risk DNV has chosen to focus the risk analysis on a set of defined events in order to see the connection between the risk picture in the selected fjords and the overall risk picture. Each of the events will be plotted in the risk matrix based on the assessed risk in each of the fjords. Table 4-1 Event Categories being considered in the analysis Event categories being concidered Events involving Overseas cruise vessels - C - Events involving Expedition cruise vessels (Research vessels) - E - Events involving Cargo Vessels Events involving Tankers - L - - T - Event that causes damage to habitats / natural areas C-H E-H L-H T-H Event that causes damage to seabirds / marine mammals C-S E-S L-S T-S

31 Page Probability / frequency scale for the assessment of risk Table 4 2 shows the scale indicating how often an event will occur. DNV has chosen to use a logarithmic scale in order to distinguish between the frequency or return periods for events with the different vessel types and the different areas. Table 4-2 Frequency / probability scale for use in risk analysis 5 - Very high probability / occurs frequently Expected to happen more than once a year 4 - High probability / occur relatively frequent Expected to happen more than once every 10 years but less than once every 1 year 3 - Moderate probability / occurs Expected to happen more than once every 100 years, but less than once every 10 year 2 - Low probability / very rare Expected to happen more than once every 1000 years but less than once every 100 year 1 - Very low probability / occurs very rarely Expected to happen more than once every years but less than once every 1000 year 0 - Unlikely / Theoretically possible, but will most likely not occur Expected to happen less than once every year Since the analysis focuses on the vessels operations in areas around Svalbard the analysis takes into account that the expected frequency of incidents can be higher than what is shown in the general statistics. This also means that the frequency of spills can be expected to be higher than in the general statistics. In the analysis the likelihood of oil spill is considered to be one level higher than that noted in Table 3.4 on statistical correlation between incidents and spills in areas with similar traffic as Svalbard. 4.3 Assessment of environmental consequences and impact scale for use in risk analysis Definition environmental resource: A biological population or habitat. DNV has chosen to use the MIRA (Environmental Risk Analysis) methodology as a basis for the consequence assessments in the analysis. The MIRA methodology is used by the oil industry and presents the environmental damage from oil spill expressed by the time it takes until a resource (biological population or habitat) is restored. The environmental damage is generally assessed against the quantity of oil and the vulnerability of the resources that may be affected. In this risk assessment oil spill is the key element. The consequence scale in Table 4.3 is therefore developed based on the elements used in the acclaimed MIRA methodology. The basis for the assessments, ie the assessment of environmental impact, is a damage-based analysis as described in the methodology for environmental risk assessment (MIRA) revision from 2007.

32 Page 28 Table 4-3 Consequence scale for use in environmental assessments in the risk analysis Insignificant environmental damage Probable recovery time for identified environmental resources is <1 month Minor environmental damage Probable recovery time for identified environmental resources is from 1 month to 1 year Moderate damage to the environment Probable recovery time for identified environmental resources is from 1 to 3 years. Significant environmental damage Probable recovery time for identified environmental resources is from 3 to 10 years Severe environmental damage Probable recovery time for identified environmental resources is more than 10 years. 5.0 Data used as a basis for the environmental impact assessment Important data used in the assessment of environmental impact is the stock size for species at Svalbard that may be affected by an accidental discharge of oil, in addition to the amount of individuals residing in the fjords included in the analysis. A summary of data used is provided in Error! Reference source not found.. Table 5-1 Stock size of selected populations of sea birds (at Svalbard) and assumed stock share in the fjords and surrounding areas. Data from the internet pages of Norwegian Polar Institute. Reference is also made to Appendix VI. Species Category Stock size Assumed share of stock (%) in the fjords and surrounding areas 1 (Svalbard and Magdalena Kong/Kross Hinlopen - Recherche Isfjorden Bjørnøya) fjord fjord stretet fjord Polar gull Gull nesting pairs Little auk Auk > 1 mill nesting 11 <1 3 3 <1 pairs Polar Auk nesting guillemot pairs Guillemot Auk nesting <1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. pairs (Bjørnøya) Black Auk nesting 3 2 <1 6 <1 Guillemot pairs Kittiwake Gull nesting 2) 2) 2) 2) 2) pairs Puffin Auk nesting <1 8 4 pairs Northern Petrel 0,5 1 mill <1 <1 <1 <1 5 Fulmar nesting pairs Ivory Gull Gull n.a. n.a. 11 n.a. n.a. Common Duck Eider nesting pairs Arctic Skua Skua ) 2) 2) 2) 2) nesting pairs Barnacle Goose n.a. n.a. 5 Goose individuals Pink-footed Goose n.a. 2) n.a. n.a. 2) Goose Great Black- Gull ) 2) 2) 2) 2) backed Gull nesting pairs Walrus Walrus 2000 individuals 4 % of haulout sites n.a. 15 % of haul-out sites Polar bear n.a. n.a. Assumed 1% 4 % of haulout sites Assumed 1% 1 n.a.

33 Page 29 1) Taken from overview map found at the intranet pages of Norwegian Polar Institute 2) Lack of data. Assumed to be 2 % of stock. n.a. not applicable The type of habitat/nature type (coastline) that can be affected by an oil spill is used to asses environmental impact on habitat/natural areas. In MIRA, vulnerability is specified for each species. The vulnerability decides how many individuals, out of the total amount of affected individuals, will die of an oil spill of a certain size. The vulnerability for the species relevant in this study is shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Vulnerability is categorised into three groups; S1, S2 and S3. S1 indicates the least vulnerable, whilst S3 indicates the most vulnerable. Table 5-2 Vulnerability for biological environmental resources. Kategori Auk Duck Goose Gull Ivory Gull Kittiwake Northe rn fulmar Arctic Skua Nesting S3 S3 S2 S2 S1 S1 S1 S2 Casting site/haul-out site Forageing Walrus S2 Polar bear S3 The MOB model uses different terminology and types to indicate the vulnerability for habitats/natural areas, compared to terminology and types used in the data basis for this analysis. The table below indicates the MOB model terminology in terms of types and vulnerability, for the habitats/natural areas identified in this analysis. Vulnerability for habitats/natural areas is categorised into three groups; S1 to S3. S1 indicates the least vulnerable, whilst S3 indicates the most vulnerable. Tabell 5-3 Vulnerability for habitat/natural areas Coastal habitat in MOB Vulnerability model Exposed Protected Bare rock-face Rock beach 1 2 Sea cliff Rock cliff high and low 1 1 Boulder coastline Talus cones 1 3 Beach of pebbles Slope of loose material high 2 3 and low, beach ridge No data Glacier front, unclassified 1 1 In general, the basis for the analysis is that oil drift on the sea will depend on a variety of factors such as wind and wave conditions. Oil of MDO/MGO types will disintegrate relatively quickly. The basis for the analysis is that approximately 80% of the oil will be gone from the sea after 24 hours (20% of the oil remains). For HFO oil, 30% is assumed to be gone after 24 hours (70% of the oil remains). HFO oil is more persistent than MDO/MGO oil and the potential for environmental damage is higher. As a result of disintegration of oil, it is not realistic to assume that all environmental resources will be affected by the amount of oil discharged in an accident discharge. For each scenario in the five fjords, the oil amounts that form the basis for the analysis is indicated.

34 Page Overall risk associated with vessel traffic in selected areas around Svalbard Event categories being concidered Events involving Overseas cruise vessels - C - Events involving Expedition cruice vessels (Research vessels) - E - Events involving Cargo Vessels Events involving Tankers - L - - T - Event that causes damage to habitats / natural areas C-H E-H L-H T-H Event that causes damage to seabirds / marine mammals C-S E-S L-S T-S Figure 6 1 shows the overall risk picture associated with vessel traffic and potential environmental impacts in the areas around Svalbard. Risk associated with vessel traffic is considered as follows: Expedition cruise vessels are considered to pose a significant risk to the habitats and natural areas on Svalbard. In Magdalenafjord, this vessel type represents a critical risk. This vessel type is visiting a number of the most sensitive areas around Svalbard and has the highest accident rate of the vessel types that are analyzed. The frequency of accidents involving discharge of pollutants into the environment is expected to be substantially lower. The expected impact of a potential event in which oil is leaking out and the prohibition of the use of heavy oil results in a moderate expected overall environmental impact. In Magdalenafjorden there may, however, be serious environmental consequences. Overseas cruise vessels are generally considered to pose a significant risk to the environment on Svalbard. In Magdalenagfjord, this vessel type represents a critical risk. This vessel type only visit a limited part of Svalbard. Only one incident is recorded with this vessel type in Svalbard in the recent years, and without registered spill of pollutants to the environment. This vessel type is expected to bring large amounts of oil. Environmental impact from an incident with oil spill with this vessel type is generally considered to be significant. Most critical is Magdalenafjord, where the environmental consequences can be severe. Magdalenafjord and the surrounding areas have a very rich bird life. Tankers are considered to pose a negligible risk to habitat and natural areas on Svalbard due to the expected low frequency of events, however, events with this vessel type can have considerable consequences for seabirds and marine mammals. This vessel type only visits a limited part of Svalbard and is not expected to be impacted by the prohibition of the use of heavy oil. Heavy oil is expected only to be used as fuel while the oil cargo will consist of lighter oil types. There is one registered event involving an oil tanker in recent years, with no registered spill to the environment. The frequency of incidents with this type of vessels which leads to impact from leakage to the environment is considered to be very low. Oil that could potentially leak out is considered to have moderate impact on the environment in the fjords where tankers can be expected to operate. Cargo vessels are considered to pose a negligible risk to the environment on Svalbard. This vessel type visit only a limited part of Svalbard and is not expected to be covered by the prohibition of the use of heavy oil. As a result of the operational pattern, the areas they navigate and the low number of visits per year in Svalbard, the frequency of incidents with the release to the environment from this type of vessel is expected to be very low. Expected environmental impact is assessed to be moderate.

35 Page 31 5 Very high likelihood / Occurs frequently 4 High likelihood/ Occurs relatively frequent 3 - Moderate likelihood / Occurs E-H E-S 2 Low likelihood / Very rare E-H E-S C-H C-S 1 Very low likelihood / Occurs very rarely 0 - Unlikely/ Theoretically possible but will most likely not occur L-H L-H L-S L-S T-H T-H T-S T-S C-H C-S Frequency Insignificant environmental damage Minor environmental damage Moderate environmental damage Significant environmental damage Serious environmental damage Consequence With Pilot Without Pilot Figure 6-1 Overall risk matrix events involving vessels in selected areas around Svalbard 6.1 Expected impact from the introduction of requirements for polar pilot or Pilot Exemption Certificate (PEC) Implementation of requirements for the use of polar pilot or PCA is expected to reduce the likelihood that incidents occur in most of the fjords. This effect is indicated by arrows in Figure 6.1. The risk after implementation of the requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC is indicated by a green circle: Conclusion: Risks associated with expedition cruise vessels and overseas cruise vessels may in some areas involve critical risk to the environment on Svalbard. DNV considers the introduction required polar pilot or Pilot Exemption Certificate to have a moderate to high effect on the reduction of environmental risks associated with vessel traffic in the selected areas around Svalbard. Especially when considering expedition cruise vessels and overseas cruise vessels.

36 Page 32 The conclusions are based on the following considerations: Collision with iceberg: High effect The likelihood of collisions with icebergs, especially bergy bits that have fallen from the glaciers in connection with calving, is relatively high in many areas around Svalbard. The risk is especially high in the fjords visited by cruise vessels of all sizes. o o o o o Glaciers are one of the major attractions for tourists Cruise and expedition vessels are visiting Svalbard mainly in the summer, which is when glaciers calve most Cruise and expedition vessel has a tendency to approach the glaciers to distances that are not appropriate given the risk of calving from glaciers Bergy bits can be difficult to distinguish from the more harmless sea ice. Assuming the pilot is a qualified and experienced ice navigator, a polar pilot will reduce the likelihood that collision with icebergs occurs. They are also expected to know the dangers of approaching a glacier, and will thus reduce the likelihood that the vessel is navigating too close to the glacier front. Collision with sea ice: Moderate effect The likelihood of damage from sea ice is relatively low in most areas the NCA has asked DNV to consider, given the limitation of vessel operation to the summer months when the tourism industry operates. o The most important exception is Hinlopenstretet, where significant amounts of ice (up to 10 tenths concentration) can fill the sound within 24 hours. Here, a polar pilot with local knowledge of ice conditions in the strait will reduce the likelihood that a ship becomes stuck and damaged by ice. In the autumn, winter and spring period the ice conditions around Svalbard are such that a qualified ice navigator should be required, as required by the IMO Guidelines /09/. Collision with other vessels: Low effect DNV considers that the overall risk of collision between vessels in and around Svalbard is less than the global average for all types of ships included in the analysis. This is due to the low vessel density in these waters. A polar pilot may reduce this further, but the effect is considered to be marginal given the already low likelihood of collision. Grounding: Moderate effect Risks related to grounding increases when operating near the glaciers, icebergs and sea ice. Partly due to the following: o o o It is more likely to experience the fall wind from a glacier or a high mountain ridge in a fjord. This can set an unsuspecting and unprepared vessel into shallow water very quickly. It is also known that ships at anchor can experience drifting by the anchor as a result of fall winds The need to manoeuvre around icebergs and sea ice in a narrow fjord may force a vessel to navigate into shallow waters A ship navigating in large concentrations of sea ice can be enclosed and drift due to the moving ice pack

37 Page 33 o Ships approaching glaciers may end up in uncharted waters. This is especially a risk in the waters in front of retracting glaciers. The glacier may have deposited rocks and boulders, this means that even if the ship keeps a respectable distance from the glacier front to avoid calving from the glacier, they may accidentally get into uncharted areas and run aground Use of polar pilot with sufficient local knowledge about conditions around Svalbard will reduce the likelihood that the vessel encounters most of the above situations. With regard to fall winds, a sufficiently qualified polar pilot should be aware of the risks and should be prepared to take immediate action if the vessels are exposed to these winds. 7.0 Risk associated with vessel traffic in Magdalena (Magdalenabåen) Types of events that are analyzed Tyoes of events with Overseas Cruise vessels - C - Tyoes of events with Expedition Cruice vessels (Research vessels) - E - Events that have impact on habitats/natural areas - H - C-H E-H Events that have impact on seabirds and sea mammals - S - C-S E-S Figure 7 1 shows the overall risk picture associated with vessel traffic and the potential environmental consequences of Magdalenafjorden. Risk associated with vessel traffic in Magdalenafjorden is assessed as follows: Only overseas cruise ships and expedition cruise ships expected to operate in Magdalenafjorden The vessels can be expected to visit the more risky parts of the fjord. Several glaciers that descend to the sea increase the risk of collision Magdalenafjorden and the surrounding areas have a very rich bird life with a relatively high population of several species. There are several types of vessels sailing in the area and environmental consequences are dependent on the type of oil discharged, and which species that may be affected. An accidental spill of 1400 tonnes of oil (HFO) from a cruise vessel can have serious consequences for the birds when the most sensitive species (common eider) are considered. Similarly, accidental spills of up to 1400 tonnes of HFO could involve significant environmental impacts on habitats / natural areas Expected effects from the introduction of requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC: A pilot will have a significant contribution in connection with the navigation near glaciers in Magdalenafjorden Pilot will initially have little effect on the risk associated with poorly charted areas. It is pointed out, however, that a pilot will acquire local knowledge over time that will help reduce the risks associated with navigation in poorly charted areas Introduction of requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC is expected to reduce the likelihood that unwanted events occur with overseas cruise vessels and expedition cruises with

38 Page 34 up to one level, indicated by arrows in Figure Very high likelihood / Occurs frequently 4 High likelihood/ Occurs relatively frequent 3 - Moderate likelihood / Occurs E-H E-S 2 Low likelihood / Very rare E-H E-S C-H C-S 1 Very low likelihood / Occurs very rarely C-H C-S 0 - Unlikely/ Theoretically possible but will most likely not occur Frequency Insignificant environmental damage Minor environmental damage Moderate environmental damage Significant environmental damage Serious environmental damage Consequence With Pilot Without Pilot Figure 7-1 Risk matrix events involving vessels in Magdalenafjorden

39 Page Assessment of vessel traffic and threats Figure 7-2 Assessment of threats and causal relation for events in Magdalenafjorden Maritime assessment of the risk picture in Magdalenafjorden: Magdalenafjorden is a narrow fjord, less than one nautical mile accross. The fjord has four glaciers that reach the sea. This presents an increased risk of calving and a higher density of floating ice from glaciers, especially in the summer. The fjord contains shallow areas without navigational aids. Guidelines in the Norwegian pilot may require some local knowledge to ensure correct interpretation. Likelihood of grounding: o Overall assessment - Higher likelihood of grounding than normal A moderate amount of sea ice in the summer months, with variations from 0 to 4 / 10 ice coverage from May to September with some solid ice in May. Likelihood of calving and the presence of smaller icebergs affect the room for manoeuvring and increases the probability of grounding The Waggonbreen is retreating which increases the risks of navigating into uncharted areas The glaciers increases the risk associated with fall winds and increase the risk of grounding Likelihood of collision: o collision with other vessels: lower than normal due to low vessel traffic o collision with ice from the glacier: higher than normal due to several glaciers that reach the sea o collision with sea ice: low

40 Page 36 Pilot will be beneficial in Magdalenafjorden providing knowledge about the dangers of navigation near the glaciers, the risk of fall winds and interpretation of the Norwegian Pilot Guide. 7.2 Assessment of possible environmental impacts of events in Magdalena fjord The figure below shows the protected areas on Svalbard, including the Magdalena fjord which is included in the protected area Nord Vest Spitsbergen nasjonalpark (Northwestern Spitsbergen National Park). Figure 7-3 Protected areas on Svalbard, taken from the Environmental Resource Database (MRDB ). Magdalena fjord, including Magdalenabåen is indicated with the arrow The table below (from MRDB ) provides more detailes for the entire area. Impact category Areas of particular environmental vulnerability Prioritised areas Bird cliff, Sea bird nesting Fish Marine mammals Description Cold water basin. Glacier front. Tourist destination: Magdalena fjord % probability to come across ice in April. Large production. Forageing areas. Casting site/haul-out site. Overwintering for some sea birds. Species with protection value, key species, red list species. Limit of population distribution. Vulnerable to contamination. Bird cliffs near Magdalena Fjord are dominated by little auk and many common eiders. The bird cliff located at the entrance of the fjord on the northern side is dominated by kittiwake. Population distribution for capelin and group 0 north-eastern Atlantic cod. Magdalena fjord is also included in the population distribution for Greenland seal, walrus, bearded seal, mink whale, narwhal, humpback whale, beluga whale, fin

41 Page 37 Protection Impact category whale and bottlenose dolphin. Description The national park includes Moffen, Reinsdyrflya, Albert I Land and Haakon VII Land with bordering territorial waters. The preservation aim is to preserve a large, continuous and mostly untouched natural area on land and in sea with intact nature types, eco systems, species, natural ecological processes, landscape elements, cultural heritage sites and cultural environments as reference areas for research and for the appreciation of Svalbard s natural and cultural heritage. The safeguarding of the following areas is included: -an area with magnificent landscape with characteristic pointed (alpine) mountain formations, islands and straits, the largest beach plain on Svalbard (Reinsdyrflya) and many glaciers of various sizes. - areas with interesting geology, especially the area near Bockfjorden with hot springs and corresponding lime deposits and remains of previous vulcanoes. - a unique botanical locality in connection with the hot springs in Bockfjorden - many nesting places of different sizes for sea birds (bird cliffs), ducks, geese and wading birds - important cultural monuments and important cultural environments from the period of whale hunting, overwintering hunting, polar expeditions and the Second World War Environmental resources in Magdalena fjord In Error! Reference source not found. below, sea bird locations in the area are indicated. A more detailed description of these locations is provided in Tabell 7-1. These data are used to assess environmental impact of an accidental discharge of oil in Magdalena fjord (Magdalenabåden), together with estimates of stock size and distribution of individuals, ref to Error! Reference source not found.. Tabell 7-1 indicates distances from Magdalenabåen, as this area is the starting point of a possible event (collision or grounding). The basis is that the areas described in the table can be affected by a possible oil spill near Magdalenabåen (in the event of oil drifting into these areas).

42 Page 38 Figure 7-4 Overview of sea bird locations in Magdalena Fjord and surrounding areas. Magdalenabåen is indicated with a red flag. Green frame indicates the locations that are assumed affected by an oil spill at Magdalenabåen, further described in Tabell 7-1.

43 Page 39 Tabell 7-1 Sea bird species at selected locations in Magdalena fjord and surrounding areas. The distance indicates approximate distance from Magdalenabåen. Data from Norwegian Polar Institute (Svalbard map). Colony name Bird species Distance (m) Alkekongen Little auk Magdalenafjorden Northern fulmar, Little auk Fugleholmen 1) Barnacle goose, common eider, glaucous gull, arctic skua Høystakken Little auk Skarpegga Little Auk Ytstekollen Little Auk Knattodden Northern fulmar, puffin Mesteinane Common eider Moseøya Barnacle goose, common eider, glaucous gull, great blackbacked gull, arctic skua Persskjæret Common eider, glaucous gull Sørgattet, Danskøya Brünnich's guillemot Kapp Gunerd, Danskøya Brünnich's guillemot, black guillemot, puffin Skorpa Barnacle goose, common eider, glaucous gull, great blackbacked gull, arctic skua Harpunodden, Danskøya Brünnich's guillemot, black guillemot Ballongkollen, Danskøya Glaucous gull, little auk, brünnich's guillemot, black guillemot, puffin Welmannkollen Little auk Kobberfjorden, Danskøya Northern fulmar, Northern fulmarl, Kittiwake, Brünnich's Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Kapp de Geer, Danskøya Northern fulmar, glaucous gull, kittiwake, little auk, brünnich's guillemot, black guillemot, puffin Likholmen Common eider Amsterdamøya (many colonies) Glaucous gull, kittiwake, guillemot, brünnich's guillemot, black guillemot, northern fulmar, puffin Astrupneset N Glaucous gull, kittiwake, guillemot Hoelfjellet Northern fulmar, little auk, black guillemot, puffin Åsefjellet Northern fulmar, little auk Knivegga Little auk Munthefjella Kittiwake, little auk, black guillemot Nissenfjella Kittiwake, brünnich's guillemot Knoffberget Northern fulmar, glaucous gull, kittiwake, little auk, brünnich's guillemot, black guillemot, puffin ) Fugleholmen and small islands in Magdalena fjord Figur 7-1 indicates various shore types in Magdalena fjord and surrounding areas. These categories are used in relation to environmental impact for habitats/natural areas.

44 Page 40 Shore types Rock beach Slope of loose material, low Slope of loose material, high Rock cliff, low Rock cliff, high Talus cones Beach ridge Glacier front Unclassified

45 Page 41 Figur 7-1 Shore types in Magdalena fjord and surrounding areas Assessment of environmental impacts Based on statistics and information on vessels and sailing patterns, DNV has assessed the environmental impacts of vessel traffic in Magdalena fjord (Magdalenabåen) for four different scenarios. These scenarios are considered to be the most relevant for impact assessments. The four scenarios are as follows: 1) Cruise ship: Oil max = 1400 tonnes (HFO), Oil min = 200 tonnes (HFO). 2) Expedition cruise: Oil max = 240 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 160 tonnes (MDO/MGO). 3) Research vessel: Oil max = 120 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 40 tonnes (MDO/MGO). 4) Pleasure craft: Oil max = 2 tonnes (MDO), Oil min = 0.1 tonnes (MDO). The oil amounts in the different impact categories in the impact scale (ref. Error! Reference source not found.) are relatively coarse in this context. Therefore, the discharge scenarios are treated in the following manner (ref Chapter 5.0 for a more detailed explanation): 1) Discharge of tonnes (the above scenario 1 Oil max ) 2) Discharge of tonnes (the above scenario 1 Oil min ) 3) Discharge of tonnes of oil (the above scenario 2 and scenario 3) 4) Discharge of < 1 tonnes of oil (the above scenario 4) Impact on sea bird and sea mammals Based on the vulnerability of the identified biological environmental resources, the effect key (acute mortality for the percentage share of individuals affected by oil) is as shown in the tables below. Scenario 1 max Tabell 7-2 Effect key for acute mortality (%) for sea birds based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (Kittiwake, Northern fulmar) 40 (Gull, Arctic Skua, Barnacle Goose) 60 (Auk, Goose) >= Tabell 7-3 Effect key for acute mortality (%) for walrus based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (walrus) 50 >=

46 Page 42 With the effect key as shown above, the restitution time and impact category is as shown in the table below. Tabell 7-4 Damage key for sea bird/ sea mammal based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes HFO. Damage key stock Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Sea bird / sea mammal Acute reduction in stock Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years (%) year < 1 Kittiwake, Northern fulmar, Arctic Skua, Great Black-backed Gull, Guillemot 50 % 50 % 1-5 Black Guillemot, 50 % 50 % Barnacle Goose, walrus 5-10 Auk, Brünnich's Guillemot 25 % 50 % 25 % Glaucous Gull, 25 % 50 % 25 % Puffin % 50 % >30 Common Eider 100 % The calculated environmental impact of a discharge of 1400 tonnes HFO is as follows: 1. Severe environmental impact for Common Eider 2. Mainly significant environmental impact for Glaucous Gull and Pufffin. 3. Mainly significant environmental impact for Auk and Brünnich's Guillemot. 4. Minor to moderate environmental impact for Black Guillemot, Barnacle Goose and walrus 5. Insignificant to minor environmental impact for Kittiwake, Northern fulmar, Arctic Skua, Great Black-back Gull, and Guillemot. Scenario 1 oil min Tabell 7-5 Effect key for acute mortality for sea bird based on the discharge scenario of 200 tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S ) (Kittiwake, Northern fulmar) 20 (Gull, Arctic Skua, Barnacle Goose) 40 (Auk, Duck) >= Tabell 7-6 Effect key for acute mortality for walrus based on the discharge scenario 200 tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S

47 Page (walrus) >= With the effect keys as shown above, the resulting restitution time and impact categories are as shown in the table below. Tabell 7-7 Damage key for sea bird and walrus for the discharge scenario of 200 tonnes HFO. Damage key stock Impact category- environmental damage Seabird/sea mammal (restitution time in years) Acute stock reduction (%) < 1 Insignificant < 1 month 50 % 50 % Minor 1 month 1 year Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years Kittiwake, Northern fulmar, Arctic Skua, Barnacle Goose, Great Black-backed Gull, Guillemot, walrus 1-5 Auk, Brünnich's 50 % 50 % Guillemot, Black Guillemot 5-10 Glaucous Gull 25 % 50 % 25 % Puffin 25 % 50 % 25 % Common Eider 50 % 50 % The calculated environmental impact of a discharge of 200 tonnes HFO is as follows: 1. Significant to severe environmental impact for Common Eider 2. Mainly significant environmental impact for Pufffin. 3. Mainly moderate environmental impact for Glaucus Guillemot. 4. Minor to moderate environmental impact for Black Guillemot, Auk and Brünnich's Guillemot 5. Insignificant to minor environmental impact for Kittiwake, Northern fulmar, Arctic Skua, Barnacle Goose, Great Black-back Gull, Guillemot and walrus. Scenario 2 and scenario 3 Tabell 7-8 Effect key for acute mortality for seabird based on the discharge scenarios of tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonne) S1 S2 S (Kittiwake, Northern fulmar) 10 (Gulls, Arctic Skua, Barnacle Goose) 20 (Auk, Duck) >= Tabell 7-9 Effect key for acute mortality for sea mammals based on the discharge scenarios of tonnes MGO or MDO

48 Page 44 Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonne) S1 S2 S (walrus) >= With the above effect keys, the resulting restitution time and impact category is as shown in the tables below. Distribution data for Arctic Skua and Kittiwake in the area has not been found. Two percent of the Arctic Skua and Kittiwake stocks are assumed affected. Tabell 7-10 Damage key for sea bird/sea mammal for the discharge scenarios tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key stock seabird/sea mammal Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Acute reduction in stock (%) Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years < 1 Kittiwake, Black Guillemot, Northern fulmar, Arctic Skua, Barnacle Goose, Great Blackbacked Gull, Guillemot, walrus year 50 % 50 % 1-5 Glaucous Gull, Auk, Brünnich's Guillemot 50 % 50 % 5-10 Puffin 25 % 50 % 25 % Common Eider 25 % 50 % 25 % The calculated environmental impact of a discharge of tonn MGO/MDO is as follows: 1. Mainly significant environmental impact for Common Eider 2. Mainly moderate environmental impact for Puffin. 3. Minor to moderate environmental impact for Glaucus Gull, Auk and Brünnich's Guillemot. 4. Insignificant to minor environmental impact for Kittiwake, Black Guillemot, Northern fulmar, Arctic Skua, Barnacle Goose, Great Black-back Gull, Guillemot and walrus Habitats/natural areas The following coastal types are found in the area (ref also to Error! Reference source not found.): Rock beach, beach ridge, slope of loose material high, rock cliff low, rock cliff high, glacier front and unclassified. The impacts are indicated in the tables below. Scenario 1 max

49 Page 45 The impact for the identified habitats/natural areas can be characterised as moderate to significant for slope of loose material and beach ridge. The impact is set to significant, based on a conservative approach in the risk matrix (ref. Error! Reference source not found.) For rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach, the environmental impact is minor to moderate according to the impact scale. Tabell 7-11 Damage key for habitat/natural areas based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes (HFO). Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 60 % 30 % high, beach ridge 1 Rock cliff high and low, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 50 % 10 % Scenario 1 olje min The environmental impact on slope of loose material and beach ridge can be characterised as mainly moderate according to the impact scale. The environmental impact can be characterised as minor to moderate for the following habitats/natural areas: rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach. Tabell 7-12 Damage key for habitats/natural areas for the discharge scenario of 200 tonnes (HFO). Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 60 % 10 % high, beach ridge S1 Rock cliff high and low, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 40 % Scenario 2 and scenario 3 The environmental impact on slope of loose material and beach ridge can be characterised as mainly minor to moderate. The impact is set to moderate, based on a conservative approach in the risk matrix (ref se Error! Reference source not found.) For rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach, the impact according to the impact scale is mainly minor. Tabell 7-13 Damage key for habitat/natural areas for discharge scenario tonnes oil (MDO/MGO). Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 40 % high, beach ridge S1 Rock cliff high and low, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 20 %

50 Page Assessment of the risk associated with vessel traffic in Kongsfjorden / Krossfjorden (Kroneflua) Event categories being concidered Events involving Overseas cruise vessels - C - Events involving Expedition cruice vessels (Research vessels) - E - Events involving Cargo Vessels Events involving Tankers - L - - T - Event that causes damage to habitats / natural areas C-H E-H L-H T-H Event that causes damage to seabirds / marine mammals C-S E-S L-S T-S Figure 8.1 shows the overall risk picture associated with vessel traffic and the potential environmental consequences in Kongsfjorden / Krossfjorden. Risk associated with vessel traffic in Kongsfjorden / Krossfjorden assessed as follows: All vessel groups included in the analysis pass through Kongsfjorden to visit Ny- Ålesund. Expedition cruise vessels and overseas cruise vessels will also visit Krossfjorden The traffic of tankers and cargo vessels pass through relatively open waters with little navigational challenges As a result of the imposed restrictions on the use of heavy oil on Svalbard /18/ only expedition cruise vessels are expected to visit the more risk related parts of the fjords The area inside Ny-Ålesund is concidered particularly risky Potential environmental consequences from incidents will depend on the volume of spilled oil, and the species that may be affected by the spill. An accidental spill of 1400 tonnes of oil (HFO) from an overseas cruise vessel can have significant consequences for seabirds using a conservative assumption, based on the most vulnerable species (common eider and razorbills). Similarly, based on a conservative approach, an accidentally discharge of 1400 tonnes of HFO can have significant environmental impacts on habitats / natural areas in the region. Expected effects from implementing requirements for the use for polar pilot or PEC: A pilot will not have a material impact on vessels that only travelling the shortest secure route to Ny-Ålesund A pilot will be a significant contribution when navigating with in the inner parts of Kongsfjorden, and will also be valuable when navigating in Krossfjorden. Los will have limited effect on the risks associated with poorly charted areas Implementing requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC is expected to reduce the likelihood that incidents occur with overseas cruise vessels and expedition cruise vessels with up to one level, indicated by arrows in Figure 8.1

51 Page 47 5 Very high likelihood / Occurs frequently 4 High likelihood/ Occurs relatively frequent 3 - Moderate likelihood / Occurs E-H E-S 2 Low likelihood / Very rare E-H E-S C-H C-S 1 Very low likelihood / Occurs very rarely 0 - Unlikely/ Theoretically possible but will most likely not occur L-H L-H L-S L-S T-H T-H T-S T-S C-H C-S Frequency Insignificant environmental damage Minor environmental damage Moderate environmental damage Significant environmental damage Serious environmental damage Consequence With Pilot Without Pilot Figure 8-1 Risk matrix events involving vessels in Kongsfjorden og Krossfjorden

52 Page Assessment of vessel traffic and threats Figure 8-2 Assessment of threats and causal relation for events in Kongsfjorden og Krossfjorden Maritime assessment of the risk picture in Kongsfjorden and Krossfjorden The outer part of Kongsfjorden up to Ny-Ålesund is not considered particularly dangerous. The risk increases when navigating inside Ny-Ålesund. Sailing into Møllerfjorden involves moderate risk with narrow passages under 0.5 nautical miles. The area is poorly charted inside Ny-Ålesund, and has some navigational hazards. The area near the glaciers is uncharted. Kongsbreen involves probability of calving and the presence of glacier ice, especially in the inner part of the fjord. Likelihood of grounding: o o Inside Ny-Ålesund: significant Outside Ny-Ålesund: low Likelihood of collision: o Collision with vessels: lower than normal due to limited vessel traffic o Collision with ice from the glacier: higher than normal due to glaciers that reach the sea o Collision with ice: low. Fast ice in the inner areas in May, 0 to 1 / 10 in the period May to September Pilot is essential for navigation inside Ny-Ålesund

53 Page Assessment of possible environmental impacts The figure below shows the protected areas on Svalbard, including Kongsfjord and Krossfjord which is included in the protected area Nord Vest Spitsbergen national park (Northwestern Spitsbergen National Park). Figure 8-1 Protected areas on Svalbard, taken from the Environmental Resource Database (MRDB ). Kongsfjord and Krossfjord are indicated with the arrow. The table below (from MRDB ) provides more details for the entire area Environmental resources in Kongsfjord and Krossfjord A general description of environmental resources in protected areas in Northwestern Spitsbergen, is given in the table below. Impact category Bird cliff, sea birds nesting Nesting Moulting area Fish Marine mammals Protection Description Bird cliffs with birds such as razorbills, kittiwakes and fulmars. Breeding areas for eiders, ducks, gulls, terns and waders. Moulting and feeding area for eider. Area for juvenile fish of greenland halibut, included in distribution area for capelin. Krossfjord is casting- and rest area for ringed seals, Kongsfjord is important casting- and rest area for ringed seals and appearance of the bearded seal. Included in the distribution area for the harp seal, walrus, bearded seals, minke whales, white-beaked dolphin, humpback whales, beluga whale, fin whales, harbor seals and bottlenose dolphin. Forageing area for minke whales. Northwest Spitsbergen National Park includes Albert I Land, Haakon VII Land. Covers the northwestern corner of Spitsbergen. Numerous seabird colonies, good populations of geese, arctic foxes and Svalbard

54 Page 50 Impact category Description reindeer and resting localities for walrus. Significant cultural and historical values. Within the park are bird sanctuaries Guissezholmen, Skorpa and Moseøya, as well as the nature reserve Moffen, all with high densities of nesting common eider and geese. Considerable tourist traffic in summer season. The national park has a variety of bird cliffs, which houses hundreds of thousands of nesting pairs of the following species: fulmar, glaucous gulls, kittiwakes, brünnich s guillemot, black guillemot, little auk and puffin. Smaller islands are important nesting areas for some species of seabirds and geese, including common eider, barnacle goose, brent goose, arctic skua, great skua, great blackbacked gull and arctic tern. Wetland areas are breeding areas for king eider, grey phalarope, and red-throated diver. Walrus have several resting localities within the national park and other marine mammals that occur in the area are bearded seals, ringed seals, minke whales and beluga whales. Recreation Hiking areas In Figure 8-4 below, sea bird locations in the area are indicated. A more detailed description of these locations is provided in Table 8-1. These data are used to assess environmental impact of an accidental discharge of oil in the area of Kroneflua, together with estimates of stock size and distribution of individuals, ref to Table 5-1. Haul out area for walrus is not registered in Kongsfjord or Krossfjord. Table 8-1 indicates distances from Kroneflua, as this area is the starting point of a possible event (collision or grounding). The basis is that the areas described in the table can be affected by a possible oil spill near Kroneflua (in the event of oil drifting into these areas).

55 Page 51 Figure 8-2 Overview of sea bird locations in Kongsfjord/Krossfjord and surrounding areas. Kroneflua is indicated with a red flag. Green frame indicates the locations that are assumed affected by an oil spill near Kronflua, further described in Table 8-1. Table 8-1 Sea bird species at selected locations in Kongsfjord and Krossfjord and surrounding areas. The distance indicates approximate distance from Kroneflua. Data from Norwegian Polar Institute (Svalbard map). Colony name Bird species Distance (m) Kapp Mitra Common Eider Willeberget Fulmar, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemoti, Black Guillemot Julibukta Glaucous Gull, Razorbills, Puffin Cadiopynten N Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Puffin Kong Kåkons halvøy S Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Kong Kåkons halvøy W Brünnich s Guillemot Kong Kåkons halvøy Little Auk

56 Page 52 Nilsfjellet Signehamna Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Kronprins Olavs fjell Glaucous Gull, Little Auk Christian Michelsen fjella Glaucous Gull, Little Auk Kollerfjord S Black Guillemot Fallierespynten Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot Fallieresfjella Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Tynairebukta S Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, alke, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Flakbreen N Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Flakbreen E Little Auk, Flakbreen S Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot Julibukta Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Generalfjella W Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk Ole hansen kammen Fulmar, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Amifjellet NW Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Little Auk, Black Guillemot, Puffin Casimir Perierkammen E Fulmar, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Casimir Perierkammen W Brünnich s Guillemot Guissezholmane Common Eider, Glaucous Gull, Great Black-backed Gull Blomstrandhamna 3 Fulmar, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Blomstrandhamna 2 Kittiwake, Black Guillemot, Puffin Blomstrandhamna Barnacle Goose, Pink-footed Goose, Common Eider, Glaucous Gull Blomstrandhamna 1 Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Sørvågen Fulmar, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Blomstrandhalvøya NW Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Black Guillemot Gorillaheimen Glaucous Gull, Black Guillemot Eskjeret Barnacle Goose, Common Eider, Glaucous Gull, Great Black-backed Gull, Lovenøyane Barnacle Goose, Common Eider, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin, Pink-footed Goose Ossian sarsfjellet Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Kittiwakefjell/Franskleir Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Austre Lovenbreen N Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot Brøggerhalvøya (flere kolonier) Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Black Guillemot, Puffin, Barnacle Goose, Common Eider, Arctic Skua Figure 8-5 indicates various shore types in Kongsfjord/Krossfjord and surrounding areas. These categories are used in relation to environmental impact for habitats/natural areas.

57 Page 53 Shore types Rock beach Slope of loose material, low Slope of loose material, high Rock cliff, low Rock cliff, high Talus cones Beach ridge Glacier front Unclassified Figur 8-3 Shore types in Kongsfjord/Krossfjord and surrounding areas.

58 Page Assessment of environmental impacts Based on statistics and information on vessels and sailing patterns, DNV has assessed the environmental impacts of vessel traffic in Kongsfjord and Krossfjord (Kroneflua) for five different scenarios. These scenarios are considered to be the most relevant for impact assessments. The five scenarios are as follows: 1) Cruise ship: Oil max = 1400 tonnes (HFO), Oil min = 200 tonnes (HFO). 2) Tanker: Oil max = 1200 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 400 tonnes (MDO/MGO). 3) Cargo ship Oil max = 120 tonnes (HFO), Oil min = 20 tonnes (HFO). 4) Expedition cruise: Oil max = 240 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 160 tonnes (MDO/MGO). 5) Research vessel: Oil max = 120 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 40 tonnes (MDO/MGO). The oil amounts in the different impact categories in the impact scale (ref.table 4-3) are relatively coarse in this context. Therefore, the discharge scenarios are treated in the following manner (ref Chapter 5.0 for a more detailed explanation): 1) Discharge of tonnes (the above scenario 1 Oil max ) 2) Discharge of tonnes (the above scenario 1 Oil min and scenario 2) 3) Discharge of tonnes of oil (the above scenario 3, scenario 4 and scenario 5) Impact on sea birds and sea mammals Based on the vulnerability of the identified biological environmental resources, the effect key (acute mortality for the percentage share of individuals affected by oil) is as shown in the tables below. Scenario 1 max Table 8-1 Effect key for acute mortality (%) for sea birds based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (kittiwake, 40 (seagull, fulmar, goose, arctic 60 (razorbill, goose) fulmar) skua >= With the effect key as shown above, the restitution time and impact category is as shown in the table below. Approximate estimated environmental impact of the scenario 1 max is mainly significant for the common eider and razorbills, moderate for puffin, minor to moderate for the glaucous gull, black guillemot and barnacle goose and only slightly smaller for the remaining species.

59 Page 55 Table 8-2 Damage key for sea bird/ sea mammal based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes HFO. Damage key stock Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Sea bird / sea mammal Acute reduction in stock Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years (%) year < 1 little auk, 50 % 50 % brünnich s guillemot, kittiwake, fulmar, arctic skua, great black-backed gull, pink-footed goose 1-5 glaucous gull, 50 % 50 % black guillemot, barnacle goose 5-10 puffin 25 % 50 % 25 % common eider, razorbill 25 % 50 % 25 % Scenario 1 oil min and scenario 2 Tabell 8-3 Effect key for acute mortality for seabird based on the discharge scenarios of 200 tonnes HFO or tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (fulmar, 20 (seagull, arctic skua, goose) 40 (razorbill, goose) kittiwake) >= Approximate estimated environmental impact of the scenario 1 min and Scenario 2 is primarily important for razorbills, moderate for the common eider, minor to moderate for the glaucous gull, puffin and barnacle goose and only slightly smaller for the remaining species. Table 8-4 Damage key for sea bird/ sea mammal based on the discharge scenario of 200 tonnes HFO or tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key stock Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Sea bird / sea mammal Acute reduction in stock Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years (%) year < 1 little auk, 50 % 50 % brünnich s guillemot, black guillemot, kittiwake, fulmar, arctic skua, great black-backed gull, pink-footed goose 1-5 glaucous gull, 50 % 50 % puffin, barnacle goose 5-10 common eider 25 % 50 % 25 % razorbill 25 % 50 % 25 %

60 Page 56 Scenario 3, scenario 4 and scenario 5 Tabell 8-5 Effect key for acute mortality for seabird based on the discharge scenarios of tonnes MGO or MDO or tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (arctic skua) 10 (seagull, fulmar, barnacle 20 (razorbill, goose) goose ) >= Estimated environmental impact of scenario 3, 4 and 5 are mainly moderate to razerbill, minor to moderate for puffin and common eider and insignificant to minor for the remaining species. Table 8-6 Damage key for sea bird/sea mammal for the discharge scenarios tonnes MGO or MDO or tonnes HFO. Damage key stock seabird/sea mammal Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Acute reduction in stock (%) Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years < 1 glaucous gull, little auk, brünnich s guillemot, black guillemot, kittiwake, fulmar, arctic skua, barnacle goose, great black-backed gull, pinkfooted goose 1-5 puffin, common eider year 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 5-10 razorbill 25 % 50 % 25 % Habitats/natural areas The following coastal types are found in the area (ref also to Figure 8-5): Rock beach, beach ridge, slope of loose material high, rock cliff low, rock cliff high, glacier front and unclassified. The impacts are indicated in the tables below. Scenario 1 max The impact for the identified habitats/natural areas can be characterised as moderate to significant for slope of loose material and beach ridge. The impact is set to significant, based on a conservative approach in the risk matrix (ref. Figure 8-1). For rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach, the environmental impact is minor to moderate according to the impact scale.

61 Page 57 Tablel 8-7 Damage key for habitat/natural areas based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes (HFO). Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 60 % 30 % high and low, beach ridge S1 Rock cliff low and high, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 50 % 10 % Scenario 1 oil min and scenario 2 The consequence of all the identified habitats / natural areas can be characterized as mostly moderate damage to the environment for slope of loose material and beach ridge and minor to moderate for rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach according to the impact scale. Tabell 8-8 Damage key for habitats/natural areas for the discharge scenario of 200 tonnes (HFO) or tonnes (MDO/MGO). Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 60 % 10 % high and low, beach ridge S1 Rock cliff low and high, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 40 % Scenario 3, scenario 4 and scenario 5 The consequence of all the identified habitats / natural areas can be characterized as mostly minor to moderate damage to the environment for slope of loose material and beach ridge and mostly minor to rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach according to the impact scale. Table 8-9 Damage key for habitat/natural areas for discharge scenario tonnes oil (MDO/MGO) or tonnes HFO. Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 40 % high and low, beach ridge S1 Rock cliff low and high, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 20 %

62 Page Assessment of the risk associated with vessel traffic in Isfjorden (Revneset) Event categories being concidered Events involving Overseas cruise vessels - C - Events involving Expedition cruice vessels (Research vessels) - E - Events involving Cargo Vessels Events involving Tankers - L - - T - Event that causes damage to habitats / natural areas C-H E-H L-H T-H Event that causes damage to seabirds / marine mammals C-S E-S L-S T-S Figure 9.1 presents the overall risk picture associated with vessel traffic and the potential environmental consequences in Isfjorden. Risk associated with vessel traffic in Isfjorden is assessed as follows: All vessel types included in the analysis visit the fjord Tanker vessels and cargo vessels pass through the relatively open waters of the fjord with little navigational challenges Overseas cruise vessels call on Longyearbyen, but rarely operate in the inner parts of the Fjord Expedition cruise vessels can be expected to visit the more hazardous parts of the fjord Expected impact on seabirds from potential incidents is expected to be similar for the different vessel types and is generally considered to be moderate. Accidental oil spill from cruise vessels is considered to have the greatest potential impact on habitats / natural areas, and may be significant. Expected effect from the implementation of requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC: A pilot is not expected to have considerable impact on the likelihood of accidents related to the navigation of cruise vessels, tankers and cargo vessels. A pilot or similar competence will be vital when navigating in the inner parts of the fjord A pilot will have little effect on the risk associated with poorly charted areas Implementation of requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC is expected to reduce the likelihood that incidents occur with expedition cruise vessels with up to one level. This is indicated by arrows in Figure 9 1

63 Page 59 5 Very high likelihood / Occurs frequently 4 High likelihood/ Occurs relatively frequent 3 - Moderate likelihood / Occurs 2 Low likelihood / Very rare E-H E-H E-S E-S 1 Very low likelihood / Occurs very rarely 0 - Unlikely/ Theoretically possible but will most likely not occur L-H L-H C-S C-S T-S T-S T-H T-H L-S L-S C-H C-H Frequency Insignificant environmental damage Minor environmental damage Moderate environmental damage Significant environmental damage Serious environmental damage Consequence With Pilot Without Pilot Figure 9-1 Risk matrix events involving vessels in Isfjorden

64 Page Assessment of vessel traffic and threats Figure 9-2 Assessment of threats and causal relation for events in Isfjorden Maritime assessment of the risk picture in Isfjorden The outer part in to Longyearbyen and Barentsburg is not considered particularly risky. The risk increases in the inner areas of the fjord to Pyramiden. Risk related to cargo vessels travelling to and from Longyearbyen and Barentsburg is considered to be low, slightly higher for travel to Pyramiden. Navigational aids are available for navigation to the main ports. This area is the best charted area on Svalbard. The area has AIS coverage. AIS show that there is little traffic in the inner fjord. Likelihood of grounding: o o outer fjord areas: low inner fjord areas: moderate Likelihood of grounding: o o Collision with vessels: lower than normal due to the low ship traffic. Collision with ice from the glacier: low to moderate o Collision with ice: low. 0 to 4 / 10 in May, 0 to 1 / 10 in the period from June to July. Ice-free in August and September

65 Page 61 Pilot not critical for navigation to Longyearbyen and Barentsbrug. For larger vessels, a pilot is practical when navigating in the inner fjord areas including to Pyramiden. 9.2 Assessment of possible environmental impacts The figure below shows the protected areas on Svalbard. Parts of Isfjord are included in a protected area. Further details about the area are given in the table below. Figur 9-1 Protected areas on Svalbard, taken from the Environmental Resource Database (MRDB ). Isfjord is indicated with the arrow. Impact category Bird cliff, Sea bird nesting Nesting Fish Marine mammals Protection Bird cliffs dominated by razorbill Description Breeding areas for ducks and geese Area for juvenile fish of greenland halibut, included in the distribution area of capelin Included in the distribution area of harp seal, walrus, bearded seals, minke whales, white-beaked dolphin, killer whale, humpback whales, beluga whale, fin whalel and harbor seals. Northern Isfjord National Park: The purpose of protection is to preserve a large, contiguous and in the most part untouched arctic coastal -and fjord landscape with intact habitats, ecosystems, species, natural ecological processes, landscape elements and cultural heritage as an area for research and the experience of Svalbard's natural and cultural heritage, including in particular ensure: - Large areas with continuous, vigorous and species rich vegetation with elements of vulnerable plant species - Areas with thick peat deposits - Expansive beach areas with large wetlands and shallow shore areas; biotopes that are important breeding, feeding and moulting areas for birds - Rich birdlife (waders, geese, marine diving ducks and sea birds)

66 Page 62 Recreation Impact category Description - Well developed and interesting geological formations and deposits - Valuable cultural heritage, like the distinctive and famous rock formations Skansen and Alkhornet Hiking areas In Figure 9-4 below, sea bird locations in the area are indicated. A more detailed description of these locations is provided in Table 9-1. These data are used to assess environmental impact of an accidental discharge of oil in the area of Revneset, together with estimates of stock size and distribution of individuals, ref to Table 5-1. Table 9-1 indicates distances from Revneset, as this area is the starting point of a possible event (collision or grounding). The basis is that the areas described in the table can be affected by a possible oil spill near Revneset (in the event of oil drifting into these areas).

67 Page 63 Figure 9-2 Overview of sea bird locations in Isfjord and surrounding areas. Revneset is indicated with a red flag. Green frame indicates the locations that are assumed affected by an oil spill near Revneset, further described in Table 9-1.

68 Page 64 Table 9-1 Sea bird species at selected locations within and near Isfjord and surrounding areas. The distance indicates approximate distance from Revneset. Data from Norwegian Polar Institute (Svalbard map). Colony name Bird species Distance (m) Kapp Thordsen Black Guillemot Grumant Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot Little Bjørndalen Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot Longyeardalen W Kittiwake, Little Auk Longyearbyen Common Eider Pilarberget Brünnich s Guillemot Pilarberget NE Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot Little Bjørndalen NE Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot Bjørndalen Little Auk, Grumant NE Kittiwake, Ivory Gull, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Grumant E Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Fuglefjella Barnacle Goose Colesbukta Arctic Skua Heerodden Arctic Skua Diabasodden Barnacle Goose, Glaucous Gull, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Elveneset Arctic Skua Fjordnibba Fulmar, Barnacle Goose, Glaucous Gull, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Tempelet Fulmar, Barnacle Goose, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Gåsøyane Barnacle Goose, Brent Goose, Pink-footed Goose, Common Eider, Great Black-backed Gull, Arctic Skua Gipshuken Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Puffin Skansebukta N Fulmar, Pink-footed Goose, Barnacle Goose, Glaucous Gull, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Skansebukta W Fulmar, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Sauriedalen Arctic Skua Tschermakfjellet Fulmar, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot Kongressfjellet Kittiwake, Little Auk, Black Guillemot Kapp Wijk Arctic Skua Kapp Wærn Common Eider, Arctic Skua Tvillingholmane Barnacle Goose, Glaucous Gull, Great Black-backed Gull Boheman Pink-footed Goose, Common Eider, Glaucous Gull, Great Black-backed Gull, Arctic Skua Borebukta Arctic Skua Tundraodden Arctic Skua Esmarkmorena Arctic Skua Erdmannflya Pink-footed Goose, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Black Guillemot Mornekilen E Kittiwake Flytangen Barnacle Goose, Glaucous Gull, Great Black-backed Gull, Kittiwake, Black Guillemot, Puffin Ymerbukta Arctic Skua Vermlandryggen Pink-footed Goose Selmaneset Pink-footed Goose, Common Eider, Glaucous Gull Alkhornet Fulmar, Barnacle Goose, Pink-footed Goose, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Trygghamna Arctic Skua

69 Page 65 Figure 9-5 indicates various shore types in Isfjord and surrounding areas. These categories are used in relation to environmental impact for habitats/natural areas. Shore types Rock beach Slope of loose material, low Slope of loose material, high Rock cliff, low Rock cliff, high Talus cones Beach ridge Glacier front Unclassified Figure 9-3 Shore types in Isfjord and surrounding areas.

70 Page Assessment of environmental impacts Based on statistics and information on vessels and sailing patterns, DNV has assessed the environmental impacts of vessel traffic in Isfjord (Revneset) for five different scenarios. These scenarios are considered to be the most relevant for impact assessments. The five scenarios are as follows: 1) Cruise ship: Oil max = 1400 tonnes (HFO), Oil min = 200 tonnes (HFO). 2) Tanker: Oil max = 1200 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 400 tonnes (MDO/MGO). 3) Cargo ship Oil max = 120 tonnes (HFO), Oil min = 20 tonnes (HFO). 4) Expedition cruise: Oil max = 240 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 160 tonnes (MDO/MGO). 5) Research vessel: Oil max = 120 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 40 tonnes (MDO/MGO). The oil amounts in the different impact categories in the impact scale (ref.table 4-3) are relatively coarse in this context. Therefore, the discharge scenarios are treated in the following manner (ref Chapter 5.0 for a more detailed explanation): 1) Discharge of tonnes (the above scenario 1 Oil max ) 2) Discharge of tonnes (the above scenario 1 Oil min and scenario 2) 3) Discharge of tonnes of oil (the above scenario 3, scenario 4 and scenario 5) 4) Discharge < 1 tonnes of oil (the above scenario 4) Impact on sea birds and sea mammals Based on the vulnerability of the identified biological environmental resources, the effect key (acute mortality for the percentage share of individuals affected by oil) is as shown in the tables below. Scenario 1 max Table 9-1 Effect key for acute mortality (%) for sea birds based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (kittiwake, 40 (seagulls, arctic skua, geese) 60 (razorbill, ducks) ivory gull, fulmar) >= Table 9-3 Effect key for acute mortality (%) for walrus based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (walrus) 50 >=

71 Page 67 With the effect key as shown above, the restitution time and impact category is as shown in the table below. Approximate estimated environmental impact of the scenario 1 max is mainly moderate for brünnich s guillemot and common eider, minor to moderate for the glaucous gull, puffin, fulmar and barnacle goose and insignificant to minor for the remaining species. Table 9-2 Damage key for sea bird/ sea mammal based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes HFO. Damage key stock Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Sea bird / sea mammal Acute reduction in stock Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years (%) year < 1 little auk, black 50 % 50 % guillemot, kittiwake, ivory gull, arctic skua, great black-backed gull, walrus, pinkfooted goose 1-5 glaucous gull, 50 % 50 % fulmar, puffin, barnacle goose 5-10 brünnich s guillemot, common eider 25 % 50 % 25 % Scenario 1 olje min og scenario 2 Table 9-3 Effect key for acute mortality for seabird based on the discharge scenarios of 200 tonnes HFO or tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (kittiwake, ivory gull, fulmar) 20 (seagulls, arctic skua, geese, walrus) 40 (razorbill, ducks) >= Table 9-4 Effect key for acute mortality for walrus based on the discharge scenarios of 200 tonnes HFO or tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (walrus) >= Approximate estimated environmental impact of the scenario 1 min and Scenario 2 is mostly moderate for common eider, minor to moderate for glaucous gull, brünnich s guillemot, puffin and fulmar and insignificant to minor for the remaining species.

72 Page 68 Table 9-5 Damage key for sea bird/sea mammal based on the discharge scenario of 200 tonnes HFO or tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key stock Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Sea bird / sea mammal Acute reduction in stock Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years (%) year < 1 little auk, black 50 % 50 % guillemot, kittiwake, ivory gull, arctic skua, barnacle goose, great black-backed gull, fulmar, walrus, pinkfooted goose 1-5 glaucous gull, 50 % 50 % brünnich s guillemot, puffin 5-10 common eider 25 % 50 % 25 % Scenario 3, scenario 4 og scenario 5 Table 9-6 Effect key for acute mortality for seabird based on the discharge scenarios of tonnes MGO or MDO or tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (kittiwake, ivory gull, fulmar) 10 (seagulls, arctic skua, barnacle goose) 20 (razorbill, ducks) >= Table 9-7 Effect key for acute mortality for walrus based on the discharge scenarios of tonnes MGO or MDO or tonnes HFO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (walrus) >= Estimated environmental impact of scenario 3, 4 and 5 are minor to moderate for brünnich s guillemot, fulmar and common eider and insigificant to minor for the remaining species. The consequence is set to moderate based on a conservative approach in Figure 9-1.

73 Page 69 Table 9-8 Damage key for sea bird/sea mammal based on the discharge scenario of tonnes MGO or MDO or tonnes HFO. Damage key stock Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Sea bird / sea mammal Acute reduction in stock Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 Moderate 1 3 years Significant 3 10 years Severe > 10 years (%) year < 1 glaucous gull, little 50 % 50 % auk, black guillemot, kittiwake, puffin, ivory gull, arctic skua, barnacle goose, great black-backed gull, fulmar, walrus, pinkfooted goose 1-5 brünnich s guillemot, common eider 50 % 50 % Habitats/natural areas The following coastal types are found in the area (ref also to Figure 9-4): Rock beach, beach ridge, slope of loose material high, rock cliff low, rock cliff high, glacier front and unclassified. The impacts are indicated in the tables below. Scenario 1 max The impact for the identified habitats/natural areas can be characterised as moderate to significant for slope of loose material and beach ridge. The impact is set to significant, based on a conservative approach in the risk matrix (ref. Figure 9-1). For rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach, the environmental impact is minor to moderate according to the impact scale. Table 9-9 Damage key for habitat/natural areas based on the discharge scenario of 1400 tonnes (HFO). Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 60 % 30 % low and high, beach ridge S1 Rock cliff low and high, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 50 % 10 %

74 Page 70 Scenario 1 olje min og scenario 2 The consequence of all the identified habitats / natural areas can be characterized as mostly moderate damage to the environment for slope of loose material and beach ridge and minor to moderate for rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach according to the impact scale. Table 9-10 Damage key for habitats/natural areas for the discharge scenario of 200 tonnes (HFO) or tonnes (MDO/MGO). Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 60 % 10 % low and high, beach ridge S1 Rock cliff low and high, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 40 % Scenario 3, scenario 4 og scenario 5 The consequence of all the identified habitats / natural areas can be characterized as mostly minor to moderate damage to the environment for slope of loose material and beach ridge. Based on a conservative approach the consequence is set to moderate in the risk model (see Figure 9-1). For rock cliff, glacier front, unclassified and rock beach is the consequence mainly minor according to the impact scale. Table 9-11 Damage key for habitat/natural areas for discharge scenario tonnes oil (MDO/MGO) or tonnes HFO. Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years Significant 3-10 years Severe > 10 years S2 Slope of loose material % 40 % low and high, beach ridge S1 Rock cliff low and high, glacier front, unclassified, rock beach % 20 %

75 Page Assessment of the risk associated with vessel traffic in Hinlopenstretet (Torellneset/Perthesøya) Event categories being concidered Event that causes damage to habitats / natural areas Event that causes damage to seabirds / marine mammals Events involving Expedition cruice vessels (Research vessels) - E - E-H E-S Figure 10.1 presents the overall risk picture associated with vessel traffic and the potential environmental consequences in Hinlopenstretet. Risk associated with vessel traffic in Hinlopenstretet is assessed as follows: Hinlopenstretet is primarily visited by expedition cruise and research vessels Statistics show that incidents involving expedition cruise or research vessels occur relatively frequent, but incidents involving oil spill to the environment is significantly less frequent Poorly charted areas and rapidly changing ice conditions increase the likely frequency of incidents The area is considered to have a relatively strong current and it has a rich wildlife. An oil spill from visiting vessels may have moderate environmental impact both on wildlife and habitats Expected effect from implementing requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC: A pilot will be a significant contribution when navigating in ice in Hinlopenstretet A pilot, however, will have little effect on the risk associated with uncharted or poorly charted areas Implementing requirements for the use of polar pilot or PEC is expected to reduce the likelihood that incidents occur with expedition cruise vessels up to one level, indicated by arrows in Figure 10.1

76 Page 72 5 Very high likelihood / Occurs frequently 4 High likelihood/ Occurs relatively frequent 3 - Moderate likelihood / Occurs E-H E-S 2 Low likelihood / Very rare 1 Very low likelihood / Occurs very rarely E-H E-S 0 - Unlikely/ Theoretically possible but will most likely not occur Frequency Insignificant environmental damage Minor environmental damage Moderate environmental damage Significant environmental damage Serious environmental damage Consequence With Pilot Without Pilot Figure 10-1 Risk matrix events involving vessels in Hinlopenstretet

77 Page Assessment of vessel traffic and threats Figure 10-2 Figur 10-1 Assessment of threats and causal relation for events in Hinlopenstretet Hinlopenstretet is a poorly charted area with some identified shoals and possible presence of known hazards. The ice in the area can have significant impact on navigation throughout the year. Likelihood of grounding: All of Hinlopenstretet has higher likelihood of grounding than normal Likelihood of collision: o o Collision with vessels: lower than normal due to the minimal ship traffic Collision with ice from glaciers: moderate o Collision with sea ice: significant. Highly variable ice conditions from 0 to 10/10 in the period May to September Pilot can be essential when navigating in ice. A pilot will have little effect with respect to risks associated with poorly charted areas

78 Page Assessment of possible environmental impacts Figure 10-3 shows the protected areas on Svalbard. Hinlopenstretet are included in the protected area Nordaustlandet. Further details about the area are given in the table below. Figure 10-2 Protected areas on Svalbard, taken from the Environmental Resource Database (MRDB ). Hinlopenstretet including Torellneset and Perthesøya is indicated with the arrow. The area holds nesting and moulting seabirds, and is part of the protected North East Spitsbergen national park. Impact category Particularly valuable areas (SVO) Seabirds, bird cliff Seabirds, nesting Seabirds, moulting Marine mammals Protection Description Relatively untouched. Important casting and haul out area for seals and walrus. Most important breeding area for polar bears. Bird cliff which is the key biotopes. Spawning area for polar cod. Nature reserve. UNESCO: biosphere reserve. Bird cliffs dominated by razorbill, nesting Razorbill, ducks, seagulls Core area of the most endangered goose-population, brent goose, razorbills, ducks and seagulls. Southeast Svalbard Nature Reserve covers Edgeøya, Barentsøya, Tusebøyane and Ryke Yseøyane (SV N 88) and Halvmåneøya. Date of protection; 1 June Land area 4406 km 2, total area 14,187 km 2. Dominated by large beach areas covered in vegetation in the west, and less productive areas with poor vegetation in the east with large glacier areas. Northeast of Edgeøya are beach areas with well-developed raised beach systems. The surrounding sea areas are characterized by cold arctic waters and are influenced by floating ice most of the year. Along the coast are a number of well-known haul out areas for walrus, and Kong Karls Land is the main area of the reproducing population of polar bears. Also the north-eastern parts of the reserve are important area for hibernating polar bears. Northeast Svalbard Nature Reserve. The reserve includes Kvitøya, Kong Karls Land and Nordaustlandet with the surrounding islands and territorial seawaters, including areas located on the west side of Hinlopenstretet. The purpose of protection is to preserve a large, contiguous and in the most part untouched terrestrial and marine nature

79 Page 75 areas with intact habitats, ecosystems, species, natural ecological processes, landscape elements and cultural heritage as a reference area in further research Environmental resources in Hinlopenstretet In Figure 10-4 below, sea bird locations in the area are indicated. A more detailed description of these locations is provided in Table In the case of the brent goose, the distribution area is located in other parts of Nordaustlandet and is not considered relevant for Hinlopenstretet. These data are used to assess environmental impact of an accidental discharge of oil in the area of Hinlopenstretet, together with estimates of stock size and distribution of individuals, ref to Table 5-1. Table 10-1 indicates distances from Perthesøya/Torellneset, as this area is the starting point of a possible event (collision or grounding). The basis is that the areas described in the table can be affected by a possible oil spill near Perthesøya/Torellneset (in the event of oil drifting into these areas).

80 Page 76 Figure 10-3 Overview of sea bird locations in Hinlopenstretet and surrounding areas. Torellneset/Perthesøya is indicated with a red flag. Green frame indicates the locations that are assumed affected by an oil spill near Torellneset/Perthesøya, further described in Table Table 10-1 Sea bird species at selected locations within and near Hinlopenstretet and surrounding areas. The distance indicates approximate distance from Perthesøya. Data from Norwegian Polar Institute (Svalbard map). Colony name Bird species Distance (m) Whalbergøya Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake; Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Torellneset Ivory Gull 9000 Lemstrømøya Common Eider, Glaucous Gull, Arctic Skua Fosterøyane Arctic Skua Selanderneset Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot; Black Guillemot Bragerneset Black Guillemot Bragebreøya Arctic Skua Kapp Fanshawe Fulmar, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot Alkefjellet Fulmar, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Puffin Nordenskioldøya Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot Eremitten Fulmar, Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk 36000

81 Page 77 Figure 10-5 indicates various shore types in Hinlopenstretet and surrounding areas. These categories are used in relation to environmental impact for habitats/natural areas. Shore types Rock beach Slope of loose material, low Slope of loose material, high Rock cliff, low Rock cliff, high Talus cones Beach ridge Glacier front Unclassified Figure 10-4 Shore types in Hinlopenstretet and surrounding areas.

82 Page Assessment of environmental impacts Based on statistics and information on vessels and sailing patterns, DNV has assessed the environmental impacts of vessel traffic in Hinlopenstretet for two different scenarios. These scenarios are considered to be the most relevant for impact assessments. The two scenarios are as follows: 1) Expedition cruise: Oil max = 240 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 160 tonnes (MDO/MGO). 2) Research vessel: Oil max = 120 tonnes (MDO/MGO), Oil min = 40 tonnes (MDO/MGO). The emission scenarios are based on emission of tonnes of oil compared to what that may affect the identified environmental resources Impact on seabirds and sea mammals Based on the vulnerability of the identified biological environmental resources, the effect key (acute mortality for the percentage share of individuals affected by oil) is as shown in the tables below. Table 10-2 Effect key for acute mortality for seabird based on the discharge scenarios of tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (fulmar, ivory gull, kittiwake) 10 (arctic skua, glaucous gull) 20 (razorbill, common eider) >= Table 10-3 Effect key for acute mortality for walrus and polar bear based on the discharge scenarios of tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key Individual vulnerability (%) Oil amount (tonnes) S1 S2 S (walrus) 20 (polar bear) >= With the effect key as shown above, the restitution time and impact category is as shown in the table below. No data is found concerning appearance of arctic skua or kittiwake in the area. It is estimated that 2% of the population of arctic skua and kittiwake will be affected.

83 Page 79 Table 10-4 Damage key for sea bird/ sea mammal based on the discharge scenario of tonnes MGO or MDO. Damage key stock Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time in years) Sea bird / sea mammal Acute reduction in stock Insignificant < 1 month Minor 1 month 1 year Moderate 1 3 years (%) < 1 50 % (glaucous gull,little auk, brünnich s guillemot, black guillemot, kittiwake, puffin, fulmar, common eider, arctic skua, polar bear, ivory gull) 50 % (glaucous gull, little auk, brünnich s guillemot, black guillemot, kittiwake, puffin,fulmar, common eider, arctic skua, polar bear, ivory gull) % (walrus) 50 % (walrus) At a discharge of 40 to 240 tonnes of oil it is estimated that <1% of the population is affected (mortality) for all species except walrus, where it is estimated that between 1 and 5% of the population is affected (die). According to the consequence scale the consequence for all species, except walrus, is negligible environmental damage (restitution time <1month) to minor environmental damage (restitution time 1 month to 1 year). Regarding walrus the consequence is minor to moderate damage to the environment (restitution time 1-3 years). Ivory gull and walrus are listed on the Norwegian Red List of endangered species and are classified as highly threatened (ivory gull) and vulnerable (walrus) Habitats/natural areas The following coastal types are found in the area (ref also to Figure 10-5): Rock beach, slope of loose material low, rock cliff low and high, beach ridge and glacier front. The consequences will be as indicated in the table below. The consequence of all the identified habitats / natural areas can be characterized as minor environmental damage to moderate damage to the environment according to the impact scale. Table 10-5 Damage key for habitat/natural areas. Damage key for Impact category- environmental damage (restitution time) habitat/natural areas Vulnerability Oil amount (tonnes) Minor < 1 year Moderate 1-3 years S % Slope of loose material low, beach ridge S % Rock cliff, rock beach, glacier front 40 % slope of loose material low, beach ridge 20 % rock cliff, rock beach, glacier front

84 Page Assessment of the risk associated with vessel traffic in Recherchefjorden Event categories being concidered Events involving Overseas cruise vessels - C - Events involving Expedition cruice vessels (Research vessels) - E - Event that causes damage to habitats / natural areas C-H E-H Event that causes damage to seabirds / marine mammals C-S E-S Figure 11.1 presents the overall risk picture associated with vessel traffic and the potential environmental consequences in Recherchefjorden. Risk associated with vessel traffic in Recherchefjorden is assessed as follows: Recherchefjorden is primarily visited by expedition cruise and research vessels Recherchefjorden is open and has no significant navigational hazards. The risk associated with calving from glaciers in the fjord is considered to be limited An oil spill from a cruise vessel in this fjord may have significant environmental impact on glaucous gulls. The impact is expected to be less for other registered seabirds, walrus and polar bears in the area. The environmental impact on habitats / natural areas is estimated to be moderate The environmental effects from expedition cruise or research vessels is expected to be moderate for glaucous gulls but lower for the other species included in the analysis. For habitats / natural areas, the environmental damage from expedition cruise vessels is expected to be less The risk assessment is based on the highest and most likely environmental consequences for seabirds and marine mammals (glaucous gull) and habitat / natural area. Implementation of requirements for the use of pilot is not expected to have significant effects in this area

85 Page 81 5 Very high likelihood / Occurs frequently 4 High likelihood/ Occurs relatively frequent 3 - Moderate likelihood / Occurs 2 Low likelihood / Very rare 1 Very low likelihood / Occurs very rarely 0 - Unlikely/ Theoretically possible but will most likely not occur E-H E-H C-H C-H E-S E-S C-S C-S Frequency Insignificant environmental damage Minor environmental damage Moderate environmental damage Significant environmental damage Serious environmental damage Consequence With Pilot Without Pilot Figure 11-1 Risk matrix events involving vessels in Recherchefjorden

86 Page Assessment of vessel traffic and threat Figure 11-2 Assessment of threats and causal relation for events in Recherchefjorden Recherchefjorden is not considered to be a particularly risky area to navigate. The fjord is relatively well mapped without significant navigational hazards. Likelihood of grounding: low Likelihood of collision: o o Collision between vessels: lower than normal due to limited traffic Collision with ice from the glacier: low due to limited calving of icebergs o Collision with sea ice: low. 0 to 4 / 10 in May, 0 to 1 / 10 in the period from June to July. Ice-free in August and September o Pilot not critical

87 Page Assessment of possible environmental impacts The figure below shows the protected areas on Svalbard, including the Recherchefjord which is included in the protected area South Spitsbergen nasjonalpark. Figure 11-1 Protected areas on Svalbard, taken from the Environmental Resource Database (MRDB ). Recherchefjord is indicated with the arrow Environmental resources in Recherchefjord A general description of environmental resources in protected areas, which includes Recherchefjord, is given in the table below. Recherchefjord is also within one of the areas of Svalbard where theavy oil was prohibited Impact category Bird cliff, seabirds nesting Bird cliff, seabirds nesting Fish Marine mammals Protection Description Midterhukfjellet, bird cliff Dunderfjellet, bird cliff dominated by kittiwake Area to greenland halibut (juvenile), 0-group and larvae (July-August) of northeast Atlantic cod, included in distribution area of capelin, haddock (0-group). Included in distribution area of harp seal, bearded seal, harbor seal, walrus, minke whale, white-beaked dolphin, killer whale, humpback whale, beluga whale, fin whale and bottlenose dolphin in Recherchefjord. South Spitsbergen (South Spitsbergen National Park). The national park covers Wedel Jarlsberg Land, Torell Land and Sørkapp Land including territorial waters. International / National Protection. The purpose of protection is to preserve a large, contiguous and in the most part untouched nature area on land and at sea with intact habitats, ecosystems, species, natural ecological processes, landscape elements, cultural heritage and cultural environments as a reference area for research and the experience of Svalbard's natural -and cultural heritage, including ensuring: - a magnificent landscape with characteristic steep mountain formations,

88 Page 84 Recreation Impact category Description coastal plains and glaciers. - several larger and smaller nesting sites for seabirds (bird cliffs), nesting and wintering areas to ducks (especially common eider) and important habitats to polar bears. - important cultural monument and cultural environments from whale-hunting, hunting in generall, mining, tourism, science and World War II. - Large concentrations of seabirds, and several key-areas for the common eider and geese. Great contrast between east and the west side, but the exposure to the central parts of the Barents Sea allows some of the largest seabird colonies located precisely here. The seabird reserves Sørkapp, Dunoyer, Isøyane and Olsholmen are located within the park. Hornsund is the dominant fjord with unusually spectacular alpint scenery, and is an important habitat for polar bears in spring. This is also the most important area regarding migration of polar bears between Storfjord and west of Spitsbergen in all seasons. South Spitsbergen: Hiking area. No permanent facilities or marked path/wading areas. Possibility of camping in organized tours, in good distance from the bird sanctuaries. These must be approved by Governor of Svalbard (maximum 2 stationary camps per season). The area can be characterized as a primitive area. In Figure 11-4 below, sea bird locations in the area are indicated. A more detailed description of these locations is provided in Table These data are used to assess environmental impact of an accidental discharge of oil in the area of Recherchefjord, together with estimates of stock size and distribution of individuals, ref to Table 5-1. Table 11-1 indicates distances from Recherchefjord, as this area is the starting point of a possible event (collision or grounding). The basis is that the areas described in the table can be affected by a possible oil spill near Recherchefjord (in the event of oil drifting into these areas).

89 Page 85 Figure 11-2 Overview of sea bird locations in Recherchefjord and surrounding areas. Recherchefjord is indicated with a red flag. Green frame indicates the locations that are assumed affected by an oil spill near Recherchefjord, further described in Table 11-1.

90 Page 86 Table 11-1 Sea bird species at selected locations within and near Recherchefjord and surrounding areas. The distance indicates approximate distance from Recherchefjord. Data from Norwegian Polar Institute (Svalbard map). Colony name Bird species Distance (m) Aldegondaberget Little Auk, Black Guillemot Sterneckøya Common Eider Eholmen Common Eider Bravaisberget Little Auk, Black Guillemot Mariaholmen Common Eider, Arctic Skua Akseløya Common Eider Sundhøgda Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot Kolfjellet E Glaucous Gull, Little Auk, Black Guillemot Kolfjellet W Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot Ingeborgfjellet Glaucous Gull, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Guillemot, Puffin Reiniusøyane Barnacle Goose, Common Eider, Glaucous Gull, Great Black-backed Gull Kapp Martin-Lågneset Common Eider, Diabaspynten Barnacle Goose, Glaucous Gull, Common Eider, Great Black-backed Gull Observatoriefjellet Fulmar, Kittiwake, Little Auk, Brünnich s Guillemot, Black Recherchefjord Guillemot, Puffin Activekammen SE Little Auk, Black Guillemot Recherchefjord Activekammen NE Little Auk, Black Guillemot Recherchefjord Bohlinryggen Little Auk, Black Guillemot Wijkanderberget Glaucous Gull, Little Auk, Black Guillemot Halvorsenfjellet Little Auk, Black Guillemot Bellsundhesten Little Auk, Black Guillemot, Puffin Kolven klokkefjell Glaucous Gull, Little Auk, Black Guillemot, Puffin Straumholmane Common Eider Figure 11-5 indicates various shore types in Recherchefjord and surrounding areas. These categories are used in relation to environmental impact for habitats/natural areas.

91 Page 87 Shore types Rock beach Slope of loose material, low Slope of loose material, high Rock cliff, low Rock cliff, high Talus cones Beach ridge Glacier front Unclassified Figur 11-3 Shore types in Recherchefjord and surrounding areas.