table 1: please use the table below to provide advice for

Annexes – /48

ANNEX 1: Advice to the Agency

Table 1: Please use the table below to provide advice for the Agency’s consideration in its recommendation to the Minister of Environment

and Climate Change and preparation of draft conditions

Questions Responses/Comments

Has the proponent described all project components and activities in sufficient detail to understand all relevant project-environment interactions? If not, identify what additional information is needed.

Yes

Were the study areas sufficient to predict potential effects from all relevant project-environment interactions, and to consider the effects within a local and regional context?

Is the baseline information sufficient to characterize the existing environment, predict potential effects and obtain monitoring objectives? If not, identify what additional information is needed.

No, see ECCC-03, ECCC-04, ECCC-05, ECCC-07, ECCC-19, ECCC-20, ECCC-22, ECCC-25, ECCC-26, ECCC-27, ECCC-31

Alternatives Assessment

Has the proponent adequately described the criteria it used to determine the technically and economically feasible alternative means?

Has the proponent listed the potential effects to valued components (VCs) within your mandate that could be affected by the technically and economically feasible alternative means?

Has the proponent adequately described why it chose each preferred alternative means?

Are there other alternative means that could have been presented? If so, please describe.

No, see ECCC-01 Yes No, see ECCC-01 Yes, see ECCC-01

Environmental Effects Assessment

Has the proponent clearly described all relevant pathways of effects to be taken into account under section 5 of CEAA 2012?

Has the proponent identified all potential effects to VCs, including species at risk, within your mandate?

Were all potential receptors considered?

No, see ECCC-01, ECCC-09, ECCC-14 and ECCC-27 No, see ECCC-05 Yes

Were the methodologies used by the proponent appropriate to collect baseline data and predict effects, why or why not?

Has the proponent explicitly addressed the degree of scientific uncertainty related to the data and methods used within the assessment? If there are unaccounted for scientific uncertainties, describe them and indicate the options for increasing certainty in the predictions?

Yes No, see ECCC-17, ECCC-18

Annexes – /48


Are the predicted effects described in objective and reasonable terms (e.g. beneficial or adverse, temporary or permanent, reversible or irreversible)?

Yes

Has the proponent adequately assessed the potential cumulative environmental effects, including using appropriate temporal and spatial boundaries , examining physical activities that have been and will be carried out, and proposing mitigation and follow-up program requirements? Provide rationale.

No, see ECCC-11, ECCC-19, ECCC-20

Has the proponent adequately described the potential for environmental effects caused by accidents and malfunctions, including the types of accidents and malfunctions, their likelihood and severity and the associated potential environmental effects? If not, identify what additional information is needed.

No, see ECCC-21, ECCC-28, ECCC-43, ECCC-45, ECCC-46

Are you satisfied with the proponent’s assessment of effects of the environment on the Project?

Has the proponent characterized the likelihood and severity appropriately? Provide rationale.

No, see ECCC-01, ECCC-24, ECCC-25, ECCC-38, ECCC-39, ECCC-40 No, see ECCC-01, ECCC-24

Has the proponent sufficiently described and characterized the project activities and components as they relate to federal decisions within your mandate? If not, identify what additional information is needed.

Are changes to the environment, as they relate to federal decisions within your mandate, sufficiently described? If not, identify what additional information is needed.

N/A N/A

Mitigation

Has the degree of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures been described? If not, identify what information is needed.

Is it clear how each proposed mitigation measure links to each potential pathway of effect?

No, see ECCC-10, ECCC-11

Would you propose different or additional mitigation measures? If so, provide a description of the mitigation measure(s), with rationale.

Yes, see ECCC-01, ECCC-09

Which of the proposed mitigation measures and/or project design elements do you consider to be necessary to reduce the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects? Provide rationale.

All

Residual Adverse Environmental Effects

Are the identification and documentation of residual environmental effects described by the proponent adequate? If not, what are the aspects for which there is uncertainty and, where

No, see ECCC 12, ECCC-13, ECCC-14, ECCC-16, ECCC-17, ECCC-18, ECCC-23, ECCC-37

Annexes – /48


possible, indicate how these residual effects can be best described. If there is uncertainty, what are the options for increasing certainty?

Did the proponent provide a sufficiently precise, ideally quantitative, description of the residual environmental effects related to your mandate? Identify any areas that are insufficient.

No, see ECCC 12, ECCC-13, ECCC-14, ECCC-16, ECCC-17, ECCC-18, ECCC-23, ECCC-37

Determination of Significance

Are the conclusions on significance in the EIS supported by the analysis that is provided?

Are the proponent’s proposed criteria for assessing significance appropriate? This includes how the criteria were characterized, ranked, and weighted. Provide rationale. Where the proponent has not used one of the Agency’s recommended key criteria (magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, reversibility, and social/ecological context), has a rationale been provided?

No, see ECCC-18 Yes

Were appropriate methodologies used in developing the conclusions on significance? Yes

Do you agree with the proponent’s analysis and conclusions on significance? Provide rationale. No, see ECCC-18

Monitoring and Follow-up

Does the proposed monitoring and follow-up program verify the predictions of the environmental assessment as they relate to section 5? Please explain additional monitoring or follow-up needed to address uncertainty in the effects assessment.

Yes

Does the proposed monitoring and follow-up program verify the effectiveness of proposed mitigations as they relate to section 5? Please explain additional monitoring or follow-up needed to address uncertainty in the proposed mitigation.

Yes

Is the objective of the follow-up program clear and measurable?

Does the follow-up program include sufficient detail, and technical merit, for the Agency to achieve the stated objective through a condition (e.g. sufficient baseline dataset, monitoring plans, acceptable thresholds of change, contingency procedures)?

Yes No, see ECCC-13, ECCC-14, ECCC-15

Are you aware of any federal or provincial authorizations or regulations that will achieve the same follow-up program objective(s)? If so, how do these achieve the objective(s)?

No

Additional comments, views, advice

Provide any other comments. See ECCC-23, ECCC-24, ECCC-35, ECCC-37, ECCC-36, ECCC-41, ECCC-48, ECCC-49, ECCC-50, ECCC-51

Annexes – /48

ANNEX 2: Information requirements directed to the proponent

Table 2: Please use the table below to provide your department’s comments and suggestions for information that should be required from the proponent

to ensure the information in the EIS is scientifically and technically accurate and is sufficient to make a determination of significance on environmental

effects.

ID Project Effects Link to CEAA 2012 Reference to EIS guidelines

Reference to EIS Context and Rationale Specific Question/ Request for Information

ECCC-01-CWS-01

5(1)(a)(iii) 2.2 – Alternative means of carrying out the project

2.9 – Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project 2.9.2.5 – Offshore Vessel Lighting (including Flaring)

a) Quote (PDF pg. 78, doc pg. 2-44) “Reduction of light can therefore not be considered as an alternative means, as it could compromise the safety of drilling installation personnel and/or third-party navigator”

b) Quote (PDF pg. 78, doc pg.

2-44) “Lighting will be maintained at a level that will not impeded the safety of the workforce or drilling operations. The EIS considers the environmental effects associated with standard MODU lighting”

c) Quote (PDF pg. 79, doc pg. 2-45) “An alternative option, if flaring is required, could be to manage the timing of flaring activity to reduce light generated during flaring. For example,

ECCC requests that the proponent undertake a more thorough and complete analysis of alternative means of lighting and flaring, with consideration of the draft recommendations made in the Regional Assessment of Offshore Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador draft report. All updates must be subsequently applied to relevant sections and tables.

Annexes – /48



planning flaring such that it doesn’t begin during periods of poor visibility, including night and/or during inclement weather. However, upon commencement of flaring, restricting well testing periods in this way may compromise the data gathered. If flaring could not be carried out continuously, it could result in prolonger well testing activity (i.e. greater than one month as currently predicted), increasing operational costs and risks”

d) Quote (PDF pg. 79, doc pg.

2-45; Table 2.21) “Reduced flaring (i.e., no flaring during nighttime or inclement weather – not preferred alternative” “Flaring as required with flare shield (water curtain) – preferred alternative)

ECCC disagrees that the proponent has conducted a sufficient analysis of alternative means for lighting and flaring.

Annexes – /48



ECCC also notes that Recommendation 5 from the Regional Assessment of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador recommended the following, which should be considered for this project:

ECCC-02-CWS-02

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.1.4 – Migratory birds and their habitat

6.2.1 – Approach and Key Information Sources

Quote (PDF pg. 63, doc pg. 6-57) “In 2018, ECSAS density maps derived from these data collected from 2006 to 2016 were published at the on-line “Atlas of Seabirds at Sea in Eastern Canada” and the shapefiles were made available on an open data site (Bolduc et al. 2018). These maps were used here to illustrate and describe the current marine bird distribution and abundance in the Project Area.” It is important to note that not only does the Atlas summarize densities across the region, but it is also a measure of variation (i.e., the reliability of the density data). There are some blocks in the Atlas that have limited data associated with them, and are therefore a less reliable estimate of density.

ECCC notes that there are limitations to some of the data associated with this source.

Annexes – /48



ECCC-03-CWS-03


Table 6.8 – Numbers of Marine Birds Nesting at Major Colonies in the RAA

Table 6.8 lists 15 major marine bird colonies, but ECCC notes that this list is not comprehensive and misses a number of colonies that are important for migratory birds, such as Little Fogo Islands. Additionally, there are colonies that are included that ECCC does not consider particularly “important” as a part of this analysis, such as Northern Groais Island.

ECCC requests that all important bird colonies be defined and identified and is willing to provide support for this request.

ECCC-04-CWS-04


6.2.2.8 – Storm-petrels

Quote (PDF pg. 81, doc pg. 6-75) “The nesting distribution of the Leach’s Storm-petrel on the Atlantic Ocean is comprised of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Norway” The Atlantic distribution of Leach’s Storm-petrels is much broader than is described in the statement above, including other parts of Canada (i.e., Quebec, Labrador, New Brunswick), the United States of America (i.e., Maine), France (i.e., Saint Pierre et Miquelon), and many other European countries besides Norway.

ECCC requests that the full distribution of nesting Leach’s Storm-petrel in the Atlantic Basin be identified, with specific reference to Pollet et al. 2019.

Annexes – /48



ECCC recommends that the proponent consult Pollet et al. 2019 to obtain more accurate information on the full distribution of nesting Leach’s Storm-petrel across the Atlantic Basin. Pollet, I.L., Bond, A.L., Hedd, A., Huntington, C.E., Butler, R.G., and Mauck, R. (2019). Leach’s Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa), version 2.0. In The Birds of North American (P.G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.llcspet.02.

ECCC-05-CWS-07


Table 6.11 – Marine and Migratory Bird Species of Conservation Interest Likely to Occur in the RAA

Quote (PDF pg. 88, doc pg. 6-82) “An additional six species, while not designated provincially or federal occur on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species as Endangered, Vulnerable, or Near Threatened.” Atlantic Puffin is designated Vulnerable by the IUCN due to declines in the number of birds nesting at European colonies. This error is also relevant to Sections 9 and 14 of the EIS.

ECCC requests that IUCN designation of the Atlantic Puffin be clarified and considered as appropriate in other areas of the EIS (section 9 and 14)

ECCC-06-CWS-09

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.1.9.1 – Special Areas

6.4 – Special Areas

Quote (PDF pg. 135, doc page 6-129)

ECCC requests that the proponent

https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.llcspet.02

https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.llcspet.02

Annexes – /48



6.4.2.2 – Marine Protected Areas

“No MPAs occur within the Project Area. Two MPAs occur within the RAA, Gilbert Bay and Eastport…” The proponent has not included reference to the Laurentian Channel MPA in the EIS. Although this MPA does not occur within the selected Regional Assessment Area (RAA), there is a possibility that oil from an accident or malfunction could extend beyond the boundaries of the RAA and affect this special area. ECCC recommends that the proponent include reference to the Laurentian Channel MPA in the EIS. The proponent should note that the Laurentian Channel MPA does not occur within the boundaries of the Regional Assessment Area, but the possibility for impacts associated with accidents or malfunctions may extend beyond this boundary and affect this special area.

consider potential effects in the Laurentian Channel MPA

ECCC-07-CWS-10

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.3 – Predicted effects on valued components

a) 9.0 – Assessment of Potential Effects on

a) Quote (PDF pg. 59, doc pg. 9-1) “An additional three species are listed on the IUCN Red

ECCC requests that the listing of these species be clarified and that this be

Annexes – /48



7.3.5 – Migratory Birds

Marine and Migratory Birds

b) 14.3 – Marine

and Migratory Birds (including Species at Risk)

List of Threatened Species: Bermuda petrel, Zino’s petrel and Desertas petrel.”


14-25) “An additional three species are listed on IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Bermuda pertrel, Zino’s petrel and Desertas petrel.”

These statements contradict the statement in Section 6.2.4 – Species at Risk (PDF pg. 88, doc pg. 6-82) which states: “An additional six species, while not designated provincially or federally occur on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species as Endangered, Vulnerable, or Near Threatened.” Note - See ECCC-07 for requested correction. It is important to include the Leach’s Storm-petrel in this discussion, in particular, given that they are one of the species that is most likely impacted by offshore oil and gas activities. Long-tailed Duck, Atlantic Puffin and Black-legged Kittiwake should also be included in the list of IUCN species that may occur in the RAA.

considered in Section 9.0 and Section 14.3, provided in the previous column, to include Leach’s Storm-petrel, Black-legged Kittiwake, Atlantic Puffin and Long-tailed Duck in the IUCN List of Threatened Species, to remain consistent with other sections in the EIS.

Annexes – /48



ECCC-08-CWS-11

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.3 – Predicted effects on valued components 7.3.5 – Migratory Birds 7.4 – Mitigation measures

9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine and Migratory Birds 9.3.1 – Change in Risk of Mortality of Physical Injury a) 9.3.1.2 –

Mitigation

Quote (PDF pg. 68, doc pg. 9-10) “Chevron, in consultation with ECCC-CWS, will develop a protocol for systematic, daily searches for seabirds stranded on the MODU and supply vessels, which will include the documentation of search effort. Seabirds found will be recovered, rehabilitated, released and documented in accordance with the methods in Procedures for Handling and Documenting Stranded Birds Encountered on Infrastructure Offshore Atlantic Canada (ECCC 2017b). Chevron will provide training in these protocols and procedures. A Seabird Handling Permit will be obtained from ECCC-CWS annually. In accordance with ECCC requirements, an annual report and occurrence data that summarized stranded and/or seabird handling occurrences will be submitted to ECCC.” ECCC requests that the proponent remove “rehabilitated” from the statement above. The proponent cannot undertake rehabilitation of seabirds that

ECCC notes that the proponent cannot undertake rehabilitation of seabirds.

Annexes – /48



are found stranded on the platforms or vessels.

ECCC-09-CWS-12

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.3 – Predicted effects on valued components 7.3.5 – Migratory Birds 7.4 – Mitigation measures

9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine and Migratory Birds 9.3.1 – Change in Risk of Mortality of Physical Injury b) 9.3.1.2 –

Mitigation

Quote (PDF pg. 69, doc pg. 9-11) “If flaring is required, Chevron will discuss flaring plans with the C-NLOPB including steps to reduce adverse effects on migratory birds. This may involve restricting flaring to the minimum required to characterize the well’s hydrocarbon potential and as necessary for the safety of the operation, reducing flaring during periods of migratory bird vulnerability, and the use of a water curtain to deter birds from the general vicinity of the flare.” In accordance with the C-NLOPB’s Measures to Protect and Monitor Seabirds in Petroleum-Related Activity in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, the proponent should notify the C-NLOPB of any plans to flare at least 30 days in advance of flaring to determine whether this activity would occur during a period of migratory bird vulnerability. The proponent must additionally describe how

ECCC requests the following key mitigation measures be considered. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board will be notified at least 30 days in advance of non-emergency flaring to have the Board determine whether flaring would occur during a period of migratory bird vulnerability, and the proponent should detail how it plans to prevent harm to migratory birds. Flaring will be limited to the length of time required to characterize the wells’ hydrocarbon potential and as necessary for the safety of the operation.

Annexes – /48



it plans to prevent harm to migratory birds. ECCC recommends additional mitigations with respect to flaring to reduce effects on birds:

Flaring should be limited to the length of time required to characterize the wells’ hydrocarbon potential and as necessary for the safety of the operation;

Minimize the number of flaring events to the extent feasible, during nighttime and poor weather conditions, as well as during seasonal periods of bird vulnerability;

When flaring occurs, have a dedicated Seabird Observer monitor and document bird behaviour around the flare, and assess the effectiveness of flare shields and water curtains in mitigating flare-bird interactions, as applicable.

Flaring events will be minimized to the extent feasible, during nighttime and poor weather conditions, as well as during seasonal periods of bird vulnerability. When flaring occurs, a dedicated Seabird Observer will monitor and document bird behaviour around the flare to assess the effectiveness of flare shields and water curtains in mitigating flare-bird interactions, as applicable.

ECCC-10-CWS-13

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.3 – Predicted effects on valued components

9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine

Quote (PDF pg. 72, doc pg. 9-14) “It is difficult to quantify the mortality rate of birds attracted to artificial lighting because the available estimate rely on

ECCC requests that the proponent consider the uncertainty and potential

Annexes – /48



7.3.5 – Migratory Birds

and Migratory Birds 9.3.1 - Change in Risk of Mortality of Physical Injury 9.3.1.3 – Characterization of Residual Project-related Environmental Effects 9.3.1.3.1 – Presence and Operation of the MODU

recovery of birds on platforms and vessels, and it is not known how many birds are killed but not recovered due to scavenging or falling into the sea (Bruinzeel et al. 2009; Bruinzeel and van Belle 2010; Ellis et al. 2013). These recoveries are often conducted on an incidental basis, which provides limited spatial and temporal coverage compared to a systematic observer-based monitoring system (Ronconi et al. 2015). Although the majority of stranded birds encountered on platforms and vessels are thought to be found alive and released successfully, without a systematic search methodology and documentation of search effort, it is difficult to quantify how many dead individuals may have been undetected during the searches. Dead birds are less likely to be detected during opportunistic searches, given that they are more likely to hide away before dying and go undetected for longer periods of time. Monitoring in previous projects was typically characterized as

underrepresentation of the proportion of birds entering into contact with the MODU or supply vessels based on the number of individuals that are unable to be observed and/or recovered during monitoring.

Annexes – /48



opportunistic, so it should be acknowledged that the information that is currently available is likely an underrepresentation of the proportion of individuals entering into contact with the MODU or supply vessels, given that dead birds may fall into the sea or fall victim to predation by scavengers before they are observed.

ECCC-11-CWS-14

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.3 – Predicted effects on valued components 7.3.5 – Migratory Birds

a) 9.3.1.3.1 – Presence and Operation of the MODU

b) 14.3.4 – Potential Cumulative Environmental Effects

a) Quote (PDF pg. 73, doc pg. 9-15) “Recovery of stranded storm-petrels on MODUs and their release mitigates much of the stranding, but an unknown portion of storm-petrels are killed or injured from collisions and fall into the water, fall prey to gulls, or are not encountered during customary personnel duties.”


14-31) “Existing and proposed offshore petroleum exploration and development projects (including seismic surveys) are required to conduct

ECCC notes that the recovery and release of stranded birds during systematic search protocols may help to reduce the number of individuals that are killed when they strand on platforms/vessels, but does not mitigate the level of attraction of migratory birds to artificial lighting. Recovery and subsequent release of stranded birds during the implementation systematic search protocols may reduce the number of individuals that die

Annexes – /48



surveys and adhere to proper bird handling and release procedures. This not only serves to mitigate potential cumulative environmental effects on marine and migratory birds, but also adds to the cumulative knowledge of bird use and strandings in the region, and the effectiveness of mitigation.”

c) Quote (PDF pg. 208, doc pg. 17-20) “The greatest potential for environmental effects on marine and migratory birds is related to artificial lighting and stranding of birds (including Leach’s storm-petrels) on the MODU. This will be mitigated through the development and implementation of protocols and training for systematic, daily searches, and for the recovery, rehabilitation, and release of birds adhering to protocols detailed in ECCC’s Procedures for Handling and Documenting Stranded Birds Encountered on Infrastructure Offshore

when stranded on platforms or vessels.

Annexes – /48



Atlantic Canada (ECCC, 2017b).”

ECCC has advised that until an adequate estimate of strandings and mortality at offshore infrastructure is obtained, there is uncertainty as to the level of effect on birds. See ECCC-13 for further information. It is important to clarify that undertaking systematic searches for stranded birds and their subsequent recovery and release does not mitigate the attraction of migratory birds to artificial lighting, but does assist in the quantification of the effect. The only known mitigation to reduce the effect of attraction (and potential mortality) is to reduce the amount of artificial light (intensity, timing, location). ECCC notes that release of stranded Leach’s Storm-petrels (and other stranded species) does not mitigate the effect of artificial lighting on the attraction of migratory birds but may contribute to the reduction in the number of individuals that

Annexes – /48



are killed as a result of attraction to platforms/vessels.

ECCC-12-CWS-15


9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine and Migratory Birds 9.3.1 - Change in Risk of Mortality of Physical Injury 9.3.1.3 – Characterization of Residual Project-related Environmental Effects 9.3.1.3.1 – Presence and Operation of the MODU

Quote (PDF pg. 73, doc pg. 9-15) “Based on the information and analysis summarized here, and with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures as summarized in Section 9.3.1.2, the overall magnitude of the effect of the presence and operation of a drilling installation on marine and migratory birds is anticipated to be low. There may be a slight increase in mortality/injury levels due to collisions, disorientation, and potential predation, although, based on previous monitoring, the mortality rate is anticipated to be low as most stranded birds encountered on platforms and vessels are found alive and release successfully.” ECCC disagrees with the proponent’s conclusion that the overall magnitude of the effect of the presence and operation of a drilling installation on marine and migratory birds is anticipated to be low.

ECCC requests that the level of uncertainty that remains related to the effect and zone of influence of artificial lighting on marine and migratory birds be considered in the conclusion of potential effects.

Annexes – /48



In the absence of systematic searches and documentation of stranded birds (live and dead) to quantify the level of attraction and effect of strandings, and a discussion of mitigation measures to reduce the amount of artificial lighting, the proponent cannot state with certainty that the effect of the presence of the MODU will be low in magnitude. It is also important to note that considerable uncertainty remains as to the actual zone of influence of light. There have been no studies undertaken on the maximum light detection distance of the eyes of migratory birds. Furthermore, no studies have been undertaken that describe how far away from a light source a migratory bird must be before light affects its behaviour. This uncertainty should be clearly stated and should be reflected in the proponent’s level of confidence in their conclusions. Leach’s Storm-petrels breeding on Baccalieu Island, the largest colony in the world and hosting 4 million breeding individuals,

Annexes – /48



travel across and forage in the proposed Project area (deep waters, specifically) during the breeding season, and are known to be attracted to sources of artificial lighting. Therefore, effects on breeding birds, specifically Leach’s Storm-petrel, could be high.

ECCC-13-CWS-16


9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine and Migratory Birds 9.3.1 - Change in Risk of Mortality of Physical Injury 9.3.1.3 – Characterization of Residual Project-related Environmental Effects 9.3.1.3.4 – Well Testing and Flaring

Quote (PDF pg. 78, doc pg. 9-20) “While accurate assessment of mortality at offshore facilities may be difficult, no mass mortality events have ever been reported at offshore oil and gas operations in offshore NL.” It has proven extremely difficult to accurately assess migratory bird mortality in a comprehensive study in offshore Newfoundland. While mass mortalities may not have been reported in oil and gas operations in offshore NL, it does not mean that they have not occurred. The current level of search effort for stranded birds is opportunistic (i.e. not systematic), and is not designed to detect mortality events.

ECCC requests that the uncertainty related to the occurrence of mass mortalities offshore NL be considered, given the lack of systematic search effort and documentation of strandings that are designed to detect mortality events, and the absence of comprehensive studies in the NL offshore. While no mass mortality events have been reported at offshore oil and gas operations in offshore NL, it is difficult to

Annexes – /48



provide an accurate assessment of mortality at offshore facilities given the lack of systematic searches and documentation of stranded birds, and the absence of comprehensive studies on mass mortality events in offshore NL.

ECCC-14-CWS-17


9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine and Migratory Birds 9.3.1 - Change in Risk of Mortality of Physical Injury 9.3.1.3 – Characterization of Residual Project-related Environmental Effects 9.3.1.3.4 – Well Testing and Flaring

Quote (PDF pg. 79, doc pg. 9-21) “The effects of formation flow testing with flaring on marine and migratory birds are therefore anticipated to be low. Residual effects associated with flaring on changes to risk of mortality or physical injury to marine and migratory birds are predicted to be: adverse, low in magnitude, localized to a portion of the Project Area, short-term in duration, irregular in frequency and reversible.” Uncertainty remains surrounding the effects of artificial lighting attraction (see ECCC-13), the absence of systematic searches and documentation of stranded birds, and the lack of comprehensive studies on mass

ECCC requests that the conclusion on the the effects of flaring on marine and migratory birds consider the low level of confidence in the conclusion. Uncertainties remain related to marine and migratory bird attraction to artificial lighting and flares, the lack of systematic searches and documentation of stranded birds, and absence of comprehensive studies of mass mortalities due to flares in offshore NL, so the proponent

Annexes – /48



mortality events in offshore NL (see ECCC-16).

cannot make this conclusion with a high level of certainty.

ECCC-15-CWS-18


9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine and Migratory Birds 9.3.1 - Change in Risk of Mortality of Physical Injury 9.3.1.3 – Characterization of Residual Project-related Environmental Effects 9.3.1.3.5 – Supply and Servicing

Quote (PDF pg. 80, doc pg. 9-22) “During Project operations offshore, regular searches of vessel decks will be undertaken and accepted protocols for the collection and release of birds that become stranded will be implemented by qualified and experienced personnel, in accordance with applicable regulatory guidance and requirements and the CWS bird handling permit.” Systematic deck searches for stranded birds undertaken by trained observers are more effective as mitigation than opportunistic (“regular”) searches. These systematic searches should occur at least daily (preferably at dawn) on installations and supply vessels, with search efforts documented and observations recorded (including notes of efforts when no birds are found). Systematic monitoring protocols should be developed with reference to ECCC, 2016

ECCC requests that that systematic searches of vessel decks be undertaken by trained, experienced observers, and accepted protocols for the collection and release of birds that become stranded will be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory guidance and requirements and the CWS bird handling permit. ECCC will be consulted in the development of vessel-specific systematic monitoring protocols, in advance of their implementation.”

Annexes – /48



“Procedures for handling and documenting stranded birds encountered on infrastructure offshore Atlantic Canada” (2017) (http://shorturl.at/lptEF). ECCC has expertise in this area and should be consulted in the development of systematic monitoring protocols that are specific to each installation, vessel, etc.

ECCC-16-CWS-19


9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine and Migratory Birds a) 9.3.1 -

Change in Risk of Mortality of Physical Injury

9.3.1.3 – Characterization of Residual Project-related Environmental Effects

a) Quote (PDF pg. 80, doc pg. 9-22) “Supply vessel traffic for the MODU represents a negligible contribution to the overall vessel traffic off Eastern Newfoundland, and Project-related supply vessel traffic will use existing and established routes wherever possible.”

b) Quote (PDF pg. 85, doc pg. 9-27) “The various bird species that occupy the Project Area will not likely be affected by supply vessel activity or associated aircraft use, due to its transitory nature and thus, its short tern presence at any one location and because it is general consistent with the overall

ECCC requests that the contribution of support vessels to the attraction of migratory birds be considered.

http://shorturl.at/lptEF

Annexes – /48



9.3.1.3.5 – Supply and Servicing

b) 9.3.2 – Change in Habitat Quality and Use

9.3.2.3 - Characterization of Residual Project-related Environmental Effects 9.3.2.3.5 – Supply and Servicing

marine traffic that has occurred throughout the region for years.”

Given the increased amount of artificial lighting and increased possibility of accidental events from each supply vessel that is associated with the Project, ECCC does not agree with the proponent’s conclusion that the Project’s vessel traffic will make a “negligible” contribution to overall vessel activity in the region. Many migratory birds, such as Leach’s Storm-petrel, have foraging ranges that overlap with the Project Area. Research has shown that birds are attracted to sources of artificial lighting (e.g, Weise et al. 2001; Montevecchi 2006; Ellis et al. 2013), and bird strandings have been documented and reported on offshore oil platforms, supply vessels, and even at inland developments/infrastructure. Regardless of the transient nature of the supply vessels, marine and migratory birds are still likely to be attracted to these vessels.

Annexes – /48



The exact level of attraction that will result from each new platform, vessel, etc. added to the offshore environment cannot be quantified unless there are systematic searches for stranded birds on supply vessels that also document the search effort (including days when no birds are discovered). Wiese, F.K., Montevecchi, W.A., Davoren, G.K., Huettmeann, F., Diamond, A.W., Linke, J. (2011). Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the Northwest Atlantic. Mar. Poll. Bull. 42: 1285-1290. Montevecchi, W.A. (2006). Influences of artificial light on marine birds. In Rick C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting, pages 93-113. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Ellis, J.I., Wilhelm, S.I., Hedd, A., Fraser, G.S., Robertson, G.J., Rail, J-F., Fowler, M., Morgan, K.H. (2013). Mortality of Migratory Birds from Marine Commercial Fisheries and Offshore Oil and Gas Production

Annexes – /48



in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology. 8(2):4.

ECCC-17-CWS-20


9.3 – Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects on Marine and Migratory Birds 9.3.2 – Change in Habitat Quality and Use 9.3.2.3 - Characterization of Residual Project-related Environmental Effects 9.3.2.3.1 – Presence and Operation of a MODU

Quote (PDF pg. 82, doc pg. 9-24) “Given that the likely zone of influence of the Project (conservatively set at 16km diameter where Project-related artificial lighting emissions are reasonably expected to occur based on Section 9.3.2.3.1) at one time or location will represent a small proportion of the feeding, breeding or migration area of species, birds will not be displaced from key habitats or during important activities or be otherwise affected in a manner that causes detectable adverse effects to overall populations in the region.” Leach’s Storm-petrels breeding on Baccalieu Island, the largest colony in the world and hosting 4 million breeding individuals, as well as from other colonies in the Atlantic Basin (e.g., Great Island, Gull Island, etc.), travel across and forage in the proposed Project area during the breeding season. This large foraging range (shown to be several hundred kilometers

ECCC requests that the large foraging ranges of Leach’s Storm-petrel that overlap directly with the Project area be considered in the assessment effects with reference to Pollet et al. 2014 and Hedd et al. 2018.

Annexes – /48



during the breeding season – Pollet et al. 2014; Hedd et al. 2018) makes them vulnerable to attraction to artificial lighting from oil and gas projects in the offshore environment. It is also important to note that considerable uncertainty remains as to the actual zone of influence of light. There have been no studies undertaken on the maximum light detection distance of the eyes of migratory birds. Furthermore, no studies have been undertaken that describe how far away from a light source a migratory bird must be before light affects its behaviour. Pollet, I.L., Hedd, A., Taylor, P.D., Montevecchi, W.A., and Shutler, D. (2014). Migratory movements and wintering areas of Leach’s Storm-petrels tracked using geolocators. Journal of Field Ornithology. 85(3): 321-328 Hedd, A., Pollett, I.L., Mauck, R.A., Burke, C.M., Mallory, M.L., McFarlane Tranquilla, L.A., Montevecchi, W.A., Robertson, G.J., Ronconi, R.A., Shutler, D.,

Annexes – /48



Wilhelm, S.I., and Burgess, N.M. (2018). Foraging areas, offshore habitat use, and colony overlap by incubating Leach's storm-petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa in the Northwest Atlantic. PLoS One. 13(5) : e0194389. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0194389

ECCC-18-CWS-21


a) 9.4 – Determination of Significance

b) 14.3.5 –

Species at Risk

a) Quote (PDF pg. 91, doc pg. 9-33) “Based on the nature of the interactions between the Project and marine and migratory birds, and the planned implementation of mitigation, and residual changes to risk of mortality or physical injury, or to habitat quality and use, the Project is not likely to result in significant adverse effects on marine and migratory birds.”

b) Quote (PDF pg. 254, doc pg. 14-32) “Given the distance of most Project activities occurring offshore, Project interactions with these bird species at risk are expected to be negligible, but low for

ECCC requests that the conclusions on significance consider the uncertainty resulting from the lack of systematic searches.

Annexes – /48



Leach’s storm-petrel, and are most likely to occur during species’ post-breeding dispersal or migration activities.”

In the absence of systematic searches and documentation of stranded birds (live and dead), the potential impacts on marine and migratory birds are highly uncertain In order to verify the effectiveness of mitigation measures and to address any uncertainty in the prediction of residual adverse effects on marine and migratory birds, the proponent should implement a systematic monitoring program.

ECCC-19-CWS-22

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.6.3 – Cumulative Effects assessment

14.0 – Cumulative Effects Assessment 14.3 – Marine and Migratory Birds (including Species at Risk)

Quote (PDF pg. 247, doc pg. 14-25) “The populations of most marine-associated bird species occurring off Eastern Newfoundland are generally considered stable overall. An exception is the Leach’s Storm-petrel.”

ECCC notes that there are a number of species of seabirds occurring off eastern Newfoundland that are experiencing declines, such as Black-legged Kittiwake and Glaucous Gull.

Annexes – /48



14.3.1 – Past and Ongoing Effects (Baseline)

This statement is inaccurate. Although it is true that some seabird species occurring off eastern Newfoundland are stable, the area also supports wintering and migrating populations from the eastern Atlantic that are not stable. A number of other seabird species are also experiencing steep population declines, such as Thick-billed Murre, Atlantic Puffin, and Black-legged Kittiwake, which has been Red Listed by the IUCN as “Vulnerable” a result of these declines. Additionally, Glaucous Gull populations are also experiencing steep population declines (Petersen et al. 2015). Petersen, A., Irons, D.B., Gilchrist, H.G., Robertson, G.J., Boertmann, D., Strom, H., Gavrilo, M., Clausen, D.I.S., Kuletz, K.J., and Mallory, M.L. (2015). The status of Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus in the circumpolar Arctic. Arctic. 68: 107-120.

ECCC-20-CWS-23

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.6.3 – Cumulative Effects assessment

14.0 – Cumulative Effects Assessment

Quote (PDF pg. 253, doc pg. 14-31) “Leach’s Storm-petrel, a species that has been found to be

ECCC requests that the potential for overlapping foraging areas from other

Annexes – /48



14.3 – Marine and Migratory Birds (including Species at Risk) 14.3.4 – Potential Cumulative Environmental Effects

particularly vulnerable to light attraction and stranding events, pass through existing producing oilfields between their nesting colonies and deep-water foraging areas. These artificial light footprints have the potential to cumulatively affect the nesting population of Baccalieu Island and Gull Island.” It is important to note that tracking studies of breeding Leach’s Storm-petrel in eastern Newfoundland have only occurred on the Baccalieu and Gull Island colonies (Hedd et al. 2018). It is possible (and quite likely) that other storm-petrel colonies located along the east and northeast coast of Newfoundland also have foraging areas that overlap with existing or proposed oilfields in Newfoundland, including Great Island, the third largest colony in eastern Canada and located only a few kilometres from Gull Island.

colonies be considered.

ECCC-21-CWS-24

5(1)(a)(iii) 7.6.1 – Effects of potential

15.5.2.1.2 – Potential Effects of Dispersants on

Quote (PDF pg. 102, doc pg. 15-94)

ECCC requests that the discussion related to potential impacts

Annexes – /48



accidents of malfunctions

Marine and Migratory Birds

“A study of the effect of dispersant use on feather structure, waterproofing, and buoyancy of common murres showed no significant difference between the effects of oil alone and the effects of a mixture of dispersant and oil (Whitmer et al. 2018). In both cases the effect was dose-dependent and resolved over two days. A high concentration of dispersant along caused an immediate, life-threatening loss of waterproofing and buoyancy, which resolved within two days. The measured toxicity of dispersants themselves to birds varies among studies. Prince (2015) found very low toxicity. Fiorello et al. (2016) found that common murre, a species that forages underwater, exposed to Corexit EC9500a, crude oil, develops conjunctivitis and is at higher risk of corneal ulcers. Preliminary studies of dispersant use during the DWH blowout show that dispersants enhance oil’s toxicity to early life stages of coastal waterbirds (Beyer et al. 2016). The dispersed oil has similar effects to that of oil, as presented earlier, but the size of the slick and exposure

of dispersants be accurately reflected to consider the possible negative impacts of dispersants on migratory birds.

Annexes – /48



concentrations would be lower than untreated oil. Hence, dispersant mitigates the potential adverse effects of oil on birds compared to untreated oil.” The proponent has incorrectly interpreted and reported the results of Whitmer et al. 2018. While it is correct that the effect of oil alone and the mixture of dispersant and oil were not significantly different, the study clearly states that the effects did not “resolve over time”. Whitmer et al. 2018 notes “Birds exposed to oil, or dispersant and oil mixture, experienced dose-dependent waterproofing impairment without resolution over two days” and “the impacts of oil and dispersed oil did not improve over time”.

It is difficult to compare the results of the Whitmer et al. 2018 study (conducted in a laboratory) to what may occur in the offshore areas of NL. Specifically, in Whitmer et al. 2018, post-exposure birds were kept out of the water and in ambient temperatures of 15.5°C-18.3°C, whereas any

Annexes – /48



birds exposed to dispersants in the Project Area would be confined to water in much colder temperatures. ECCC suggests that the proponent also consider the results of Tuarze et al (2019) in their analysis of the effects of dispersants (and dispersed oil) on migratory birds. Tuarze, P., M. Stephenson, P. Mazzocco, and L. Knopper. (2019). A physiologically based oiling model (PBOM) to predict thermoregulatory response in oiled birds. Proceedings of the 42nd AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, ON, Canada, pp. 111-123. The proponent’s synthesis of the effects of dispersants on marine and migratory birds provides conflating information and does not provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that “dispersant mitigates the potential adverse effects of oil on birds compared to untreated oil”. While applying dispersants may be beneficial for migratory birds in some situations, they may prove to be more harmful

Annexes – /48



in others; therefore the use of dispersants must be done with careful consideration on a case by case basis. It is also not known what the impacts of dispersants alone may have on birds, and in particular on their plumage; dispersants are a surfactant and therefore may compromise the waterproofing of feathers, in a similar manner to that of oil.

ECCC-22-ES-01

5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat

Part 2, Section 7.1.2 Marine environnent, page 24

EIS, Section 5.6.4 Seawater Properties (temperature, salinity, pH, turbidity), page 37

Section 7.1.2 of the EIS guidelines states that the EIS will include a description of marine water quality (e.g. water temperature, turbidity, salinity and pH) (page 26). Section 5.6.4 Seawater Properties (temperature, salinity, pH, turbidity) does not include any reference to pH or turbidity, although these parameters are included in the section heading.

The proponent should include a description of turbidity or pH as required by the guidelines.

ECCC-23-ES-03

5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat

Part 2, Section 7.5 Significance of residual effects, page 38

EIS, Section 8.1.5, page 6, Table 8.2 Characterization of Residual Effects on Marine Fish and Fish Habitat 6

Table 8.2 defines short term duration as “for duration of the activity, or for duration of accidental event” and medium term duration as “beyond duration of activity up to end of Project, or for duration of

The predicted duration of a residual effect may be unclear based on these definitions. Short term duration is based on the duration of an

Annexes – /48



threshold exceedance of accidental event – weeks or months” (page 6). The Project covers the term of the EL from 2016 to 2025. Based on this, an effect that was measured beyond the duration of activity up to the end of Project could be evident for years.

activity, which could be minutes or months. In addition, the use of weeks or months in the definition of a medium term duration seems inconsistent when also suggesting the effect could be evident until the end of the Project, or for years.

ECCC-24-CIS-01

Part 2, Section

7.1.2

Ice climate in the

regional study

area, including ice

formation and

thickness, ridging,

breakup and

movement.

5.9.1 Page 5-43 and 16.2.3.1 Page 16-5

EIS identifies “The likelihood of ice present in Flemish Pass is highest during the week beginning February 5” and refers to figures of ice concentration when sea ice is present. This is not accurate. The figure simply shows that when ice is present, it is of highest concentration for the week of February 5th. This could mean that in 30 years, there was only ice once, and at that time, it was of very high concentration. The highest frequency of ice looks to be the week of March 19th.

An assessment of the ice conditions based frequency of presence of sea ice, including ice thickness, ridging, breakup and movement should be provided as per the guidelines.

ECCC-25-CIS-02

Part 2, Section

7.1.2

5.9.1 Page 5-43 and 16.2.3.1 Page 16-5

Ice conditions along the marine transportation routes with consideration of predicted

An assessment of sea ice and icebergs along transportation routes

Annexes – /48



climate change and its possible effect on the timing of ice formation in the future;

should be provided as per guidelines.

ECCC-26-CIS-03

Part 2, section

7.6.2

Effects of the environment on the project.

5.9.1 Page 5-43 and 16.2.3.1 Page 16-5

The EIS does not consider different probability patterns for icebergs affecting the project area. It does give the underlying numbers of icebergs.

Consideration of different probability patterns for icebergs affecting the project area should be provided.

ECCC-27-OGAED-2

7.3.8.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.8.1 Atmospheric Emissions

The EIS does not describe specific mitigation measures to minimize its GHG emissions impact. The EIS mentions that the proponent will comply with the Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR), but does not detail what measures would be put in place to contribute to this initiative. The EIS does not indicate or reference the use of best available technologies or practices in the project’s design.

Provide specific examples of hydrocarbon release minimization practices or technologies that will be utilized during the exploration project. For example, add information on the expected combustion efficiency for flaring at the facility for the potentially available MODUs. Provide more information on BAT/BEP or provide a rationale for the lack of BAT/BEP.

ECCC-28-ESTS-01

This information request could have implications for multiple sections of the EIS (e.g., 4.3.3 Spill Trajectory

Part 2, Section 7.6.1. Effects of potential

Section 4.3.3 Spill Trajectory Modelling and

The EIS only presents oil spill modelling and effect assessment results for subsea blowout and

A near-shore oil spill modelling to simulate a potential Project-

Annexes – /48



Modelling and Probability Analysis; 15.2 Fate and Behaviour of Potential Spills; and Appendix F Oil Spill Trajectory Model).

accidents or malfunctions

Probability Analysis; Section 15.2 Fate and Behaviour of Potential Spills; and Appendix F Oil Spill Trajectory Model

surface batch spill scenarios at offshore locations (i.e., West Flemish 1 and 2 sites) within the Exploration License 1138. The EIS Guidelines requires that “The EIS should also consider effects of accidents in the near-shore environment and of spills reaching shore; including effects on species at risk and their critical habitat, colonial nesters and concentrations of birds, and their habitat. The proponent will also demonstrate what long-term actions it would be prepared to undertake to remediate spill-affected lands and waters”. Without this information, this department cannot advise on the significance of potential effects of accidents in the near-shore environment.

related accident (e.g., vessel collision or grounding) should be carried out.

Annexes – /48

ANNEX 3: Advice to the proponent

Table 3: Additional advice to the proponent, such as guidance or standard advice related to your departmental mandate

ID Reference to EIS Context and Rationale Advice to the Proponent

ECCC-29-CWS -05

6.2.2.8 – Leach’s Storm-petrel Quote (PDF pg. 81, doc pg. 6-75) “Preliminary results from a 2013 survey of nesting Leach’s Storm-petrel on Baccalieu Island, the largest breeding colony of Leach’s Storm-petrel in the world, give an estimate of just under 2 million pairs, a decline of 40% from the previous survey in 1984 (CWS unpublished data).” The “CWS unpublished data” has now been published and should be referenced as Wilhelm et al. 2019. Wilhelm, S.I., Hedd, A., Robertson, G.J., Mailhiot, J., Regular, P.M., Ryan, P.C., and Elliot, R.D. (2019). The world’s largest breeding colony of Leach’s Storm-petrel Hydrobates leucorhous has declined. Bird Conservation International. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-18. Doi: 10.1017/S0959270919000248 Additionally, ECCC notes that the published estimate for Leach’s Storm-petrel on Baccalieu Island, approximately 1.95 million breeding pairs.

ECCC notes that the source of this data has now been published.

ECCC-30-CWS-06

6.2.2.10 – Cormorants Quote (PDF pg. 83, doc pg. 6-77) “Great and double-crested cormorants both breed in coastal Newfoundland (Table 6.8)” This is accurate, both Great Cormorants and Double-crested Cormorants breed in coastal Newfoundland. However, Table 6.8

ECCC notes this inconsistency.

Annexes – /48


does not actually include reference to either cormorant species.

ECCC-31-CWS-08

Table 6.12 – Important Bird Areas on Marine Waters of Eastern Newfoundland

A number of issues identified in this table: a) “Funk Islands – NestingG common

murre, nestingG northern gannet; provincially protected SERE; overlaps Fogo Shelf EBSAE.” The superscript for “provincially protected SER” should be “P”, as per the Notes section provided at the bottom of Table 6.12.

b) Cape St. Mary’s (NF001) and Placentia Bay (NF028) are also designated as Provincial Seabird Ecological Reserves (SER) and should be identified as such.

c) “Manx shearwater summeringC; Leach’s storm-petrel nestingG.”

ECCC notes these inconsistencies.

ECCC-32-CWS-25

General Comment ECCC has developed a pelagic seabird monitoring protocol called the Eastern Canada Seabirds at Sea (ECSAS) program, that is recommended for use by experienced observers for all offshore projects and is available at http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/389623/publication.html for the proponent’s consideration. Bird distribution data should be collected during proposed activities. To verify the effects predictions, a data collection effort should be designed in consultation with ECCC and be carried out by an individual who is appropriately trained and dedicated

ECCC advises that the proponent employ the use of the new mobile ECSAS database for survey data collection.

http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/389623/publication.html

http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/389623/publication.html

Annexes – /48


to recording marine bird observations. ECCC can provide training in ECSAS. In an effort to facilitate the collation of survey data from various outside sources, ECCC has developed a new mobile ECSAS database that will permit the collection of data in a standard format. This new mobile database should be used by the proponent to facilitate data collection and storage. A User’s Guide has been developed to assist the proponent in the use of this tool and can be obtained from ECCC upon request. In an effort to expedite the process of data exchange, ECCC would appreciate that the data (as it relates to migratory birds and/or species at risk) collected from these baseline surveys be forwarded in digital format to our office following the completion of the study at: Environment and Climate Change Canada (C/O Environmental Assessment) 6 Bruce Street Mount Pearl, NL A1N 4T3 These data will be centralized for our internal use to help ensure that best possible natural resources management decisions are made for these species in Atlantic Region. Metadata will be retained to identify source data and will not be used for the purpose of publication. ECCC will not copy, distribute, loan, lease, sell or use this data as part of a value-added product

Annexes – /48


or otherwise make the data available to any other party without the prior express written consent of the proponent.

ECCC-33-CWS-26

15.1 – Spill Prevention and Response (pg. 465)

All emergency incidents can potentially affect wildlife. During these incidents ECCC acts as a Resource Agency, which sets wildlife emergency response standards and guidelines related to Migratory Birds and Species at Risk under its jurisdiction. As such, Wildlife Response requires a Wildlife Emergency Response Plan (WERP), which is a component of the Incident Command System (ICS) for pollution incidents affecting wildlife, and should address all of the various procedures and strategies required to mount an effective wildlife response. At minimum, a WERP must include the following information:

1. Information on the wildlife potentially at risk in the area;

2. Mitigation measure to deter non-affected areas;

3. Mitigation and response measures to be undertaken if wildlife and/or sensitive habitats become contaminated by the incident (including treatment of oil-affected wildlife), and

The type and extent of wildlife monitoring that would conducted during and following a pollution incident.

The proponent is recommended to consult ECCC when developing Wildlife Emergency Response Plans (WERPs). ECCC is available to review WERPs prior to their implementation. Even during an emergency situation, it is also important to note that permits issued by ECCC may be required prior to deterring or relocating Migratory Birds and/or Species at Risk.

ECCC-34-CWS-27

7.4 – Mitigation Measures Standard advice regarding the minimum distance that helicopters must keep from seabird colonies.

ECCC provides the following guidance document for the proponent’s consideration “Seabird and waterbird colonies: avoiding disturbance” (URL:

Annexes – /48


https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/seabird-waterbird-colonies-disturbance.html). To note, it is important that helicopters maintain a minimum distance of at least 300m vertically and horizontally from all areas of the island or colony occupied by seabirds and waterbirds.

ECCC-35-ES-01 Table 1.3, Page 1-15, 3rd Row Fisheries Act: Regulatory Authority identified as DFO/ECCC (administers section 36 specifically).

“Revelance” text speaks to only to DFO’s administration of the act and does not speak to ECCC’s. There is no discussion of the general prohibition of the deposit of a deleterious substance. (similar to what IS provided in the next row regarding MBCA).

The proponent should acknowledge this section of the Fisheries Act and the prohibition against the deposit of a deleterious substance.

ECCC-36-ES-02 Table 2.22, Page 2-46, Fisheries Act Text states, “Prohibits the deposition of ‘toxic or harmful’ substances into waters containing fish.”

The use of these terms is not consistent with the language of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits the deposit of a “deleterious” substance. “Deleterious Substance” is defined in Section 34 of the Fisheries Act.

ECCC-37-ES-02 EIS, Section 8.1.5, page 6, Table 8.2 Characterization of Residual Effects on Marine Fish and Fish Habitat

Table 8.2 defines duration as the “period of time required until the measurable parameter or the VC returns to its existing condition, or the residual effect can no longer be measured or otherwise perceived” (page 6).

Should “existing condition” be “pre-existing condition” or “original condition”?

ECCC-38-CRD-01

Chapter 5 – Existing Physical Environment, Section 5.10.3 (Ice Conditions)

The assessment does not consider literature that suggests that with increased warming, we should expect to see increases in thick multi-year ice from the Arctic Ocean being transported southward

The Proponent is advised to consider how increased transport of multi-year ice from the high Arctic (as described in recent literature cited above) may affect the project area.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/seabird-waterbird-colonies-disturbance.html




Annexes – /48


and eventually reaching offshore Newfoundland. The processes of thick multi-year ice being transported from the higher latitudes in response to warming temperatures has been noted in the literature and is expected to increase further with more warming (e.g. Howell et al., 2013; Howell and Brady, 2019; Kwok et al., 2010; Moore and McNeil, 2018). Barber et al. (2018) recently showed that this process can happen and with more warming it is expected to happen more frequently. A similar process could possibly occur with icebergs (which may affect transport and deterioration rates).

References: Barber, D. G., Babb,D.G., Ehn, J.K.,Chan,W., Matthes, L., Dalman, L. A., et al. (2018). Increasing mobility of high Arctic Sea ice increases marine hazards off the east coast of Newfoundland. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 2370–2379. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076587 Howell, S. E. L., Wohlleben, T., Dabboor, M., Derksen, C., Komarov, A., & Pizzolato, L. (2013). Recent changes in the exchange of sea ice between the Arctic Ocean and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 118, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgr20265 Howell, S. E. L., & Brady, M. (2019). The dynamic response of sea ice to warming in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Geophysical Research Letters, 46. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085116 Kwok, R., Toudal Pedersen, L., Gudmandsen, P., & Pang, S. (2010). Large sea ice outflow into the Nares Strait in 2007. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03502. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041872 Moore, G. W. K., & McNeil, K. (2018). The early collapse of the 2017 Lincoln Sea ice arch in response to anomalous sea ice and wind forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 8343– 8351. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078428

ECCC-39-MSC-Mar-01

Section 5.4 Climatology Small addition. Page 5-12 section 5.4, last paragraph – small elaboration to be consistent with some feedback for other TRs … “These systems

https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076587

https://doi.org/10.1002/jgr20265

https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085116

https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041872

https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078428

Annexes – /48


frequently produce large waves (by a process known as ‘dynamic fetch’)…”

ECCC-40-MSC-Mar-02

Section 5.4 Climatology Extra note Page 5-17, Section 5.4.2 . It would be worthy to note at the end of the third paragraph (just before Fig 5-10): “Sea surface temperatures are sometimes influenced by cold and warm ocean eddies from the Gulf Stream which can greatly affect wind speeds and waves by altering the stability of the atmosphere near the ocean surface. Note the maximum (22.0C) and minimum (1.0C) sea temperature in Table 5.6 for the month of July.

ECCC-41-MSC-Mar-03

Section 5.6 Oceanography typo Page 5-34 section 5.6.3.1, end of first paragraph – ‘ratio’ vice ‘ration’.

ECCC-42-MSC-Mar-04

Section 16.2.2.3 Extreme wind and wave events

Highlight source of extreme waves Perhaps add at the end of the second paragraph (after 15.3 m.): “Table 5.17 also shows maximum wave heights of 25 to 28 m of varying return periods are possible, resulting from intense storms such as former hurricanes undergoing extratropical transition with dynamic-fetch wave growth. Complex underwater topography and ocean currents in the region can contribute to rogue waves up to 28 m or over 90 feet based on the climatology dataset”

ECCC-43-ESTS-2

Part 2, Section 7.6.1. Effects of potential accidents or malfunctions

This is standard advice provided to the proponent regarding the discussion of the potential to encounter shallow gas pockets.

The EIS Guidelines (7.6.1) requires that “The potential to encounter shallow gas pockets, and associated implications, should also be discussed”. It is recommended that the proponent to provide a model simulation to address the requirement or a sufficient

Annexes – /48


rational for the omission of information should be provided.

ECCC-44-ESTS-3

Part 2, Section 7.6.1. Effects of potential accidents or malfunctions

This is standard advice provided to the proponent regarding the comparison with similar settings.

The EIS Guidelines (7.6.1) states that “Comparisons with similar settings would also be meaningful for deep water drilling where there is very low probability but very high consequences associated with landslides”. It is recommended that the proponent to provide a comparison with similar settings related to previous exploration drilling projects in the region, if possible.

ECCC-45-ESTS-4

Section 15.2.1 Overall Modelling Approach

Standard advice concerning model scenario selection

EIS Guidelines state (7.6.1): “Of particular concern with exploration drilling in the marine environment is the potential for accidental spills. This includes both low-probability, large-scale events (e.g. blowouts, either surface, sub-sea or underground)….”, “. A discussion on water depth and its effect on blow-out rate and spill trajectory modelling assumptions must be provided.” The proponent should discuss and contextualize the choices made for Model Scenarios in Table 15-1, p15-8. There is significant statistical analysis of the factors involved in section 15.3, pp15-65 to 15-70, but a direct link to how and why the exact values for release rates were chosen would be helpful. Do these represent, for example, 3- or 5-sigma events, based on this analysis? Where there other factors involved in choosing the scenario parameters?

Annexes – /48


ECCC-46-ESTS-5

Section 15.2.1 Overall Modelling Approach

Standard advice concerning model scenario selection

EIS Guidelines (7.6.1) state: “Of particular concern with exploration drilling in the marine environment is the potential for accidental spills. This includes … relatively smaller-volume spills that may occur more frequently” The selection of volumes of synthetic mud, fuel or crude oil examined should be discussed. There is examination of these issues in Section 15.1, but how exactly this information was used to arrive at the model scenario should be stated explicitly. No scenario for surface “operational” release of crude oil or SBM was included in the assessment. These are discussed in section 15.3 (approximately pp15-59 to 15-65). Justification and discussion of the tabular probability data there in would be helpful in understanding exactly why the particular marine diesel scenario was chosen for assessment over the other products.

ECCC-47-ESTS-6

Appendix F Oil Spill Trajectory Model This is standard advice provided to the proponent regarding hypothetical oil release scenarios

The trajectory and fate modelling for the West Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Project 2021-2030 was performed to only evaluate hypothetical unmitigated release events. A consideration may be to also provide a comparison to a release with mitigation measures such as applying dispersants (both aerial/vessel surface application and subsea injection) and a technical discussion of the outcomes.

ECCC-48-ESTS-7

Section 3.7 Blowout Model Scenario and Results in Appendix F Oil Spill Trajectory Model

Standard advice regarding a typo

Page 33: line 4 “at West Flemish 1 and 2 as part of this study, capturing short (27 and

Annexes – /48


30 day)…” – should be “(30 and 27 day)” for the West Flemish 1 and 2, respectively.

ECCC-49-ESTS-8

Section 5 Discussion and Conclusions in Appendix F Oil Spill Trajectory Model

Standard advice regarding a typo

Page 125: line 7 “ranged from 1.9-3.4% in the summer…” – should be “1.8-3.7% in the summer” (please refer Table 4-2, page 77).

ECCC-50-ESTS-9

Appendix A: SIMAP and OILMAPDeep Model Descriptions in “Appendix F Oil Spill Trajectory Model”

Standard advice regarding page number missing and Table reference errors

In the Appendix A, page numbers are given in the Table of Contents, however the page numbers are actually missing from page 4 through page 23 in the report. Meanwhile, some Table reference errors are found as follows:

Page 5 (Section 1.1 Physical Fates Model): line 5 “(defined in Error! Reference source not found)” – should be “(defined in Table 1)”

Page 14 (Section 1.4 Habitat Type): line 2 “(Error! Reference source not found)” – should be “(Table 2)”

Page 14: line 10 “(indicated by F in Error! Reference source not found)” – should be “(indicated by F in Table 2)”

ECCC-51-ESTS-10

Section 15.2.6.1 Stochastic Results Standard advice regarding a typo Page 15-21: In the Notes of Table 15.7, “Bins are based on…from the hypothetical 27-day release at West Flemish 1…” – should be “30-day release” for this site.

table 1: please use the table below to provide advice for

Documents