Draft Agreement and Terms of Reference to Conduct a Regional Assessment of Offshore Wind Development in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia

On October 12, 2022, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) informed Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) of the 60-day public comment period on the draft Agreement and Terms of Reference to Conduct a Regional Assessment of Offshore Wind Development in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Part of NRCan’s mandate is to understand the geology of Canada’s onshore and offshore landmass. The Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) is a science branch within NRCan that conducts research on marine and coastal geology as part of its activities. Knowledge of the seabed geology, marine geological hazards, and modern seabed and coastal geological process is critical for any activity that occurs on the seabed, under the seabed, or at the coast. The GSC’s marine geoscience research ensures that relevant knowledge products are available to support decisions around use of the ocean space. The GSC has conducted marine geoscience research since the 1960s in the areas under consideration for this RA.   

Comments on Draft Agreements

1. Section 1.4 Study Area - Consider providing a rationale of how the study area was defined (selected) 
2. Section 1.4 Study Area - The section states: “For greater clarity, the inclusion or exclusion of specific portions of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area or the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Area in the Study Area does not reflect whether particular locations will or should be subject to future offshore wind development activities.”  NRCan would like to clarify whether an additional RA(s) will be conducted if future wind development activities were to take place outside of the Study Areas. For example, large portions of the southern Grand Banks outside of the Study Area may be of interest to industry given its shallow water depths, or advances in floating wind platform design may reveal new potential areas that were previously too deep for consideration by the industry.

Comments on Draft Terms of Reference

1. Section A1.6 (p,q,r) - For both NS and NL, the areas under consideration are immense. From reviewing the ToR it was apparent that it may be challenging to address the issue of spatial scale when describing the existing physical and environmental conditions and assessing gaps. For example, it is not apparent from the ToR whether these conditions will be generalized to the entire region, or the scale of a wind farm, or an individual turbine.  The criteria used for assessing quality of the data should rely on discussions with the subject matter experts. This will be important for assessing the information gaps.
2. Section A1.6 (t) - Of note on this list is that there is no explicit reference to impacts from or on the benthic environment, seabed morphology, sediment transport, soil/water quality, or subsurface geology. NRCan recommends that this should be addressed as the greatest physical change to the environment will occur in these areas during construction, operation, and decommissioning of an offshore wind project.
3. Section A1.6 (t) - Recommend clarifying whether the impacts on other natural resource developments are considered – for example other renewable or non-renewable energy resources, mineral or aggregate resources in the project area, or energy conduits/corridors. Also, considering clarifying if “Fisheries and Other Ocean Uses” and “Communities and Economy could include impacts to submarine cable or shipping routes. That said, these impacts should be considered if the RA’s goal is to conduct a complete and fulsome analysis.
4. Section A1.6 (v) - It is worth noting under the theme of mitigation measures- Given that offshore wind is an unestablished industry in the Study Area, and that the committee report will be based on the identification, compilation and review of existing and publicly accessible scientific information, the region-specific knowledge-base to determine appropriate mitigation measures may not exist. 
5. Section A1.5 - Recommend removing ambiguity around confidential materials, as they should not be distributed without consent. For example, text could be edited as the following: “Any Indigenous Knowledge that is provided in confidence is considered confidential and will not be knowingly be, or be permitted to be, disclosed without written consent in accordance with section 119 of the IAA”
6. A1.6 (j) - Suggest adding the following underlined word to this sentence: “This will include sharing Indigenous Knowledge and perspectives on some or all of the topics listed above during the conduct of the Regional Assessment, in accordance with established Indigenous protocols and procedures as applicable.”
7. A1.6 (t) - Suggest adding the following underlined word to sub-bullet V: “Indigenous Communities, Activities, Interests and Rights”
8. A1.6 (y) - It is assumed this bullet means that there will be a GBA Plus assessment done? Suggest altering text to reflect a GBA Plus assessment
9. A1.6 (aa)    Suggest adding that the information provider will be notified when confidential information is required to be disclosed by law. For example, add the following after the last sentence, “In such a case, the Committee will notify the information provider that the information shared in confidence is required by law to be disclosed/ made public.” And will the RA adhere to OCAP principles? If so, suggest adding a bullet after the last sentence regarding the adherence to OCAP principles.
10. Whole document - recommend checking that all references to Acts are italicized.

We thank IAAC for this opportunity to comments on the documents. For additional information, contact Sara Ryan (Sara.Ryan@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca (mailto:Sara.Ryan@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca)).

Sincerely,

Sara Ryan, Team Lead

Impact Assessment Division, Office of the Chief Scientist