Comments on the Regional Assessment of Offshore Wind Development in Nova Scotia: Draft Report October 2024

Dear Committee for the Regional Assessment?of Offshore Wind Development in Nova Scotia,

Please see below my high-level comments on the Regional Assessment of Offshore Wind Development in Nova Scotia: Draft Report October 2024[1] (#_ftn1) (Draft Report) in two parts. The first part provides specific comments on the Draft Report and the second part will offer general guidance for improving this Draft Report and/or for recommending how future environmental impacts assessments (EIAs) or Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) related to OWE are conducted:

1. Specific Comments

The Draft Report has not considered several critical points. First, the Draft Report categorizes sensitive areas including ecologically and biologically significant areas into secondary considerations, which allows offshore wind energy (OWE) development in these areas, although avoidance and mitigation measures should be taken. The sensitive areas should be considered as primary constraints that prohibit OWE development. The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity recommends that the Parties to the Convention stop activities that degrade or cause the loss of ecologically important ecosystems and habitats and prevent unsustainable human activities that have significant adverse effects on marine and coastal areas, particularly the ecologically or biologically significant areas.[2] (#_ftn2) Second, the Draft Report does not expressly state the effects of primary constraints. Identifying current marine protected areas, critical habitats, national park reserves, and marine bird sanctuaries signifies that these areas must be excluded from OWE development. In other words, based on the precautionary principle, OWE should not be developed in these areas. This matter must be clearly stated and reiterated in the recommendations of this Report. Third, buffer zones for marine protected areas should be considered and recommended because it appears that some Potential Development Areas (PDAs) such as Sydney Bight and Sable Island Bank are close to marine protected areas.[3] (#_ftn3) Fourth, any effect of OWE development on the network of marine protected areas[4] (#_ftn4) as well as any potential marine protected areas should be considered in the Draft report. Fifth, the Draft Report should offer guidance on the regulatory measures that can be taken to protect marine ecosystems against the adverse effects of OWE. Although the Draft Report reviewed the existing conditions of ecosystem components in section 4, the Draft Report lacks recommendations and regulatory measures in this regard. Sixth, the Draft Report does not assess the baseline conditions, whether the existing environmental status is good, healthy, and resilient enough to absorb the disturbances arising from OWE development. Seventh, the coexistence recommendation should be made with caution. After a few years, OWE sites act as marine protected areas[5] (#_ftn5) and the hard-bottom habitat created by OWE foundations may increase the quantity of hard-bottom species.[6] (#_ftn6) The likely ecological benefits arising from the artificial reef effects of OWE foundations and scour protections and exclusion of commercial fisheries are neutralized by allowing coexistence between OWE and fisheries. Eighth, SEA is not mentioned as one of the main tools for assessing plans and alternatives.

1. General Comments

• Biodiversity criteria based on scientific evidence should be used so that OWE activities do not compromise biodiversity objectives.
• The impacts of the development of OWE on species extinction, habitat loss or ecosystem loss, and loss of ecosystem services of social and economic value should be assessed.[7] (#_ftn7)
• The impacts of OWE projects, including the cumulative effects, on migratory species should be assessed. In addition, the location of OWE should be assessed to see whether it is a high-risk area for migratory species, and what impacts this location might have on migratory species. The limit for OWE projects is that these projects should not undermine the distribution and abundance of migratory species and their current and future habitats in the long term.[8] (#_ftn8)
• The sensitivity of the environment, where OWE projects are constructed, should be assessed. Sensitive areas include protected areas, areas containing threatened ecosystems outside protected areas, areas important for the maintenance of key ecological or evolutionary processes, and habitats for threatened species.
• The size of the area affected by OWE activities, the duration and frequency of OWE activities, the magnitude of change as a result of OWE activities, the important biodiversity areas, and their legal status should be assessed.[9] (#_ftn9)
• The possible alternatives, which among others include location alternatives, scale alternatives, and technology alternatives should be assessed.[10] (#_ftn10)
• The expected biophysical changes to the components of the environment and the spatial and temporal scale of such changes with cumulative effects and effects on connectivity between ecosystems should be assessed.[11] (#_ftn11)
• The effects on the composition and processes of ecosystems, and any irreversible impacts and irreplaceable loss should be assessed.[12] (#_ftn12) OWE projects that cause irreversible damage or irreplaceable loss of biodiversity should not be approved.
• Distinction and priority should be respectively made among avoidance, mitigation, and compensation measures.[13] (#_ftn13) 
• Biodiversity-related indicators should be set to monitor the impacts of OWE projects on ecosystems so that adaptive measures can be taken to avoid unacceptable effects on ecosystems.[14] (#_ftn14)
• OWE projects should not undermine the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, the related plans, established nature reserves on wetlands, and the increase in the population of waterfowl.[15] (#_ftn15) This can be done by identifying suitable areas for the development of OWE and avoiding areas that might have negative effects on protected areas or cause displacement or disturbance of migratory waterbirds such as migration corridors, Ramsar Sites, Special Protection Areas, and Important Bird Areas.[16] (#_ftn16)  
• Areas that would have impacts on bat populations should be avoided. Bats’ mortality should be reduced through using the best available technologies and measures including blade feathering, higher turbine cut-in wind speeds, and temporary shut-down of facilities during peak periods.[17] (#_ftn17)
• The location of OWE projects must be carefully selected to be outside migration routes.
• In EIA, some criteria must be used to assess the effects of OWE projects. Such criteria include the size of OWE project, the cumulative effects of OWE projects with other projects in marine areas, the pollution or introduction of harmful substances into marine waters, the risk of accidents between OWE projects and shipping, the environmental effects on marine protected areas, environmental quality standards, the impact on landscapes of significance, the nature, magnitude, probability, duration, frequency, complexity, and reversibility of effects.[18] (#_ftn18)

You can also see my short articles at https://blogs.dal.ca/openthink/author/malikhani/ .

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,

Mohamad Alikhani