LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.0 HUMAN USE

As per section 7.2.3 of the C-NLOPB’s Final Scoping Document, this section provides an overview of the existing human environment, with a focus on the various human components and activities that occur in and around the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. This includes a description of the regions and communities and a discussion of traditional and cultural activities, marine recreation and tourism activities, and other ocean users. For many parts of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, there is strong IK on the distribution of various species; however, there may be geographic bias of the observations towards more populated areas of the coast related to concentration of hunting and travel by community members. Therefore, a lack of mapped data should not be inferred to mean a lack of species presence. In addition, the IK included within this SEA Update does not represent the total land usage or knowledge held by Indigenous groups with respect to the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. 10.1 REGIONS AND COMMUNITIES

Labrador, the mainland portion of the province of NL, is separated from the Island of Newfoundland by the Strait of Belle Isle and is the largest (294,330 km²) and northernmost geographical region in Atlantic Canada. Labrador is bordered to the west and the south by Quebec. Nearly 30,000 people live in Labrador, distributed in some 30 communities, which range from small coastal settlements to larger centres in central and western Labrador (Nalcor Energy 2012).

Labrador encompasses a diverse range of social, cultural, and economic landscapes and is comprised of various regions – Central Labrador, Southern Labrador, the Labrador Straits, Labrador West, and the North Coast. The Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area extends along the North Coast, Central Labrador and Southern Labrador. The North Coast is the most isolated region in Labrador. Communities in the North Coast include Hopedale, Makkovik, Nain, Natuashish, Postville, and Rigolet. These communities are accessible via water or air transportation. Southern Labrador extends along the coastline between the Quebec North Shore and the Mealy Mountains of Central Labrador. It includes the towns of Cartwright, Charlottetown, Port Hope Simpson, St. Lewis, and Mary’s Harbour, and the communities of Paradise River, Black Tickle-Domino, Norman Bay, Pinsent’s Arm, and Lodge Bay. There are also several smaller coastal settlements in the region that are inhabited on a seasonal basis (Nalcor Energy 2012). Central Labrador (or Upper Lake Melville) is the most populous region of Labrador and includes the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River, the Innu community of Sheshatshiu, and the smaller settlement of Mud Lake. 10.2 TRADITIONAL AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES

Labrador’s Indigenous peoples have lived in the coastal territories for millennia. This connection to the land continues today, with the Labrador Innu and Inuit dependent on the Labrador marine environment for their social, cultural, and economic wellbeing.

10-1 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

This section includes an overview of the three Indigenous communities in Labrador, whose territories fall within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, and a description of their historic and current traditional and cultural activities, such as travel routes, hunting and gathering, and other harvesting activities.

10.2.1 Innu Nation

10.2.1.1 Community Profile

The current population of the Labrador Innu is approximately 3,200, residing in primarily two communities – Sheshatshiu and Natuashish (Innu Nation n.d.). Sheshatshiu, formerly part of the community of North West River, is in Central Labrador, and Natuashish is on the North Coast of Labrador. Some Innu also reside in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and elsewhere in Canada (Innu Nation n.d.). The Sheshatshiu Innu and the Mushuau Innu of Natuashish are individual reserves, with an elected Chief and Band Council. Innu Nation represents both communities in land claims negotiations and on other matters of common interest.

Sheshatshiu Innu Nation has a population of about 1300 and is governed by the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation Band Council (Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation n.d.). This council is formed by the chief and six councilors and is in charge of several services and eight departments. These include Health, Education, Community Services, Economic Development, Finance, Operations, Public Works and Recreation (Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation n.d.). The Mushuau Innu First Nation in Natuashish has a population of 935, based on the 2016 census (a 31.7% increase over the 2006 population estimate) Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (2020). The council is formed by a chief and four councilors. The community of Natuashish was constructed between 1997 and 2003 as part of the Mushuau Innu Relocation Agreement, with relocation to the community occurring between 2002-2003. The Mushuau Innu chose the Natuashish site, with reserve lands being approximately 4265.486 hectares (Nametau Innu n.d.).

Innu Nation claim Indigenous rights and title to most of Labrador and parts of Quebec. In September 2008, Innu Nation and the Government of NL signed the Tshas Petapen (“New Dawn”) Agreement. The New Dawn Agreement resolved key issues between Innu Nation and the Province related to the Innu land claim (Government of NL 2011). Since that time, Innu Nation and the provincial and federal governments completed detailed agreements on tripartite Labrador Innu Land Rights Agreement-in-Principle, signed by all parties in 2011 (Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Office n.d.).

10.2.1.2 Historic Activities

The Labrador Innu are descendants from Algonkian-speaking hunter-gathers and are the easternmost group of a widespread people known as the Cree (Heritage NL 2018). Traditionally, the Labrador Innu were a nomadic people, whose movements aligned to the seasons and migrations of game animals which they relied upon (Nexen Energy 2018). The Labrador Innu harvested a wide range of terrestrial and marine species for food and clothing including caribou, beaver, porcupine, fox, hare, marten, migratory birds, and seals (Nalcor Energy 2010). They also harvested Atlantic salmon, pike, whitefish, suckers, and sturgeon, and a wide variety of plants were gathered for food and medicinal purposes (Innu Nation 2007; Nalcor Energy 2010).

10-2 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Limited information is publicly available regarding Innu hunting territories and social structures prior to the arrival of Europeans in North America. However, historic evidence suggests that broadly dispersed groups remained in contact through long-distance travel throughout the interior. Historic documents from trading posts in Labrador demonstrate that the Innu travelled throughout the region, from George River and Voisey’s Bay in the north, south to Hamilton Inlet and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and west to the height of land and beyond (Nalcor Energy 2010). Innu knowledge of the land is reflected in their many place- names that testify to Innu travel routes and harvesting activities.

Between 1900 and 1930, many Innu spent most of the year south of the Mealy Mountains (Tanner 1977). Families, typically from the Lake Melville area, would travel south in August along the Kenamau River then move to the north into the Mealy Mountains to hunt caribou in the fall (Tanner 1977). In the spring, they would fish and hunt waterfowl throughout the region then travel to Hamilton Inlet, where they remained for the summer. This general pattern of land use and harvesting continued until the establishment of permanent settlements in the 1960s.

10.2.1.3 Current Activities

Following the establishment of Innu settlements in the 1960s, the Labrador Innu’s traditional land use and harvesting practices changed dramatically. With government housing and the requirement for children to attend school, woman and children largely remained in the community for most of the year while men spent considerably less time on the land hunting and trapping (Nalcor Energy 2010).

In the 1970s, an Outpost Program began to help families finance travel to and from camps in the interior of Labrador and enabled Innu to travel into the country. This program served as a means of maintaining cultural identity and physical, emotional and spiritual health (Nalcor Energy 2010). Access to funding altered how traditional activities were undertaken, including how individuals traveled to and from seasonal harvesting areas. Whereas traditionally hunters walked and travelled by canoe to harvesting areas, preferred modes of transportation evolved to vehicles, snowmobiles, and motorized boats (Nalcor Energy 2010; Armitage and Stopp 2003). Available funding also allowed for aircrafts to be chartered to transport hunters to interior harvesting areas (Nalcor Energy 2010). Because of these changes, traditional Innu travel routes and camp locations were used less frequently (Nalcor Energy 2010).

As indicated by Innu Nation (1997), approximately 42% of members of the Innu Nation participated in the country-based harvest year-round, with the spring being the most popular season, with 48% of participants spending at least one week in the country hunting, fishing, and gathering wild foods (Nalcor Energy 2010). Over half of the people surveyed indicated that they used the Outpost Program and 44% of those stated that they would not have been able to access the interior without provided transportation (Innu Nation 1997). The core areas traditionally used by the Labrador Innu are the headwaters of Eagle River; the area bounded by Winnokapau Lake, Smallwood Reservoir, Seal Lake, and Nipishish Lake; Shipiskan Lake; Snegamook Lake; and Shapio Lake; and parts of Quebec. More recently, Labrador Innu have also harvested along the TLH between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and western Labrador.

Time spent in Nutshimit ‘the country’ is considered a form of education and the percentage of respondents in a 1997 study by Innu Nation with over 25 years’ experience in four land use activities was: 28% were hunters, 26% were trappers, 30% were fishers, and 33% were gatherers in Sheshatshiu; and

10-3 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021 the percentage of respondents in Utshimassits with over 20 years’ experience in four land use activities was: 23% were hunters, 10% were trappers, 18% were fishers, and 21% were gatherers (Innu Nation 1997). The same study recorded the diets of respondents in Sheshatshiu and Utshimassits and results showed that between 1992 and 1997 the percentage of respondents that have eaten country food in Sheshatshiu were as follows: 96% - caribou; 95% - fish, duck / geese; 94% - partridge; 90% porcupine; 90% - berries; 72% - beaver / muskrat / otter; 47% - rabbit; 40% - medicines; 38% - bear; 35% - moose; 27% - roots, tree sugar / syrup, plants; 15% - lynx. In Utshimassits, the results were: 95% - caribou; 97% - fish, duck / geese and partridge; 91% porcupine and bird eggs; 92% - berries; 54% - beaver / muskrat / otter; 44% - Innu medicines; 63% - bear; 49% - seal; 37% - roots, tree sugar / syrup, plants; 18% - fox, lynx; 32% clams, shellfish (Innu Nation 1997). Results indicate that many Innu people rely on marine and coastal resources for sustenance and livelihood.

In another Innu Nation (1996) study, 92% of Utshimassits and 87% of Sheshatshiu respondents expressed serious concerns regarding the impacts of mining activities on the land and water, noting effects such as direct destruction of land and wildlife, influx of more exploration camps, and pollution and contamination of land, water and wildlife. Similarly, Clément (1998) identified potential effects, such as decreased air quality, noise emissions, and shipping routes affecting ice conditions and therefore travel. Socio-economic impacts of the mining industry identified in the study include positive effects, such as increased job opportunities, and negative effects, such as social effects (e.g., increased alcoholism and loss of culture) (Innu Nation 1996). Past activities, such as hydroelectric development, forestry, logging, clear-cutting, North Atlantic Treaty Organization military flight training, iron ore mining, and sports and hunting camps have resulted in noise and air pollution, wasteland areas at abandoned mines (where nothing grows and animal populations are depleted), and decreased fish populations and/or increased mercury levels in fish (Innu Nation 1996). Many Innu have expressed concern about the cumulative effects of these past and present developments (Innu Nation 1996). Sixty-five percent65% of the Utshimassits task force in the Innu Nation (1996) study stated that mining development violated Innu land rights, while 25% of the Sheshatshiu task force agreed; however, this lower percentage may be due to less use by the Sheshatshiu people of the areas affected (Voisey's Bay, or "Emish", in Innu).

The land/ocean is the Innu’s history, culture, and future; a source of life that has sustained them for generations, and which, they hope, will continue to provide for them in future years (Innu Nation 2005). Land use and harvesting by Sheshatshiu Innu is centred on a series of lakes situated at the headwaters of the Eagle River (Nutapinuant‐shipu) (Armitage and Stopp 2003, in Nalcor Energy 2010). Many Innu value the Eagle River plateau area because historical and personal associations with it (Innu people were born and buried there and many still have knowledge of its geography and wildlife resources) and many use the area as it is considered a key part of their ancestral territory (Armitage and Stopp 2003 in Nalcor Energy 2010). A summary of traditional use activities undertaken by Sheshatshiu Innu during the period 1979 to 2008 are shown in Figures 10-1 and 10-2 (Armitage 1989, in Nalcor Energy 2010). Also mapped are places of religious significance to the Labrador Innu. Note that as these maps and land use study were generated for a project-specific EA, they focus on traditional use by the Sheshatshiu Innu (which were closer to the project being assessed) and not the Mushuau Innu.

10-4 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Source: Armitage 1989, in Nalcor 2010 Figure 10-1 Sheshatshiu Innu Historic and Contemporary Activities

10-5 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Source: Armitage 1989, in Nalcor 2010 Figure 10-2 Sheshatshiu Innu Historic and Contemporary Activities

10-6 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

A shift from permanent mobile hunting, gathering and trapping in 'the country' (nutshimit) to sedentary village life has been shown to lead to diminished physical and mental health, and restoration of country- based activities is a likely a far more effective solution than western treatments for the effects of this declining health (Samson and Pretty 2006). This may require a change in policies, including those regarding obtaining country food, and a change in the school calendar year to allow children to visit the country more frequently, as well as funding for programs that promote country-based activities.

Regarding a past development project, Innu Nation expressed concerns about the loss of natural beauty and potential for loss of hunting territory and travel routes, making it difficult to engage in traditional activities, as well as the indirect impacts on health due to changes in diet from the decline in country food harvest and shift to processed foods. Innu Nation also raised concerns regarding the potential effects of the future development on community, family and individual health. The effects include increased domestic violence, drug, alcohol and other substance abuse, diminished mental and physical health, decline of Innu culture, and decrease in Innu use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, as well as demands on physical and social programs and facilities. Other effects noted include the potential for project employment, including shift rotation, to affect the ability to engage in traditional activities and potential increased use of areas by non-traditional users due to increased access, which may decrease harvest available to Innu. The overall concern among many Innu regards preservation of the traditional way of life. Innu Nation suggested and/or noted the requirement for funding for job‐sharing, on‐the‐job training and related matters; increased education and training for Innu to qualify for jobs and training programs; Innu employment quotas; employment equity; removal of impediments to training; and suggested a complete environmental health assessment framework to properly evaluate the risks to the health of the local communities.

10.2.1.4 Marine Mammal Harvesting

Seal hunting occurs as far as Nutak and around Okak Island and islands from Voisey’s Bay to Big Bay and many seals have been reported in Davis Inlet (SEM 2008). There is an inukshuk at Shore Tickle that marks a good seal hunting area. Inuksuit were used to mark the sina, which is the edge of the ice where people sometimes wait for seals. When a hunter shot a seal from the land and the seal sunk in the deep water, a stone marker was used to indicate where the seal sank so they could come back to retrieve it (Larkham and Brake 2011).

10.2.1.5 Marine Bird Harvesting

Migratory birds were hunted around Crooks Lake and Parke Lake to the east of the TLH, at various locations on the shoreline of Lake Melville, along several roads from Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Sheshatshiu, and on the south side of Churchill River at Gull Island (Nalcor Energy 2010).

Partridge and ducks are also harvested as far as Nutak and around Okak Islands and islands from Voisey’s Bay to Big Bay (SEM 2008). Gull eggs are also harvested along islands from Voisey’s Bay to Big Bay and on islands along the coast from Nain to Flowers Bay (SEM 2008).

10-7 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.1.6 Fishing

Fishing activities occurred in the Grand Lake and Red Wine River area, as well as at several locations along the TLH between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls. Additional fish harvesting areas include a large area of land south of Lake Melville on the Eagle River plateau and the shoreline of Lake Melville to the east, Mud Lake and the surrounding area, and the north side of the river between Gull Island and Happy Valley-Goose Bay (Nalcor Energy 2010). Other locations include North West Point (Uhuniau), Rabbit Island, at the mouth of Kenamu River, Carter Basin, Mulligan Bay, and at the west end of Double (MacLaren Plansearch 1994 as cited in Nalcor Energy 2010). Tamakat is also fished near Shango Bay and Voisey’s Bay (SEM 2008). Species include cod, salmon, northern shrimp, mussels, clams, sea urchins, and whelks (SEM 2008). Section 9.2.2 and 9.4.2 provide more detail regarding Innu Nation communal-commercial and FSC fishing activities.

10.2.1.7 Hunting

Most caribou hunting by Sheshatshiu Innu, from 1979 to 2008, occurred within the Red Wine River area and to the north of Snegamook Lake. Hunting also occurred in south of Lake Melville in the Mealy Mountains, at Etagaulet Bay, and in Crooks and Parke Lakes (Nalcor Energy 2010). Moose kills were also reported in Snegamook Lake and black bears were taken close to the Churchill River below Gull Island (Nalcor Energy 2010). Hunting for caribou, partridge, duck and seal occurs as far as Nutak and around Okak Islands, then follows the rivers, such as Tassiuyak, south and along Webb's Bay, as far south as Adlatok Bay (SEM 2008).

Small game harvesting areas approximately correspond to those described above for fishing locations (Section 10.2.1.6), with the concentration in the area along the TLH and north to above the Red Wine River. Small game such as fox, otter and marten were also hunted and trapped along Naskuapi River, Nipishish Lake, Snegamook Lake, Mistinippi Lake, Shapio Lake, and in the Torngat Mountain area and many Arctic hare have been observed on the islands from Nain to Davis Inlet (SEM 2008).

Furbearer trapping areas approximately correspond to those described above for small game and fishing locations (Sections 10.2.1.6), with the concentration in the area along the TLH and north to above the Red Wine River (Nalcor Energy 2010).

10.2.1.8 Other Harvesting Activities

Plants are gathered at various locations, including around Sheshatshiu, the north end of Grand Lake, and near the Red Wine River (Nalcor Energy 2010). Berries are considered a staple of the Innu diet (Innu Nation 2000). Some of the harvested components of medicinal plants include inner and outer bark of trees, roots, herbs, flowers, berries, mosses and lichens. Medicinal plants have a variety of uses, with different parts of a plant having different properties and uses, one plant having multiple uses, or mixtures of plants used for different medicines (Nalcor Energy 2010).

10-8 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.1.9 Trails and Camps

Road, snowmobile, walking, canoe, and motorboat travel routes used by the Labrador Innu have been recorded in southern Labrador, with a relatively high number of travel routes near the TLH between Churchill Falls and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and near Lake Melville (Armitage 2010, in Alderon Iron Ore Corp. 2012). Many travel routes have also been reported for the Eagle River plateau and the Mealy Mountains (Nalcor Energy 2010).

Temporary camps for harvesting have been recorded at Pope’s Hill, Gull Island, Mile 41 near Edwards Brook, along the Grand Lake Road and at the junction between TLH and Twin Falls Road (Armitage and Stopp 2003 in Nalcor Energy 2010). The use of remote camps near Sheshatshiu has declined since the early 2000s (Nalcor Energy 2010).

10.2.1.10 Gathering Places, Sacred and Spiritual Areas

Armitage (2010 in Alderon Iron Ore Corp. 2012) identified and described cultural and spiritual sites of the Innu, including birth, burial, death and gathering places, places of religious and historical significance, and shaking tent ceremony (kushapatshikan) locations, generally inland central and south Labrador. Traditional land use data indicate that there were two gathering areas located at Uushkan-shipiss and Manitu-utshu, involving gathering of Innu families to participate in shaking tent ceremonies (Nalcor Energy 2010).

Archaeological sites have been identified throughout areas traditionally used by the Labrador Innu. These sites are generally in inland and coastal areas and were often discovered in relation to developments such as communities, roads, railway, and mining areas.

10.2.2 NunatuKavut Community Council

10.2.2.1 Community Profile

The NunatuKavut Community Council represents a membership of over 6,000 Inuit who reside primarily in southeastern and central Labrador. Members particularly reside in communities along the southeast coast from Hamilton Inlet south to the Labrador Straits, including the towns of Cartwright, Charlottetown, Port Hope Simpson, St. Lewis, and Mary’s Harbour and the communities of Paradise River, Black Tickle- Domino, Norman Bay, Pinsent’s Arm, and Lodge Bay, as well as in Central and Western Labrador and elsewhere (Martin et al. 2012).

The NunatuKavut Community Council, originally established as the Labrador Metis Association in 1985, has asserted a land claim, covering most of Central and Southeastern Labrador (NunatuKavut Community Council 2013). On July 12, 2018, the Government of Canada and the NunatuKavut Community Council announced that they will jointly enter into historic talks to recognize Indigenous rights and self-determination (NunatuKavut Community Council 2018).

10-9 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.2.2 Historic Activities

Contact between Inuit and Europeans in southern Labrador was first established in the 17th Century (Trudel 1978, in Nalcor Energy 2010). The nature of these interactions varied between northern and southern Labrador. In northern Labrador, contact largely involved Moravian Missionaries who established themselves in Nain, Okak, and Hopedale (Nalcor Energy 2010). In southern Labrador, the interaction between the two groups was largely based on trade with seasonal fishers and whalers (Nalcor Energy 2010). As the number of fishing vessels operating seasonally off the coast of Labrador increased, temporary trading posts were established, with the first European post being established at North West River in 1743-1744. Intermarriages between Labrador Inuit and fur traders occurred, and the first generation of multiracial descent appeared as early as 1775 and was referred to as Kablunangajuit (Martin 2009, in Nalcor Energy 2010). Over time, the population grew and settlements were established throughout Central and Southern Labrador (Nalcor Energy 2010).

Historically, trapping activities had implications for settlement patterns. Throughout the 19th century, Europeans settled along the Labrador coast, primarily to fish or to work for fish merchants (Tanner 1977). In Hamilton Inlet, the Hudson’s Bay company employed men from the community in the salmon industry and in various occupations around the post. During the winter, when the fishing season ceased, these men would be sent inland to trap and support themselves on the land. A Settler community grew from Hamilton Inlet, like the Settlers on the coast (Tanner 1977).

Ancestors of NunatuKavut Community Council members maintained a seasonal migration lifestyle (Martin et al. 2012). Throughout the 20th century, harvesting would begin in the spring as families moved to fishing berth locations on the coast to harvest seals and codfish and in the summer (Martin et al. 2012). Cod fishing would occur with the salmon runs and berry picking, and birds, seals, and caribou were hunted in the fall, at which time families would move to the inner bays to prepare for a winter of trapping (Martin et al. 2012). NunatuKavut Community Council members have noted their cultural reliance on resources, including fish, sea mammals, birds, caribou, forests, mineral, and other natural resources throughout southern Labrador, inland, on the coasts, and at sea (Martin et al. 2012).

NunatuKavut Community Council’s traditional knowledge report (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019) also outlined cultural / traditional practices that reflect the migratory ways described above from Martin et al. (2012). NunatuKavut Community Council members described their traditional, seasonal use of the land. A common practice for many families was to “shift outside”, a phrase used to describe moving from the mainland to the islands outside the bays. Many NunatuKavut Community Council members used to move out to the islands for the summer months where they would spend their time fishing cod. In the fall, they may have spent their time washing, drying, and shipping fish and cod jigging for fish for the winter. Other common practices were trapping, hunting and collecting wood or lumber in the fall and winter months, and in the spring, preparing nets for fishing, barking twine, ice fishing, and hunting (e.g., birds, seal) (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

NunatuKavut Community Council also indicated that the transfer of knowledge within the community, particularly between generations, was typically through participating in activities together, or by young people “tagging along”. Telling stories was also an important cultural activity (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Some NunatuKavut Community Council members indicated that knowledge is currently

10-10 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021 not transferred as frequently as it was in the past because children are less interested these days and are busier with electronics (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

10.2.2.3 Current Activities

Members of the NunatuKavut Community Council place a strong emphasis on the importance of traditional food, both in terms of their nutritional value and their importance for cultural well-being and concern (Martin et al. 2012). A central theme discussed in the NunatuKavut Community Council traditional knowledge report (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019) around community health and wellbeing was the sharing of food and resources amongst members of the community, especially family members and Elders, or those that are unable to harvest for themselves. NunatuKavut Community Council indicated that food was or is shared within the community. In the past, when a large seal was harvested, it was always shared with the entire community; and in the present day there is often charitable harvests to help those in need (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

NunatuKavut Community Council members continue to rely upon resources of the land, water, and sea and are known to undertake land and resource use activities throughout southern Labrador. They use the land in a variety of ways, expressed through their movement along overland and aquatic travel corridors, meeting in community gathering places, the establishment of habitation sites, trapper tilts, and seasonal and permanent settlements (Nalcor Energy 2010). Typical annual harvests include hunting birds in the spring; the salmon and cod harvests in summer; berries in the late summer; birds and seals in the fall; and a winter of hunting, wood cutting, seal harvesting and the traplines (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). In many cases, NunatuKavut Community Council members’ use of the land has not changed from traditional practices, as they still hunt and gather a lot of their food, but the techniques for how they get the food have changed a little (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). NunatuKavut Community Council indicated that more is known now about how to care for things, similar to in the past. The Elders took care of the land, but there was a time in between where the land may have been over-exploited (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

There has been some changes in employment and livelihood relative to the past. Some NunatuKavut Community Council members noted the cod moratorium, and changes in the economy, as reasons for changes in their use of the marine and coastal land, and in some cases, aging was identified as playing a role, while other members indicated no change in their use of the marine or coastal land over the years (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Examples of economic developments that have caused a change in use of marine or coastal land, include the closure of the fishery, and development of plants, clinics, and schools, because people would move in from smaller communities and find different means of supporting themselves and their families. Additionally, those who left or leave for a higher education will often not come back (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Other causes for a change in use of marine or coastal land include depleted animal or fish stocks and changes in the environment, or changes in environmental protection laws and rules, restricting full use of marine and land resources and therefore affecting the ability to live off the land (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Overall, marine or coastal land use has changed, in that it was once relied upon for survival, whereas now it is more for sport or to supplement a main diet. Travel was also noted as changing over the years as it is a lot easier now, with

10-11 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021 the development of the road and accessibility of snowmobiles, whereas in the past walking was the main source of transportation (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

10.2.2.4 Marine Mammal Harvesting

Members of the NunatuKavut Community Council harvest marine mammals, with seals providing income and meat (Martin 2009, in Nalcor Energy 2010). NunatuKavut Community Council indicated that hunting for seals is often done opportunistically, while fishing or hunting other animals, or overlaps with harvesting other resources. Netting seals is also common in some areas where salmon, trout, and char are netted (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). NunatuKavut Community Council identified multiple locations for seal hunting in Labrador (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Porpoise is also hunted by members of NunatuKavut Community Council, although not as popular (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Recent data from NunatuKavut Community Council (2019) show marine mammal harvesting locations throughout southern Labrador (Figure 10-3).

10.2.2.5 Marine Bird Harvesting

Members of the NunatuKavut Community Council harvest birds annually during the spring and fall, including geese, eiders, black ducks, teals, shorebirds, turrs, shellbirds (mergansers), sleepy-eyed divers, white wing, bottle nose, scoters, and lesser scaup (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). The NunatuKavut Community Council develops Spring Bird / Egg Cultural and Food Harvest and Conservation Guidelines each year. These guidelines are developed based on the NunatuKavut Community Council’s combined knowledge of the land and wildlife and are designed to protect migratory and domestic birds and gull eggs and to encourage a traditional lifestyle in a sustainable and responsible manner (NunatuKavut Community Council 2021). The guidelines outline opening and closing dates for bird and egg harvesting as well as seasonal take and restrictions that may be implemented during a certain season. Duck, goose, and gull’s eggs are commonly harvested, and less commonly, turrs and puffin eggs (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

Data presented in the NunatuKavut Community Council traditional knowledge report (2019) indicate that its members harvest birds and bird eggs in many areas throughout south-central Labrador (Figure 10-4).

10-12 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-3 Marine Mammal Harvesting Areas as Identified by the NunatuKavut Community Council

10-13 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-4 Marine Bird and Egg Harvesting Areas as Identified by NunatuKavut Community Council

10-14 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.2.6 Fishing

Fishing is a common activity in Labrador and the commercial fishery was a big part of many resident’s livelihood in the past. NunatuKavut Community Council members have also relied on fish for sustenance for many years and indicated that a typical amount of fish per year for a three-person family would be around 50 to 60 fish (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Preferred fishing locations include the general area of Lake Melville, Rabbit Island, Bob’s Brook, Traverspine River, Mud Lake, Metchin River, Muskrat Falls, and Gull Island (Nalcor Energy 2010). Species fished include Atlantic salmon, trout, char, smelt, cod, capelin, crab, herring, mackerel, and molluscs (Minaskuat 2009 in Nalcor Energy 2010; NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Atlantic salmon fishing is integral to the NunatuKavut way of life. NunatuKavut Community Council members also fish in Grand Lake and its tributaries, Sebaskachu Bay and Sebaskachu River, the mouths of Caroline Brook, McKenzie River, and lakes south of the Churchill River including Annie Marie Lake, Minipi Lake, Dominion Lake, Gull Lake, Winokapau Lake, Lower Brook (mouth), Pinus River, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and many bays, coves and harbours along the coast of southern Labrador (Nalcor Energy 2010; NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). In addition, fishing occurs along the Goose River and in several lakes along the road to the head of Grand Lake (Nalcor Energy 2010). Members also fish in streams and lakes along the TLH (Nalcor Energy 2010).

Fishing techniques used historically and currently include gill nets, seines, traps, trawling, jigging or rod fishing (including ice fishing), and sometimes scuba diving (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Many NunatuKavut Community Council members have shared their concerns of overfishing, stating that overfishing in the past has led to the environmental protections in place today and some areas that were popular in the past have not recovered (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Details of NunatuKavut Community Council communal-commercial and FSC fishing activity are provided in Sections 9.2.2.1 and 9.4.3.

10.2.2.7 Hunting

Members of the NunatuKavut Community Council hunt big game including caribou (historically), moose, and bear and hunt or trap small game such as grouse, rabbit, fox, porcupine, muskrat, otter, lynx, marten, beaver, mink, and wolf in the south-central area of Labrador (Nalcor Energy 2010; NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Data presented by the NunatuKavut Community Council (2019) illustrate big and small game harvesting areas (including historical caribou hunting), as well as trapping areas (Figures 10-5 and 10-6).

It is no longer popular to hunt caribou and it is strongly discouraged by NunatuKavut Community Council due to the declining populations and the threatened and endangered COSEWIC status of most populations (NunatuKavut Community Council 2020).

The baseline conditions outlined in Chapters 5 to 7 do not include an overview of terrestrial species, however, given that the terrestrial animal observations described in the NunatuKavut Community Council traditional knowledge report (2019) are relevant to harvesting in the near shore areas, these observations are outlined here.

10-15 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-5 Big and Small Game Harvesting Areas as Identified by the NunatuKavut Community Council

10-16 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-6 Trapping Areas as Identified by the NunatuKavut Community Council

10-17 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Moose

A large variety of wildlife occupies the area and some species’ populations fluctuate across the landscape. Of populations in general, NunatuKavut Community Council indicated that the construction of the road has had adverse effects on animals and berries (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). This section groups wildlife populations in four categories: furbearers, ungulates, invertebrates, and other animals.

Fur Bearers

NunatuKavut Community Council observed black bears and polar bears in high quantities throughout southern Labrador, however there is variation in relative population size across the landscape (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Beavers were observed to be stable in terms of abundance, and unchanged relative to the past. Potential sightings of a fisher and wolverines were recorded; foxes, martins, rabbits, and lynx were reported as having increased abundances in some locations, while declining in other locations; and wolves were reported to fluctuate spatially and temporally (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

Ungulates

Caribou, which were hunted in the past by NunatuKavut Community Council members, were discussed in detail by NunatuKavut Community Council (2019), regarding their history in the area, current abundance, condition, and geographic extent. NunatuKavut Community Council reported sightings in Black Tickle, North West River, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Spotted Island, Cartwright, near Labrador City, Fortune Arm, and Red Bay in recent years. Reports indicated caribou were in good condition and although an increase in young caribou was reported in some locations; overall, the populations have been declining (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

NunatuKavut Community Council observed moose populations in varying quantities, depending on the geographical location within southern Labrador. However, in most areas, moose populations were reported to have increased in recent years (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

Other Animals and Insects

NunatuKavut Community Council observed varying abundances of porcupine, depending on the location, and increased abundances of shrews, mice, and squirrels. Reports of abundances on insects varied depending on location but were generally similar in abundance to previous years, with the exception of bees which were reported to have declined in recent years (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

10-18 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.2.8 Other Harvesting Activities

Members of the NunatuKavut Community Council harvest plants for traditional medicines, food, firewood, and other purposes. Traditional medicines made by NunatuKavut Community Council members are valued and pertain to their way of life. The NunatuKavut Community Council has identified the Canada yew as an important source of traditional medicine (Nalcor Energy 2010), as well as alexander (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). NunatuKavut Community Council members also harvest berries for food, and wood for firewood and/or lumber (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Berries harvested include bakeapples, partridge berries, blackberries (known elsewhere in Canada as crowberry), blueberries, raspberries, squash berries [a bright red berry similar to highbush cranberry]. Popular berry picking areas are often on islands and along the coast of southern Labrador (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Labrador Tea and spring water is also harvested, as well as caribou antlers for jewelry (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Data presented by the NunatuKavut Community Council illustrate popular harvesting areas in southern Labrador (Figure 10-7) (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

NunatuKavut Community Council members also harvest wood, including birch, spruce and fir, and identified areas for collecting firewood and sawlogs (logs of suitable size for sawing into lumber), and locations of sawmills (Figure 10-7) (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

The baseline conditions outlined in Chapters 5 to 8 do not include an overview terrestrial vegetation, but given that the terrestrial vegetation observations described in the NunatuKavut Community Council traditional knowledge report (2019) are relevant to harvesting in the near shore areas, these observations are outlined here.

NunatuKavut Community Council observed variation in the amount and quality of berries, depending on both location and year. For example, berries out on the headland are not as affected by frost as they are further inland and generally, a good harvest of berries can be expected every few years but it depends on the weather (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). In general, the quality and quantity of berries in 2019 were reported to be good and NunatuKavut Community Council members harvested many bakeapples, partridge berries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries and squash berries between July to October (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

10-19 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-7 Other Harvesting Areas as Identified by NunatuKavut Community Council

10-20 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.2.9 Trails and Camps

NunatuKavut Community Council members travel on the land and sea by truck, snowmobile, boat, foot, dog-team, and snowshoes (NunatuKavut Community Council 2010). However, the primary mode of transportation is automobiles along the TLH and adjacent roads and snowmobiles along trails that parallel the TLH and others within or adjacent to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Lake Melville (Nalcor Energy 2010). The TLH continues to serve as the main artery for travel and land use. Additionally, there is an extensive network of snowmobile trails connecting North West River, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mud Lake, and Churchill Falls with other communities in Labrador, including Labrador City and Cartwright (Nalcor Energy 2010).

NunatuKavut Community Council noted that the ability to travel safely by snowmobile is affected by the change in ice conditions and early break up of sea ice; and that there are some harbours and bays that are no longer safe to travel on in winter because the ice is not as thick (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). NunatuKavut Community Council also reported that at one time they could travel for days in the spring, but now there is a lot more wind and more frequent storms, making it more difficult for long trips. However, in general, larger snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and motorboats, allow for access to areas in the present day that were inaccessible in the past (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

There are various types of habitation (or camps) throughout southern-central Labrador that are used by NunatuKavut Community Council members, such as recreational cabins, fishing cabins or premises, and trapper’s tilts (generally small single-room huts or shelters used seasonally) (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Several NunatuKavut Community Council members identified the locations of these camps, as well as locations of old settlements (Figure 10-8) (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

Figure 10-8 illustrates travel routes and camps identified in the NunatuKavut Community Council traditional knowledge report (2019). Main travel routes would include many individual branches in pursuit of game and other resources.

10.2.2.10 Gathering Places, Sacred and Spiritual Places

Recently, in-depth archaeological work has been done on the Atlantic coast of Labrador. The most recent dig site is at Indian Harbour on Huntingdon Island in Sandwich Bay (Netsektok). The dig by Dr. Lisa Rankin and her crew in the summer of 2009 revealed a double occupancy Inuit house from the latter part of the 16th century (pers. comm. Dr. Lisa Rankin as cited in NunatuKavut Community Council 2010).

In NunatuKavut Community Council’s traditional knowledge report (2019), in addition to mapping sod houses, several NunatuKavut Community Council members identified spiritual or ceremonial sites, such as burial sites and cemeteries, tent rings, artifacts and stone structures (Figure 10-9).

10-21 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-8 Habitation Sites and Travel Routes as Identified by the NunatuKavut Community Council

10-22 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-9 Sacred / Historical / Burial Sites as Identified by the NunatuKavut Community Council

10-23 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Habitation sites (tilts, trapper’s cabins, old settlements) are included in Section 10.2.2.9, Figure 10-8.

10.2.3 Nunatsiavut Government

10.2.3.1 Community Profile

The Nunatsiavut Government represents over 7,000 Labrador Inuit beneficiaries who reside primarily in five Inuit communities: Nain (Nunainguk), Postville (KipukKak), Rigolet (Tikigiaksaugusik), Hopedale (Agvitok), and Makkovik (Maggovik). Following three decades of land claims negotiations between the LIA and the federal and provincial governments, the Nunatsiavut Government, an Inuit regional self- government, was established. On December 1, 2005, the LILCA came into effect, which sets out the details of land ownership, resource‐sharing, and self‐government within the established LISA, and provides for harvesting rights in and outside the LISA. Labrador Inuit Lands are approximately 15,800 km² in area, within the LISA boundary.

10.2.3.2 Historic Activities

The Labrador Inuit are culturally and linguistically part of the Inuit peoples who occupy the Arctic and parts of the sub-Arctic, from Alaska east across northern Canada, Greenland, and the Arctic edges of the former Soviet Union (VBNC 1997). They represent the most southerly expansion of this culture (VBNC 1997). The history of the Inuit in Labrador was comprehensively documented in Our Footprints are Everywhere (Brice-Bennett 1977), the land claims documentation submitted by the LIA to the federal and provincial governments and is not repeated here.

Following European activity and establishment of the Moravian missions, dramatic and lasting changes in traditional Inuit culture, settlement, and subsistence patterns occurred (VBNC 1997). The Inuit became increasingly involved with a market economy and adapted to new technologies in the late 19th century and early 20th century (Nalcor Energy 2010). These adaptations enabled the Inuit to earn income from industries focused on trapping and seal hunting, as well as cod, char, and salmon fishing (Nalcor Energy 2010).

Around 1915, following the establishment of a hospital, school, and boarding facilities for Inuit children, the Inuit began to permanently occupy North West River and Goose Bay areas (Nalcor Energy 2010). In the 1950s, during federal government relocation programs, many Inuit moved to Nain.

The Inuit describe their historic use of the lands in terms of seasonal activities, which are primarily driven by the presence or absence of sea ice. In the spring, seal hunting, ice fishing, and egg harvesting activities were common and remain common today. In the summer, commercial fishing was the main activity in the past, which left little time for other harvesting activities. A common practice for many families was to “shift outside” in the summer months, which is a phrase used to describe moving from the mainland to the islands outside the bays. Many Labrador Inuit used to move out to the islands for the summer months where they would spend their time fishing cod. Autumn was spent berry-picking; wooding; hunting of hares, seals, birds and caribou, and trapping of fur bearing mammals; catching, smoking or salting arctic char; gathering shellfish; and recreational and cultural activities. Winter activities included seal hunting, fur trapping, collecting firewood, caribou hunting, partridge hunting, and ice fishing.

10-24 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Within the Nain District, there are areas which Inuit focused and still focus their harvesting activities, due to the richness of the area. Black Island, Illusuattlialuk, Voisey's Bay and Anaktalak Bay are such areas (Williamson and LIA 1997).

Hunting caribou was historically significant and many Labrador Inuit would hunt using dog teams and be gone for weeks at a time (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

IK, including the importance of conservation, traditional activities and fishing, hunting, and harvesting locations, were passed on through the generations and are still practiced and used today. However, the passing on of IK to younger generations is not as common now as it once was (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

10.2.3.3 Current Activities

The relationship Inuit have with the ocean and land is beyond a quantifiable value. The marine and coastal environment is used for marine mammal harvesting, marine bird harvesting, fishing (including shellfish harvesting), hunting, drinking water sources, recreation (e.g., swimming), travelling, and plant, wood, and berry harvesting, and has been described as a “life source”, as it is a source of food, income, and cultural connection (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Many residents return to the same, fishing, hunting and harvesting grounds year after year (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Labrador Inuit have been using the lands and resources of Lake Melville and the surrounding area for traditional activities for hundreds of years. Establishment of the Goose Bay military base in the early 1940s resulted in the alteration of traditional land use and harvesting patterns for the Labrador Inuit, moving people towards a more settled, wage-based economy (Nalcor Energy 2010). Most of the people who moved to the area for work resided in the communities of Upper Lake Melville.

The Labrador Inuit have raised concerns regarding further changes to their current way of life as a result of development in the area, in particular the impacts of in-migration, boom and bust cycle, and increase in alcoholism and drugs in Labrador and/or potential changes to traditional foods as a result of drilling offshore (Nunatsiavut Government n.d.; SEM 2008). In addition, climate change has been identified as an obstacle for carrying on traditional activities, and increased wind makes it difficult to use the ocean the way they once did, especially in the summer (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). In 2009, the Nunatsiavut Government undertook a survey to determine the extent to which its members participated in recreational and subsistence land use and harvesting activities in and near the Lake Melville area (SEM 2009). Forty individuals were interviewed to document Labrador Inuit Knowledge of Lake Melville, 20 each from North West River and Rigolet. Results demonstrated that recreational and subsistence land use and harvesting activities varied widely and included hunting for seals, birds, rabbits, caribou and moose, fishing and ice fishing, trapping, travelling by boat, snowmobile, snowshoes, dog team, foot, truck, plane and helicopter, berry-picking, prospecting, and gathering firewood (Nalcor Energy 2010). Individuals interviewed also indicated that they had participated in seal and bird hunting, Atlantic salmon, and ice fishing, and travelled within the Lake Melville area via boat and snowmobile (Nalcor Energy 2010).

10-25 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Many of the land use activities discussed in Section 10.2.3.2 are still practiced today, with the exception of commercial fishing, which has decreased since the cod moratorium in 1992 (Williamson and LIA 1997), and some locations once used may no longer be available due to conservation measures (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

Currently, Inuit harvesting extends beyond the LISA (Nalcor Energy 2010). Overlap Agreements were established with Innu Nation and Nunavik Inuit to allow for harvesting by Labrador Inuit for FSC purposes beyond the borders of the LISA (Nalcor Energy 2010). Current land use and harvesting by Beneficiaries in Schedule 12‐E Lands in the Agreement include a communal fish harvest, as well as the hunting of black bear, small game, migratory birds, moose, and caribou. The general Lake Melville area has been used and continues to be used extensively by Labrador Inuit for a broad range of traditional activities, including hunting, fishing, trapping, wood cutting, and snowmobile travel (Nalcor Energy 2010).

The Labrador Inuit also used the landscape in a variety of ways. This is expressed through movement along overland and aquatic travel corridors, meeting in community gathering places, and establishment of habitation sites, including tent camps, cabins, and seasonal and permanent settlements (Brice‐Bennett 1977). Inuit from Happy Valley‐Goose Bay, North West River, Mud Lake, and Rigolet currently travel on the land and sea by boat, snowmobile, snowshoes, foot, truck, plane, and helicopter (SEM 2009).

Given their extensive knowledge of the land and sea, Labrador Inuit are also involved in charters for universities and governmental departments, such as ECCC (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Like historic activities, current activities can be described in terms of the season. Spring is spent out on the sea ice, seal hunting and goose hunting, with occasional trips to the cabin, outside the Islands. In the summer, it can vary from fishing, gathering eggs, hunting waterfowl, and berry picking. Autumn is spent goose hunting, fishing, and berry picking in late autumn. Winter is spent within the bays, ice fishing and hunting (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Nunatsiavut Government have expressed concerns about the over- hunting, fishing, and harvesting by the younger generation (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

A summary of traditional and current land use activities undertaken by the Labrador Inuit is shown in Figure 10-10 (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Indigenous knowledge maps related to specific species or categories of species are provided in Appendix D. As noted in Section 2.3.3, for many parts of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, there is strong IK on the distribution of various species; however, there may be geographic bias of the observations towards more populated areas of the coast related to concentration of hunting and travel by community members. Therefore, a lack of mapped data should not be inferred to mean a lack of species presence.

10-26 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-10 Traditional and Current Land Use of Labrador Inuit

10-27 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.3.4 Marine Mammal Harvesting

The Labrador Inuit harvest seals within Hamilton Inlet and Lake Melville (Brice-Bennett 1977). Other areas identified as being good hunting grounds for seals include Snook’s Cove, and as far out as Smokey and Cut Throat Islands, as well as Valley’s Bight (SEM 2008). Snook’s Cove is known for many types of seals, such as ringed, harps, and square flippers (SEM 2008). Ringed seals are hunted near their breathing holes or in open water and after the break-up of ice in mid-June, harp seals are hunted or netted as they enter the bays (VBNC 1997).

Occasionally, polar bear harvesting occurs off Cape Makkovik and dolphins are sometimes hunted (SEM 2008). The Labrador Inuit right to harvest polar bear was first limited to four bears as a result of the abandonment of Port Burwell (Killiniq) in 1978 and the division of that community’s quota of eight polar bears equally between Quebec and NL. This initial NL quota of four Polar Bears was later increased to six, and then to 12, in 2012 (Nunatsiavut Government pers. comm., 2021).

Nunatsiavut Government marine mammal harvesting locations are summarized in Figure 10-11.

10.2.3.5 Marine Bird Harvesting

Harvesting of migratory birds represents an important component of the overall subsistence harvest by Nunatsiavut communities (Natcher et al. 2011). The most abundant and extensively harvested migratory bird species by Inuit hunters include goose, black duck, common eider, surf scoter, black scoter, and white-winged scoter (Natcher et al. 2011). Inuit harvesting of migratory birds occurs throughout the year but is concentrated in the fall (Natcher et al. 2011).

Bird harvesting areas include Valley’s Bight, both east and west Turnaviks, Antone’s Island, Island Harbour Bay, Salt Water Pond, Mark’s Bight, Kaipakok Bay to Long Island, and Indian Island (SEM 2008). Duck hunting occurs in Tikkeratsuk, Horse Rocks past the Turnaviks, and up to Cape Makkovik, as well as in the Spraklin's and House Harbour area (SEM 2008). Geese harvesting was identified to occur on Patrix Island, and Mason’s Island (SEM 2008; Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Alliuk Bight was identified as a good place for hunting shore ducks (SEM 2008).

Egg harvesting also represents an important component of overall subsistence harvest and has been described by Nunatsiavut Government as an important traditional activity, noting some older people will not eat store bought hens’ eggs and will wait until spring for egg harvesting (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Eggs harvested include goose, duck, pigeon, and tern eggs, and they are shared among the community (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). June through August is the period for egg harvesting, when birds are laying on the islands, including from Nain to Flowers Bay (Williamson and LIA 1997, SEM 2008). Inuit participants stated that they would collect just enough for their immediate, between-seasons, needs (Williamson and LIA 1997) and stated that they “always left some eggs behind in each nest for the eggs to hatch." (SEM 2008). Nunatsiavut Government (2018) expressed concern about the harvesting of eggs in the spring.

10-28 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-11 Marine Mammal Harvesting Areas as Identified by Nunatsiavut Government

10-29 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Nauluk Island was identified as a gull egg harvesting location and Sisters Islands were identified as an egg harvesting area (species not specified) (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Other marine bird and egg harvesting locations are summarized in Figure 10-12.

10.2.3.6 Fishing

Fishing is an important traditional activity and fish are a major component of many Labrador Inuit’s diets (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). The Labrador Inuit fish diet is dominated by salmon, char, and trout, with cod, rock cod, capelin, herring, occasionally mackerel, with other near-shore flatfish, groundfish, shellfish (e.g., mussels, scallops, whelks) and sea urchins being less prominent / preferred sources of fish protein (Coombs et al. 2010). Nunatsiavut Beneficiaries identified fish harvesting areas including Muskrat Falls, the area below the Churchill Falls trail race, Gull Island, Mud Lake, the mouth of Churchill River, the Kenamy, Kenemich and Traverspine rivers, and Wilson and Grand Lakes, Hamilton Inlet, Lake Melville, Fish Point, Winter’s Cove, Three Sisters Islands, Fly Cove, English River, Back Bay, Double Mer, and Ivilik, as well as many other ponds, lakes, rivers, and coastal locations throughout Labrador (Nalcor Energy 2010; Nunatsiavut Government 2018; SEM 2008; Brice-Bennett 1977). Tumbledown Dick and George’s Island used to be popular fishing locations but Tumbledown Dick is now an IBA and is therefore protected, and the cod fish abundance near George’s Island has since declined (SEM 2008). Ice fishing is a common winter and spring activity and includes fishing arctic char (primarily), speckled trout, lake trout, smelts and rock cod (Williamson and LIA 1997; Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

Shellfish harvesting areas identified by Nunatsiavut Government (2018) are summarized in Figure 10-13. Iceland scallops were identified as being fished in areas from Big Bay to Saglek Bay and Shoal Tickle (SEM 2008).

Snow crab were identified as being fishing within the Cartwright channel, off Cartwright and Black Tickle, and areas between Makkovik and Hopedale (SEM 2008). Northern shrimp are also fished between Makkovik and Hopedale (SEM 2008).

Greenland halibut was identified as being harvested at Hawke channel, cod fishing within the Horse Rocks and Aillik Banks areas, and Atlantic salmon, trout, and char within the West Bay, Fish Cove area (SEM 2008). Char fishing also occurs on the south side of Groswater Bay, around Kunnocks Cove, and around the Crandford Head area, and in the spring, ice fishing camps can be found at the head of Anaktalak Bay (VBNC 1997; SEM 2008). Groundfish harvesting areas identified by Nunatsiavut Government (2018) are summarized in Figure 9-44 and pelagic fishing areas identified by Nunatsiavut Government (2018) are summarized in Figure 9-45.

Traditionally, char were speared as they migrated up rivers but were also, and currently are, caught by net along the coast (as is salmon). Often individuals will fish for others in their communities who are unable to fish themselves and there are community freezers in many communities for families to get their salmon (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Individuals are contracted to harvest fish for the community freezers (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

10-30 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-12 Marine Bird and Egg Harvesting Areas as Identified by Nunatsiavut Government

10-31 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-13 Shellfish Harvesting Areas as Identified by Nunatsiavut Government

10-32 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Nunatsiavut Government have expressed concern about reports of overfishing, noting that the lack of enforcement on fish quotas is likely the reason for depleting stocks, and that more education and community sharing is needed (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Overfishing of char during the char spawn has also been reported (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Increased access (e.g., motorboats and snowmobiles) has also been reported as a potential reason for depleting stocks in some locations (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

Details of Nunatsiavut Government communal-commercial and FSC fishing activity are provided in Sections 9.2.2.1 and 9.4.1, and fish species harvesting locations are summarized in Figure 9-46.

10.2.3.7 Hunting

Labrador Inuit primarily hunt caribou, black bear, moose, seal, and occasionally small game such as ukalik (arctic hare), rabbit, partridge, and porcupine (Brice-Bennett 1977; SEM 2008; Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Black bear hunting was once more common when England would buy the fur for their English Guard hats (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Inuit territory extends north up to Saglak and Hebron Bay and south to Voisey's Bay and Big Bay. Some Nunatsiavut Government members have had provincial hunting licences to sell and have participated in Muskrat Falls studies (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Many Inuit communities also have community freezers with moose meat for those that do not or cannot hunt for moose (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Nunatsiavut Government observed a decline in goose abundance in some locations and wildlife abundances, in general, have declined since the introduction of a spring hunt, 15 to 20 years ago (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

Identified hunting areas include House Harbour, Taber Island, Skull Island, Fox Hollow, Davis Strait, English River, Back Bay, and Double Mer (SEM 2008; Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Ukalik (as well as seal) are hunted as far out as Smokey and Cut Throat Islands. Nunatsiavut Government (2018) noted that it is important to mark traditional caribou routes that are used, and stated that caribou hunting has changed over time and between generations. For example, caribou were once hunted in the English River area; however, it is no longer legal to hunt them there due to conservation measures (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Trapping also occurs along the shoreline to Cape Makkovik and Aillik, as well as Valley’s Bight (SEM 2008). Animals trapped include lynx, fox, wolves, and marten (SEM 2008; Nunatsiavut Government 2018) providing an income for some individuals. For example, marten skins are sometimes auctioned to a fur buyer from Happy Valley-Goose Bay (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Some individuals have extensive trapping areas that is passed down through the generations and was once used for trapping and hunting for the Hudson Bay Company (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Trapping courses are now provided in Happy Valley-Goose Bay (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Due to the warming climate, the trapping season takes place later than it once did because the fur is not of prime quality until later (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Nunatsiavut Government reported that some trapping areas are no longer accessible due to changes in climate, which has resulted in reduced snow and ice cover (Nunatsiavut Government 2018)

Regarding hunting in general, Nunatsiavut Government noted that increased access is a major contributor to the decrease in abundance of some species and that hunting has become more of a sport as opposed to subsistence activity (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Some concern has been raised regarding the lack of traditional knowledge transfer from Elders to younger generations, such as the

10-33 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021 importance of traditional hunting, and hunting within an animal’s respective seasons (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

Though ringed seals are primarily hunted, bearded seal are sometimes hunted if present. Hunting takes place along the entire sina (a Inuktitut word for the floe edge between the landfast ice and the arctic pack ice on the outer coast of Labrador) from Port Manvers to Spracklins Island (100 km) (Williamson and LIA 1997). Traditionally, the sina was usually the most productive zone accessible to Inuit hunters. Coastal islands often shield the landfast ice from environmental impacts and the ice is subsequently locked in place, particularly in the Nain and Hopedale regions, providing larger hunting and trapping areas, which can extend up to 30 km from the coast (VBNC 1997). Seal hunting is more than a subsistence activity and requires much knowledge about the environment. Fewer families continue to make skin boots, mitts and other items (Williamson and LIA 1997). However, hunting seal for its skin is not as common as it once was when seal skin had higher market value (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). In the past, when dog sleds were used and more seal meat was needed to feed the dogs, hunters would go out beyond the sina onto the Arctic pack ice. Illusuattalialuk was a starting point and Kaiguliktok was the most easterly island on which hunters would camp, as well as from Black Island to just outside Bulldog and Orton Islands, to the north (Williamson and LIA 1997).

Nunatsiavut Government large game and small game hunting locations are summarized in Figure 10-14. Trapping lines and locations are summarized in Figure 10-15.

10.2.3.8 Other Harvesting Activities

The Nunatsiavut Government indicated that the Inuit of North West River and Rigolet harvest berries and firewood; however, particular locations for these activities have not been specified (Nalcor Energy 2010). Berries are also picked on Manak’s Island and Adlavik Islands. The types of berries harvested by Labrador Inuit include, bakeapples, blackberries, red [partridge] berries, and blueberries, which are often harvested on islands along the coast, accessed by boat (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Bakeapples are harvested around Shango Bay, on Numuak Island, Martin’s Island, Dog Island, Groswater Bay, Bromfield’s Head, and within the Fish Cove area, and rhubarb is harvested in Okak Harbour and Napatusuak (SEM 2008). Blackberries are also picked on Big Island (SEM 2008). English River and Mason’s Island have also been identified as berry harvest locations (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

Berries are harvested in both spring and fall and Nunatsiavut Government noted that, while the late fall berries are sometimes sweeter, the spring harvest is often preferred because the berries are much softer (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Nunatsiavut Government also noted that the quantity of bakeapple berries depends on the precipitation throughout the winter months, with more snow resulting in larger harvests (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Nunatsiavut Government (2018) observed the ripening time of year for bakeapples has been occurring earlier over the past 10 years. Some people rely on the berry harvest for income and some berry picking areas have been lost due to development, such as housing (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

Nunatsiavut Government also harvest wood for firewood, other plants, and spring water (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Nunatsiavut Government other harvesting locations (including berries) are summarized in Figure 10-16.

10-34 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-14 Big and Small Game Harvesting Areas as Identified by Nunatsiavut Government

10-35 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-15 Trapping Areas as Identified by Nunatsiavut Government

10-36 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-16 Other Harvesting Areas as Identified by Nunatsiavut Government

10-37 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.3.9 Trails and Camps

Marine travel, by boat and snowmobile, has been described as very important to many Labrador Inuit and travel routes change depending on season and / or ice conditions (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Opportunistic hunting is also very common along travel routes (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). The freezing up of coastal marine areas increase travel opportunities for many Labrador Inuit and can often be the only means of obtaining food (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Kaipakok Bay freezes around New Year's, while the upper bay freezes in early December. Travel by snowmobile occurs on the bay in mid- January, but the outer ice is not ready for travel until February (SEM 2008). Nunatsiavut Government (2018) reported that the ice is much more unpredictable in the past 15 years and travel out past the islands is not as common as it once was. Nunatsiavut Government has observed an increase in traffic due to the development of snowmobiles and their ability to travel much further into the land than in the past, opening up fishing and hunting areas that were once inaccessible (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). In some locations the ice does not form as quickly as it used to and in recent years individuals have been unable to get to their cabins until February or March (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Similarly, early melting of sea ice can lead to dangerous travel conditions and can result in food insecurity for those that rely on hunting at that time of year (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Nunatsiavut Government (2018) observed unsafe ice conditions in 2019. An example of a much used Labrador Inuit travel route is to and from Mud Lake and Happy Valley-Goose Bay via boats in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter (Nalcor Energy 2010).

Many Labrador Inuit have cabins outside their communities that are often used for hunting, fishing, harvesting, and recreation (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Cabins are often seasonal, with some individuals having cabins in multiple locations for different activities, for example, a summer cabin for hunting, and a winter cabin for ice fishing and hunting (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Cabins have been identified at Fox Island, Rattler’s Bight, Winter’s Cove, Flat Water Brook, Fox Hollow, Wickers Cove, Queens Point, Muldoons Point, Little Bay, Rattler’s Cove, Mulligan, Big Island, Snook’s Cove, West Bay, and Thomas River (SEM 2008; Nunatsiavut Government 2018). In the spring, fishing camps are common, and examples include at the head of Anaktalak Bay and Fish Point (VBNC 1997; Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Nunatsiavut Government (2018) noted that fishing camps are preferred by older people and the younger generation tend to make daily visits to fishing locations. Habitation sites associated with use from circa 1600 to circa 1900 AD have been recorded outside established communities in south and central Labrador (Brice-Bennett 1977).

Nunatsiavut Government trails, camps and travel route locations are summarized in Figure 10-17.

10-38 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-17 Habitation Sites and Travel Routes as Identified by Nunatsiavut Government

10-39 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.2.3.10 Gathering Places, Sacred and Spiritual Places

Burial grounds have been identified at Tub Harbour and Fish Cove (SEM 2008) and memorials, sometimes erected for family and friends who have passed, and/or monuments have been identified on Big Pike Island and the Hopedale boundary (Nunatsiavut Government 2018).

Inuksuit (plural for inukshuk) are used for many different things, including: indicating good hunting or fishing areas; indicating settlement areas; marking a trail and assisting in travel and navigation; and warning of unsafe places like bad ice or the edge of a cliff. Trees, also known as tripod's, are also used as markers, particularly in densely wooded areas. Today, trees are cut and stuck in the snow to indicate the good ice (Larkham and Brake 2011). In a study by Larkham and Brake (2011) Inuksuit and other stone markers were identified in the Rigolet area, Okak Bay area, Big Bight area, Pigeon Island, West Turnavik, Antone's Island, Hopedale area, Nutak and Hebron areas, and the Nain area. There is also an inukshuk at Shore Tickle that marks a good seal hunting area, and they were used to mark the sina, which is the edge of the ice where people sometimes wait for seals. On islands, besides showing dangerous places, Inuksuit often indicated that there are settlements or camping sites nearby and are often associated with tent rings (Larkham and Brake 2011).

Nunatsiavut Government identified old graveyards / headstones in the Ailik area that may be archeological sites (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Other Nunatsiavut Government gathering places, sacred and spiritual places, burials and archaeological locations are summarized in Figure 10-18.

10-40 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-18 Sacred / Historical / Burial Sites as Identified by Nunatsiavut Government

10-41 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.3 MARINE RECREATION AND TOURISM ACTIVITIES

The tourism industry is a key component of the Labrador economy and includes travel by residents within the province and visiting non-residents. In 2017, there were an estimated 553,103 non-resident visits to NL (an increase of 2.6% over 2016) (NL Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry, and Innovation [NLDTCII] 2017). These visits equated to tourism expenditures estimated at $575.2 million (an increase of 2.4% over 2016) (NLDTCII 2017). Despite the general increase in non-resident visits and expenditures, some regions reported lower than expected tourist visitation. These regional disparities have been attributed to a slow resident travel market, a decline in non-resident auto traffic, and a recognized Canada-wide trend of increased travel to urban centres (NLDTCR 2007).

Regardless of regional disparities, the tourism industry is increasing in Labrador and plays an important role in rural economies. Each area along the Labrador coast has its own strengths and amenities. Strategies have been developed by the Nunatsiavut Government and the Southeastern Aurora Development Corporation to capitalize on strengths and to accommodate new and growing businesses. Scenic, natural, and cultural attractions translate into economic opportunities for the resident population and provide domestic, national, and international travelers with world-class outdoor recreation activities. These activities include bird watching, whale watching, kayaking, boat tours, hiking, fishing, and camping, as well as activities associated with cruise ship and private vessel (sailing) visitation.

This section describes the use of the Labrador coast for tourism and recreation by residents of Labrador and visitors to the province.

10.3.1 Cruise Tourism

Marine cruise activity is common throughout ports in NL. The cruise ship industry is promoted by the Cruise Association of NL (CANL) and supported by both the federal and provincial governments. In 2017, CANL recorded 105 port calls to 20 different ports by 31 vessels (NLDTCII 2017). The cruise routing in Labrador is mainly from south to north and return; however, the east to west routing from European ports via Iceland, Greenland, Baffin, and south to Labrador are being developed. A review of detailed itinerary information by the CANL indicated that the province received approximately 38,321 cruise visitors during the 2017 cruise season, an increase of 62.8% compared to 2016 (NLDTCII 2017). The 2017 cruise season was a record year relating to the number of passenger visit (53,470) and crew visits (26,850) in the province, representing increases of 57.6% and 62.6%, respectively, in comparison to the 2016 season (NLDTCII 2017). Cruise ship statistics for NL ports are provided in Table10.1.

10-42 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Table 10.1 Cruise Ship Statistics for NL 2016-2017

2016 2017 Port (NL) # of Port Passenger # of Port Passenger Crew Visits Crew Visits Calls Visits Calls Visits St. John’s 23 7,449 16,188 30 11,873 26,907 Corner Brook 9 4,240 8,351 13 6,896 13,180 Rest of the 34 4,826 9,394 62 8,081 13,383 Province Total (NL) 66 16,515 33,933 105 26,850 53,470 St. Pierre and 9 1,443 2,694 18 4,107 6,085 Miquelon Source: NLDTCII 2017

Table 10.2 details the 2018 itinerary of planned cruise ship activity for ports along the east and northeast coast of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador.

Table 10.2 Labrador Cruise Ship Itinerary (2018)

Number of Port Date (2018) Ship Operator Passengers Battle Harbour May 16 Fram Hurtigruten 318 July 27 Akademik Loffe One Ocean Expeditions 96 September 31 Fram Hurtigruten 318 Total 732 Hebron (Labrador) July 29 Akademik Loffe One Ocean Expeditions 96 September Ocean Endeavour Adventure Canada 198 Total 294 Hopedale July 28 Akademik Loffe One Ocean Expeditions 92 Total 92 Red Bay May 14 Fram Hurtigruten 318 June 06 Hebridean Sky Noble Caledonia 118 July 23 Rotterdam Holland America 1,404 August 26 Seaborn Quest Seaborn 450 September 02 Star Pride Windstar 212 October 02 Fram Hurtigruten 318 October 06 Ocean Endeavour Adventure Canada 198 Total 3,018 Torngat Mountains July 30 to 31 Akademik Loffe One Ocean Expeditions 96 National Park September 15 Silver Cloud Silversea 254 September 23-25 Ocean Endeavour Adventure Canada 198 Total 548

10-43 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Table 10.2 Labrador Cruise Ship Itinerary (2018)

Number of Port Date (2018) Ship Operator Passengers Nain September 27 Ocean Endeavour Adventure Canada 198 Total 198 Happy Valley-Goose August 23 Seaborn Quest Seaborn 450 Bay September 04 Amadea Phoenix Reisen 600 Total 1,050 Labrador Coast September 28-30 Fram Hurtigruten 318

September 28-29 Ocean Endeavour Adventure Canada 198

Total 516 Source: CANL 2018

10.3.2 Ecotourism

In recent years, the Labrador coast has experienced a growing movement in ecotourism. The area has a diverse natural environment with potential for new developments and growth. Coastal Labrador provides areas for viewing whales, birds, icebergs, and unique scenery, which are visible along coastal hiking trails, boat tours (including sea kayaking), and from various established lookout points. The diversity of the environment is also ideal for adventure touring opportunities.

Iceberg viewing is a popular marine-based tourism activity in Labrador. “Iceberg Alley” stretches from the coast of Labrador to the southeast coast of the Island of Newfoundland. Popular locations from shore, or from tour boats, include St. Lewis, Battle Harbour, Red Bay, Point Amour, St. Anthony, La Scie, Twillingate, Fogo Island, Change Islands, Bonavista, St. John’s / Cape Spear, and Bay Bulls / Witless Bay. The first four locations are on the south coast of Labrador and are accessible by car ferry from the Island of Newfoundland year-round. Icebergs come through Iceberg Alley from spring to early summer.

Whale watching is another popular marine-based tourism activity in Labrador. Between May and September, over 21 species of whales and dolphins visit the coast of NL, including humpback, minke, sperm, pothead, blue, and killer. Whale watching tours are provided via tour boats, sea kayaks, or along coastal hiking trails.

The developing tourist industry in Coastal Labrador has also created activity for tour boats during the summer season. For example, in Makkovik, an operator provides tours north to the Torngat Mountains area; in Cartwright, boat tours of the local area are offered, and daily tour services to the historic site in Battle Harbour are provided from Mary’s Harbour.

Within the vicinity of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, there are also two national parks: The Torngat Mountains National Park; and the Akami-Uapishk-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve. The Torngat Mountains National Park spans 9,700 km² from the Saglek Fjord to the northern tip of Labrador, and westward from the Atlantic seacoast to the Quebec border. The Torngat Mountains

10-44 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

National Park offers coastal hiking, camping, and guided excursions, such as helicopter rides, boat tours, and cultural experiences. The Akami-Uapishk-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve spans 10,700 km² and is in the East Coast Boreal Natural Region of Labrador. The mountains overlook Lake Melville in central Labrador and has been traditional hunting, trapping, and fishing territories for Indigenous peoples.

10.3.3 Local and Visitor Personal Boating

Boats are used by residents for transportation and fishing and hunting. Local personal boats are mainly 6 to 8 m (20 to 30 feet) long and powered by an outboard motor. These are prevalent in the communities.

Recreational sailing and powerboats of various sizes visit the coast each year during the summer season from various locations along the eastern seaboard and the Great Lakes regions.

10.3.4 Outfitters

Outfitting establishments are an important component to the tourism economy in NL. The NL Outfitters Association (NLOA) is a non-profit business organization whose members consist of hunting and angling outfitters in the province (NLOA 2013). Members of NLOA offer activities, such as guided hunting and angling tours. as well as snowmobile, ATV, and guided hiking tours. Multiple outfitter organizations exist on the North Coast, Southern Labrador, and Central Labrador. A preliminary list of outfitting locations along the Labrador coast is provided in Table 10.3, based on information from the provincial government. The database that records outfitting locations in NL is based on voluntary participation, and so while it provides locations for some outfitters it may not be completely inclusive.

Table 10.3 Outfitting Locations along the Coast of Labrador

Outfitter Location Species Adlatok Lodge Adlatok River, Labrador Arctic char, Atlantic salmon Awesome Lake Lodge Awesome Lake, Labrador Brook trout, lake trout Arctic char, Atlantic salmon, brook Big Land Fishing Lodge and Tours Pinware River, Labrador trout, sea-run brook trout, lake trout Arctic char, Atlantic salmon, sea-run Big River Fishing Lodge Big River, Labrador brook trout Atlantic salmon, landlocked salmon, Big River Lodge Big River, Labrador brook trout Atlantic salmon, brook trout, sea-run Cloud 9 Salmon Lodge Eagle River, Labrador brook trout Crooks Lake Lodge Crooks Lake, Labrador Brook trout, northern pike Eagle River Trout Lodge Eagle Lake, Labrador Brook trout Flowers River Lodge Flowers River, Labrador Atlantic salmon, Arctic char Hawke River Outfitters Hawke River, Labrador Atlantic salmon Hunt River Lodge (Atlantic Rivers Hunt River, Labrador Arctic char, Atlantic salmon Outfitting Company Inc.)

10-45 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Table 10.3 Outfitting Locations along the Coast of Labrador

Outfitter Location Species Atlantic salmon, Arctic char, brook Igloo Lake Lodge Igloo Lake, Labrador trout, northern pike Labrador Sportfish Ltd. Eagle River, Labrador Atlantic salmon Tom Luscombes Brook, Luscombes Brook Lodge Atlantic salmon, sea-run brook trout Labrador Atlantic Salmon, Arctic char, brook Michael’s River Fishing Lodge Michael’s River, Labrador trout Osprey Lake Lodge Osprey Lake, Labrador Brook trout Pinware River Lodge Pinware River, Labrador Atlantic salmon, sea-run brook trout Atlantic salmon, brook trout, sea-run Pratt Falls Salmon Lodge Lower Eagle River, Labrador brook trout Atlantic salmon, Arctic char, brook Rifflin’ Hitch Lodge Eagle River, Labrador trout, sea-run brook trout, lake trout, northern pike Atlantic salmon, brook trout, sea-run Sandhill River Lodge Sandhill River, Labrador brook trout Six North Fishing Lodge Lac Mercier, Labrador Brook trout, northern pike Spirit Wind Salmon Lodge Lower Eagle River, Labrador Atlantic salmon, sea-run brook trout St. Lewis River Lodge (Atlantic Rivers Arctic char, Atlantic salmon, sea-run St. Lewis River, Labrador Outfitting Company Inc.) brook trout Arctic char, brook trout, lake trout, Tasiujak Lake Fishing Lodge sea-run brook trout Wulff Lake Salmon Lodge Ltd. Wulff Lake, Labrador Atlantic salmon Source: Angling NL 2018 Note: This list is based on the database that Angling NL maintains. This is a voluntary database and outfitting camps who provide information to the province will be included. As a result, the list may not be complete.

Table 10.4 illustrates the economic activity created from outfitting operations in Labrador from 2008 to 2017.

Table 10.4 Revenue from Outfitters in Labrador, 2008 to 2017

Year Resident Non-resident Fishing Total Fishers Average Price / Fishers Fishers Revenue Package 2008 277 1,104 $4,115,164.96 1,381 $2,979.84 2009 394 707 $3,478,512.96 1,101 $3,159.41 2010 397 710 $4,157,576.32 1,107 $3,755.71 2011 327 739 $3,635,734.92 1,066 $3,410.63 2012 338 766 $3,899,009.26 1,104 $3,531.71 2013 386 760 $4,098,435.92 1,146 $3,576.30 2014 499 805 $4,182,993.51 1,304 $3,207.82

10-46 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Table 10.4 Revenue from Outfitters in Labrador, 2008 to 2017

Year Resident Non-resident Fishing Total Fishers Average Price / Fishers Fishers Revenue Package 2015 525 898 $5,400,989.90 1,423 $3,795.50 2016 441 982 $5,131,629.34 1,423 $3,606.20 2017 336 809 $4,240,396.73 1,145 $3,703.40 Source: P. Devereaux, pers. comm., 2018

10.4 OTHER OCEAN USERS

In addition to the marine users and activities described above, there are other human-related activities that take place within and around the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. This section provides an overview of these activities including marine research, marine transportation, offshore oil and gas activity, shipwrecks, and subsea infrastructure. Information presented in this section is provided by government agencies (e.g., DFO, Department of National Defence, Transport Canada, regulators (i.e., C-NLOPB), and other industries. Websites from other organizations were also used to gather data and information on other ocean activities taking place along the Labrador coast. These other human activities represent an important component of overall activity occurring offshore.

10.4.1 Marine Transportation

10.4.1.1 Shipping

Marine shipping is an important activity for NL and is relevant for both exporting and importing goods. Shipping activity in the Labrador Sea involves vessels travelling to / from Labrador ports, and to other ports in the province and vessels that are travelling through the zone mostly to and from ports in the Canadian High Arctic (Figure 10-19). Shipping is mostly seasonal, beginning in June when ice conditions permit and ending in November at the onset of winter. There are exceptions, for example, the offshore fishing activities and freighters travelling between Greenland and eastern North American ports continue throughout the year.

10-47 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-19 Shipping Density in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area

10-48 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.4.1.2 Labrador Marine Ferry Traffic

The Government of NL oversees and operates a fleet of ferries, designed to provide both inter-provincial transportation services of passengers and freight to communities (Figure 10-20).

Source: NL Department of Transportation and Works 2020 Figure 10-20 Ferry Routes Between Communities in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area

The Labrador traffic during shipping season involves scheduled ferry and freight services as follows:

• Ferry services from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Black Tickle and northern Labrador communities to Nain – The MV Kamutik W. operations begin in mid-June and ends by mid-November. Services include passengers and freight transport. The Southern Labrador route runs Goose Bay, Rigolet, Cartwright, and Black Tickle. The Northern Labrador route runs Rigolet, Makkovik, Postville Hopedale, Natuashish, Nain, Goose Bay, Sheshatshiu, North West River, and Black Tickle. The schedule is on a five-day cycle to the northern ports. MV Northern Ranger is a passenger and freight vessel that operates a weekly service from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Rigolet, Makkovik, Postville, Hopedale, Natuashish, and Nain. A weekend service operates from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Rigolet, Cartwright, and Black Tickle.

10-49 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

• Ferry services between Norman Bay and Charlottetown – The MV Marine Eagle is a passenger and freight vessel and begins operations in early June and ends by mid-November. It alternates between ports on a daily operation except Sunday. • Labrador Marine provides freight shipping services to coastal communities via the MV Astron, and provides passenger ferry services in the Blanc Sablon region via the MS Apollo.

Table 10.5 illustrates the level of ferry activity that has occurred along the coast of Labrador between the 2013 / 2014 and 2016 / 2017 fiscal years.

Table 10.5 Ferry Activity along the Labrador Coast

Route 2013 / 2014 2014 / 2015 2015 / 2016 2016 / 2017 Labrador Straits (St. Barbe - Blanc Sablon) Trips 1,192 1,102 1,187 1,361 Passengers 96,842 91,920 102,418 110,158 Vehicles 44,626 43,265 49,678 Labrador Straits (Corner Brook - Blanc Sablon) Trips 21 14 N/A N/A Passengers 1,101 492 N/A N/A Vehicles 829 598 N/A N/A Labrador North Coast - Passenger* Trips 387 335 440 471 Passengers 5,923 5,034 6,723 5,678 Vehicles N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: Peckham, D. 2018. Pers comm. Note: the number of trips for the North Coast services is the total number of individual port-to-port trips. A full round-trip for the passenger service is over a one week turnaround with the following schedule: HVGB-Rigolet-Makkovik-Postville-Hopedale- Natuashish-Nain-Natuashish-Hopedale-Postville-Makkivok-HVGB-Rigolet-Cartwright-Black Tickle-Cartwright-Rigolet-HVGB.

10.4.1.3 Fuel Transportation

Oil tankers operate regularly during the shipping season, delivering fuel to ports along the Labrador coast. Oil companies such as Imperial Oil Ltd., Ultramar, Irving, and Petro-Nav supply various types of fuels to Labrador and the far north. Tankers operated by several companies transport these fuels. Coastal Shipping Ltd., a subsidiary of the Woodward Group, operates four tankers that service the Arctic and coastal communities of Labrador. Groupe Desgagnes in Quebec, Algoma Tankers in Ontario and Rigel Shipping in New Brunswick are other tanker-operating companies that transport fuel to Labrador and ports in the far north. General routing to the Arctic through the Labrador Sea is shown in Figure 10-21.

10-50 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Source: SEM 2008 Figure 10-21 Shipping Transportation to the Canadian Arctic Through the Labrador Sea

10.4.1.4 General Cargo and Barge Towing

Other vessels transport cargo to various communities and industry projects in Labrador and further north. These shipping companies include Miller’s Shipping in St. John’s, Berkshire Shipping in Arnold’s Cove, Davis Shipping in Wesleyville, McKeils Shipping in Hamilton, Ontario and Groupe Ocean in Quebec. These companies also provide barge towing services that carry heavy construction equipment and supplies to remote areas.

10.4.1.5 Mining

Shipping in relation to the mining operations in Voisey’s Bay involves the transport of ore to other processing plants in Canada and the supply of fuel and general freight to the site. Vessel operations occur year-round, including the winter months when sea ice is more prominent.

The Labrador Inuit Development Corporation operated an Anorthosite mine in Ten Mile Bay near Nain. A portion of the ore was shipped to Hopedale by barge for processing, while the larger amount is exported directly to Italy via cargo ship, which is usually one vessel trip per year. This mine has not been in

10-51 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021 operation since 2009. If market prices make the operation feasible in the future, the potential exists for this shipping route to be re-instated.

10.4.1.6 Small Craft Harbours

Small craft harbours are harbours operated by DFO and are critical to the fishing industry in the province. While fishing is the main purpose of many small craft harbours in Labrador, these harbours can also support other recreational marine activities that occur in the coastal waters of NL. Within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, there are 12 small craft harbours; several other small craft harbours are located just outside of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area (Figure 10-22).

10.4.2 Offshore Oil and Gas Activity

Figure 10-23 illustrates the level of exploration activity that has taken place within the Labrador Shelf Sea Update Area, including wells that have been drilled, and seismic data that have been acquired. Table 10.6 also shows further information on the wells that have previously been drilled. Within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, an exploration well has not been drilled since 1981. 10.4.3 Shipwrecks

Figure 10-24 illustrates known shipwreck sites within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Currently, there are three known shipwrecks within the southern portion of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Three additional shipwreck locations exist immediately outside of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. There is also a known aircraft crash site in the northern portion of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area.

10.4.4 Subsea Infrastructure

Multiple subsea cables (active and abandoned) are present in the Canada-NL Offshore Area. The active cables are predominantly subsea fibre optic cables installed to provide high-speed internet and telecommunications between NL to countries across the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 10-25 illustrates marine cables in the waters within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Most of these cables are currently abandoned, except for the Greenland Connect cable, which is currently active.

10-52 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-22 Location of Small Craft Harbours within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area

10-53 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-23 Past Offshore Exploration Activity within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area

10-54 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Table 10.6 Exploration Wells Drilled in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area

Wellname Welltype Spuddate BJARNI H-81 exploration 8/29/1973 BJARNI O-82 delineation 7/30/1979 CABOT G-91 exploration 7/31/1976 CARTIER D-70 exploration 9/27/1975 Subsea Infrastructure Subsea Infrastructure 10/5/1981 FREYDIS B-87 exploration 7/2/1975 GILBERT F-53 exploration 9/10/1979 GUDRID H-55 exploration 7/14/1974 HERJOLF M-92 delineation 8/31/1976 HOPEDALE E-33 exploration 8/9/1978 INDIAN HARBOUR M-52 exploration 8/21/1975 KARLSEFNI A-13 exploration 8/12/1975 LEIF E-38 exploration 8/13/1971 LEIF M-48 exploration 8/1/1973 NORTH BJARNI F-06 exploration 9/28/1980 NORTH LEIF I-05 exploration 9/14/1980 OGMUND E-72 exploration 8/16/1980 PINING E-16 exploration 6/28/1983 POTHURST P-19 exploration 7/13/1982 ROBERVAL C-02 exploration 7/7/1980 ROBERVAL K-92 exploration 10/2/1978 RUT H-11 exploration 7/14/1981 SKOLP E-07 exploration 7/22/1978 SNORRI J-90 exploration 7/28/1975 SOUTH HOPEDALE L-39 exploration 7/13/1983 SOUTH LABRADOR N-79 exploration 8/3/1980 TYRK P-100 exploration 7/19/1979 VERRAZANO L-77 exploration 9/3/1976 Source: C-NLOPB 2018

10-55 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-24 Subsea Cables within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area

10-56 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Figure 10-25 Location of Shipwrecks and Aircraft Crash Sites within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area

10-57 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS

This section provides an identification and discussion of the potential interactions between human use and possible future offshore oil and gas activities in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. This section also includes standard mitigation measures and a discussion of planning considerations related to possible future offshore oil and gas activities. The section concludes with an evaluation of the availability and adequacy of existing environmental baseline information and relevant data gaps and requirements.

Human Use was selected as a VC because of the anticipated interactions between possible future offshore oil and gas activities and a variety of human activities, as described in Sections 10.1 to 10.4, and in recognition of the cultural, social, and economic importance of traditional Indigenous activities.

An overview of the existing human environment, with a focus on the various human components and activities that occur in and around the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, was provided in Sections 10.1 to 10.4. This included a description of the regions and communities and a discussion of traditional and cultural activities, marine recreation and tourism activities, and other ocean users. This information has been used to identify human use activities that have the potential to interact with possible future offshore oil and gas activities in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. In addition to the direct effects from possible future offshore oil and gas activities on these activities, indirect effects to socio-economic conditions are also considered in this assessment, including the socio-economic impacts to the Indigenous communities due to effects on traditional and cultural activities.

This VC is closely linked to the Fish and Fish Habitat VC (Chapter 5), Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles VC (Chapter 6), Marine Birds VC (Chapter 7), and Commercial, Recreational, and Indigenous Fisheries VC (Chapter 9). Indigenous fishing activities are included in the Commercial, Recreational, and Indigenous Fisheries VC (Chapter 9) and are not repeated here. Effects of potential accidents or malfunctions on human use activities are assessed separately in Accidental Events (Chapter 12).

10.5.1 Potential Pathways

Offshore oil and gas activities have the potential to interact with human use through interference with navigation and other commercial, recreational, and traditional marine uses. Direct and indirect interactions may occur through the presence of oil and gas exploration or production equipment, personnel and activities in the area, as well as the associated routine emissions and resulting disturbances that may occur in nearby environments. These interactions may result in a change to current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and a change in other ocean uses.

As described in the Technical Guidance for Assessing the Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes under CEAA, 2012, the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, as well as the exercise of treaty rights, is associated with an Indigenous group’s practices, traditions or customs that are part of their distinctive culture and fundamental to their social organization and the sustainment of present and future generations (CEA Agency 2016). “Current use” is defined as the use (i.e., activities involving the harvest of resources and travelling to engage in these or other kinds of activities) of lands and resources throughout a proposed project’s lifecycle and includes uses by

10-58 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Indigenous peoples that are actively being carried out or are likely to be carried in a reasonably foreseeable future (CEA Agency 2016).

Change in current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes focuses on how potential future oil and gas activities may affect activities involving the harvesting of resources such as hunting, trapping, gathering of medicinal plants, berry picking, and travelling to engage in these or other activities (i.e., disruption of sea ice travel). A change in current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes could occur because of routine oil and gas activities affecting the marine environment including geophysical activity, drilling operations, movement of a MODU and/or VSP operations, supply and servicing operations and discharges from oil and gas operations. NunatuKavut Community Council identified potential effects of offshore oil and gas activities on birds, and therefore hunting activity; traditional fishing activity (particularly the effects of seismic surveys); and the overall resulting decreased access to many traditional harvesting areas from traffic (including disruption of travel over sea ice), and exclusion zones associated with offshore oil and gas activities (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, species commonly harvested by Indigenous peoples include marine birds (i.e., ducks, geese, turrs, gull eggs), marine mammals (i.e., seals, polar bears, walrus), and marine fish (i.e., Atlantic salmon, pike, whitefish, suckers, sturgeon, snow crab, mussels, clams, sea urchins, scallops) (refer to Section 10.2.2). Various plants are also harvested for traditional medicines, food, firewood, and other purposes (refer to Section 10.2.2).

As discussed in Sections 5.7 (Fish and Fish Habitat), 6.9 (Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles), and 7.10 (Marine Birds), routine oil and gas activities may interact with migratory species, resulting in a change in availability of resources for harvesting. A change in resources may also result in an adverse change in the social, spiritual, and cultural value of these harvesting activities to the Indigenous communities. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to express the importance of the traditional harvest as a monetary value, because it reflects the very nature of Indigenous culture. A qualitative assessment of social and cultural value is provided based on the potential impacts to the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. Note that this disucssion does not include Indigenous fisheries, as this is included in Chapter 9 and is not repeated here. Indirect effects could also occur to Indigenous communities through changes in health, socio-economic conditions or the cultural heritage of affected Indigenous communities. For example, potential future oil and gas activities may have negative effects on human health and the economy, as an increase or influx in money and people from oil and gas activity may result in more drug use; and economic growth may increase the cost of living (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). However, potential positive effects may also result from economic growth and job opportunities (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Interactions with physical and cultural sites, including structures, sites or things of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area could also occur from routine oil and gas activities.

Change in other ocean uses focuses on how oil and gas activities may affect marine-based recreation and tourism activities, including whale watching, ice berg watching, guided hiking, hunting, fishing, camping tours, and activities associated with cruise ships (refer to Section 10.3). A resulting decrease in the real or perceived integrity of these areas, in the short or long term, may also affect their ecological and/or societal importance and value of these areas, which may result in important implications for communities and economies in the area that depend on tourism and recreational opportunities.

10-59 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

A change in other ocean uses includes effects to the quantity and/or quality of marine recreation and tourism activities from limiting access within and around potential future oil and gas activities within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, project exclusion zones, and from increased shipping traffic. Offshore oil and gas activities may also affect the aesthetic quality of areas used for recreational and tourism activities due to visual or acoustic disturbances from activities such as geophysical activity, drilling operations, movement of a MODU and/or VSP operations, and supply and servicing operations.

The key potential interactions between offshore oil and gas activities and human use may therefore be summarized as follows:

• Reduced access and availability of resources, such as marine mammals, migratory birds, and fish, used in traditional harvesting and recreational activities • The increased use of ice breakers and ice-strengthened project vessels (e.g., support vessels, tankers) during late fall and early spring seasons could affect the ability of community members to travel between communities, to coastal camps or traditional or cultural sites, or traditional hunting areas. • Indirect effects to social and cultural lifestyles from loss of harvesting resources or influx of employment and/or oil and gas workers related to potential future production projects • Indirect economic effects to tourism opportunities, such as whale watching, iceberg watching, cruise ship activity, and outfitting activities • Navigation interference with traditional navigation routes, tourism, and recreational boating activities • Aesthetic and acoustic effects to marine-based recreation and tourism opportunities

10.5.2 Overview of Effects

Table 10.7 provides an overview of the key potential environmental interactions between human use and routine offshore oil and gas exploration and production activities.

As discussed in Sections 5.7 (Fish and Fish Habitat), 6.9 (Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles), and 7.10 (Marine Birds), underwater sound emissions from sounds source arrays associated with geophysical surveys could potentially affect fish, migratory birds, and marine mammals. Possible effects resulting from sound in the marine environment can be physical (injury or mortality) or behavioural (avoidance, other changes in distribution or activities) in nature. As there are known harvesting activities along the coast of Labrador, underwater sound emissions from geophysical surveys could cause a change in availability of resources, such as fish, migratory birds, and marine mammals used in traditional harvesting and recreational activities and therefore could indirectly result in associated social and cultural impacts to Indigenous communities such as employment and business activity and income, community revenue, and availability of culturally important species in the Indigenous communities.

10-60 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Table 10.7 Summary of Potential Environmental Effects from Routine Activities on Human Use

Components / Activities Potential Environmental Interactions Reduced Access Indirect Effects to Indirect Economic Navigation Aesthetic and and Availability of Social and Cultural Effects to Tourism Interference Acoustic Resources Lifestyles Opportunities Effects Geophysical Surveys Sound source arrays ● ● ● Support vessel movement ● ● ● ● ● Exploration and Production Drilling Presence and operation of the MODU ● ● ● ● Movement of support vessels and aircraft ● ● ● ● ● Routine discharges, including drill cuttings ● ● Well flow testing and flaring ● ● Well abandonment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Atmospheric emissions Oil and Gas Production Routine discharges ● ● ● ● Vessel traffic (including tankers) ● ● ● ● ●

10-61 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Geophysical surveys will also increase navigation interference which could indirectly affect tourism and recreational activities in the area at the time of the survey, causing tourism and recreational activities to avoid the survey area, or causing adverse effects to aesthetics of the activity. This may result in economic losses for tourism operations, or perceived quality of the recreational activity. Similarly, supply and servicing activities associated with exploration and production drilling will increase vessel traffic (i.e., support vessels and tankers) in areas used for tourism and recreational activities and may also result in navigation concerns and indirect economic loss.

As discussed in 5.7 (Fish and Fish Habitat) and 6.9 (Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles), underwater sound emissions from a MODU may cause fish and marine mammal species to avoid the area around a MODU, particularly during start-up of drilling activities. The presence and operation of a MODU could also interact with migratory bird species through nocturnal attraction of birds to artificial lighting (refer to Section 7.9). As there are known harvesting activities along the coast of Labrador, underwater sound emissions from seismic surveys could cause a change in availability of resources such as fish, migratory birds, and marine mammals used in traditional harvesting and recreational activities and therefore could indirectly result in associated social and cultural impacts to Indigenous communities. A safety zone is generally established around the MODU, which will restrict tourism and recreation activities from occurring in that area. The requirement to travel through alternative areas during the presence of the MODU can have implications for economic and perceived quality of the activity.

The discharge of drilling waste and other discharges and emissions during exploration and production activities may result in effects on water quality and/or sediment quality and therefore could potentially affect fish and fish habitat. Effects of routine discharges on fish and fish habitat and Indigenous fisheries are described in Sections 5.7 and 9.6, respectively, and are not repeated here. As discussed in Section 7.9, routine discharges also have the potential to affect the structure and function of seabird feathers. Debris, such as floating plastic bags, may also be mistaken for prey (e.g., jellyfish) and ingested by marine mammals and sea turtles (Section 6.9). As there are known harvesting activities along the coast of Labrador, routine discharges could cause a change in availability of resources used in traditional and recreational activities and associated social and cultural impacts to Indigenous communities.

As discussed in Section 7.9, migratory birds can be attracted to artificial light from flaring and well flow testing. Birds that are attracted to artificial lighting from oil and gas installations may experience mortality from direct collisions with equipment and infrastructure or by contacting flares, particularly at night and/or during periods of reduced visibility. As there are known migratory bird and egg harvesting sites within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, well flow testing and flaring could cause a change in availability of resources used in traditional and recreational activities and associated social and cultural impacts to Indigenous communities.

10.5.3 Mitigation Measures for Human Use

The following provides an overview of standard mitigation measures that are often required and/or otherwise implemented during offshore oil and gas activities to help avoid or reduce adverse environmental and socio-economic effects on human use (Table 10.8).

10-62 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Table 10.8 Summary of Standard Environmental Mitigation Measures for Human Use

Applicability Exploration and Mitigation Geophysical Oil and gas Production Surveys Production Drilling Ongoing engagement and communication with Indigenous peoples, stakeholders, industry, and ● ● ● other operators in the area Planning of oil and gas activities to avoid key recreational and traditional use areas / times ● ● ● where possible Adjust the timing, speed, and routing of marine traffic to reduce disturbance to recreational and ● ● ● traditional use areas Issuance of Notice to Mariners and other ● ● ● notifications Use of seasonally-specific routes for icebreakers and ice-strengthened vessels to reduce impact to ● sea ice travel Establishment of safety / no-go zones ● ● ● Provide details of safety / no-go zones to the Marine Communication and Traffic Services for ● ● ● broadcasting and publishing in the Notices to Shipping and NOTMAR. To maintain navigational safety, obstruction lights, navigation lights and foghorns should be kept in working condition on board the MODU and support ● ● ● vessels. Radio communication systems will be in place and in working order for contacting other marine vessels, as necessary.

As the Human Use VC is closely linked to the Fish and Fish Habitat VC (Section 5.7.3), Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles VC (Section 6.9.3), Marine Birds VC (Section 7.9.3), and Commercial, Recreational, and Indigenous Fisheries VC (Section 9.6.3), mitigation measures implemented under those VCs are also applicable to human use but are not repeated.

Additional mitigation measures are typically required for specific projects, depending on the location, timing, environmental and socio-economic settings, and possible interactions and effects. Mitigation measures are largely determined on a project-specific basis, through individual regulatory review of proposed oil and gas activities in the Labrador Shelf Offshore Area.

Engagement and communication between offshore oil and gas operators, Indigenous peoples, stakeholders, industry, and other operators in the area is an effective mechanism for mitigating interactions and is important for understanding the wants and needs of the communities, or the existing conditions of the land (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Members of NunatuKavut Community Council recommended the need for public outreach or engagement to educate and inform Indigenous peoples and communities about the potential impacts or benefits of oil and gas activities. This includes

10-63 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021 more research [or discussions of current research] on the effects of seismic surveys on marine life, to ease a lot of tension with people in the communities, because the commercial fishery is important in Labrador and is a driver of the economy (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Many concerns from NunatuKavut Community Council, Nunatsiavut Government and Innu Nation have been communicated in relation to potential development of offshore oil and gas and/or other past development projects in Labrador, highlighting the importance of continued engagement with Indigenous peoples of Labrador (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019; Nunatsiavut Government 2018; Innu Nation 2000). NOTMARs, publishing in the Notices to Shipping, and other methods are used to communicate information about offshore oil and gas activities in the area. Publishing these notices on local radio stations such as The Broadcast, Labrador Morning (CBC Radio) and Okalakatiget Society (based out of Nain), are effective at communicating potential project activities with stakeholders. Community Liaison Officer positions can also be established in Indigenous communities to serve as a mechanism for ongoing communication with communities during offshore programs. Community Liaison Officers are usually local representatives of the community.

Using established and common marine traffic routes by support vessels and tankers, where possible, can also help avoid interactions with recreational and traditional use activities. Oil and gas vessels should be made aware of the nature and the key locations and timing of recreational and traditional use areas as an additional precaution for planning purposes to potentially use alternate routes during high use periods.

The establishment of safety / no-go zones around offshore oil and gas infrastructure and areas of high vessel traffic is a safety precaution measure to help reduce potential interactions between oil and gas activities and recreational and traditional use activities. Generally, these zones are small size; however, they are dependent on the nature of the oil and gas activities occurring within the area and the associated recreational and traditional use activities. Details of safety / no-go zones should be communicated to the Marine Communication and Traffic Services for broadcasting and publishing in the Notices to Shipping and NOTMAR.

10.5.4 Environmental Planning Considerations for Human Use

As the Human Use VC is closely linked to the Fish and Fish Habitat VC (Section 5.7.4), Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles VC (Section 6.9.4), Marine Birds VC (Section 7.9.4), and Commercial, Recreational, and Indigenous Fisheries VC (Section 9.6.4), environmental planning considerations for those VCs, particularly timing restrictions during migration periods, are also applicable to human use but are not repeated here.

Operators may be required to use spatial and temporal planning considerations to avoid key traditional harvesting areas and recreation activities. Operators may also have to consider special mitigation measures or practices to avoid certain times of the year when traditional harvesting activities are occurring for particular species.

10-64 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

10.6 DATA GAPS

The discussion of baseline conditions in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is based on publicly available information, which may be dated or self-reported sources of information. Furthermore, the human use environment is continuously changing through various natural and/or anthropogenic influences. Maintaining a current understanding of the human environment is therefore challenging. Human use is also closely linked to the biophysical environments, therefore, data gaps identified in Sections 5.8 (Fish and Fish Habitat), 6.10 (Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles), 7.11 (Marine Birds), and 9.7 (Commercial, Recreational, and indigenous Fisheries) are applicable here. 10.7 REFERENCES

10.7.1 Personal Communication

Deveraux, P. 2018. Outdoor Product Development – Hunting and Fishing, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. Personal Communication.

Peckham, D. 2018. Planning Consultant, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Transportation and Works. Personal Communication.

10.7.2 Literature Cited

Angling Newfoundland and Labrador. 2018. Outfitters Map. Available at: https://www.anglingnewfoundlandlabrador.com/interactive-map

Armitage, P. 1989. Homeland or Wasteland? Contemporary Land Use and Occupancy Among the Innu of Utshimassit and Sheshatshit and the Impact of Military Expansion in Nalcor Energy. 2010. Supplemental Information to IR JRP.151 (Consultation Assessment Report).

Armitage, P. 2010. Innu of Labrador Contemporary Land Use Study - Report submitted to Innu Nation in Alderon Iron Ore Corp. 2012. Kami Iron Ore Mine and Rail Infrastructure, Labrador Environmental Impact Statement.

Armitage, P. and M. Stopp. 2003. Labrador Innu Land Use in Relation to the Proposed Trans-Labrador Highway, Cartwright Junction to Happy Valley‐Goose Bay, and Assessment of Highway Effects on Innu Land Use.

Brice‐Bennett, C. (Ed.). 1977. Our Footprints are Everywhere: Inuit Land Use and Occupancy in Labrador.

CANL (Cruise Association of Newfoundland and Labrador). 2018. 2018 Newfoundland and Labrador Cruise Schedule. Available at: https://cruisetheedge.com/cruise-schedule/schedule-by-port/. Accessed 2018.

10-65 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

CEA Agency (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessing the Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/environmental-assessment- agency/migration/content/0/c/f/0cf7e820-8d50-41ce-b5eb-85284095fdc5/current_use_final_draft- eng.pdf.

Clément, D., 1998. Innuat Utashinimuau: The Innu People's Rock. An Overview of Innu Knowledge of the Land With Special Reference to the Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project Site, Prepared fir Innu Nation.

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board). 2018. Mapping Information and Shapefiles- Wells. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/information/shapefiles/

Coombs, R., Coffey, J., Dale, A., and J. Snook. 2010. Greenland Halibut: A Fishery Management Retrospective and analysis of Fishery Development in Northern Labrador. Torngat Wildlife, Plants and Fisheries Secretariat. Available at: https://www.torngatsecretariat.ca/home/files/cat2/2010- greenland_halibut_a_fishery_management_retrospective_and_analysis_of_fishery_development _in_northern_labrador.pdf

Government of NL (Newfoundland and Labrador). 2011. Executive Council News Release, November 18, 2011. Available at: https://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2011/exec/1118n11.htm#:~:text=On%20September%20 26%2C%202008%2C%20Nalcor%20Energy%2C%20the%20Government,and%20Benefits%20A greement%20%28IBA%29%20and%20Upper%20Churchill%20redress

Heritage NL (Newfoundland and Labrador). 2018. Innu Culture Available at: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/aboriginal/innu-culture.php. Accessed April 2018.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 2020. First Nation Profile: Mushuau Innu First Nation. Available at: https://fnp-ppn.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=32&lang=eng

Innu Nation. No date. Innu Nation website. Available at: http://innu.ca

Innu Nation. 1996. Ntesinan Nteshiniminan Nteniunan - Between a Rock and a Hard Place. Innu Nation Task Force on Mining Activities.

Innu Nation. 1997. Ntapueu: I am Telling the Truth. Final Report of the Innu Nation Baseline Socio- Economic Research Project.

Innu Nation. 2000. Power Struggle: An Innu Look at Hydro Developments in Nutassinan. Final Report. Innu Nation Community Consultation on the new Mishta-shipu Hydro Project. Available at: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/46059/46059E.pdf.

Innu Nation. 2005. Tipatshimuna: Innu Stories from the Land. Available at: http://www.tipatshimuna.ca/1000_e.php.

10-66 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Innu Nation. 2007. Innu Kaishitshissenitak Mishta‐shipu (Innu Environmental Knowledge of the Mishta‐ shipu (Churchill River) Area of Labrador in Relation to the Proposed Lower Churchill Project). Report of the work of the Innu Traditional Knowledge Committee prepared by Wolverine & Associates, Inc. for Innu Nation.

Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Office. No date. Land Claims. Available at: http://www.laa.gov.nl.ca/laa/land_claims/.

Labrador Marine Inc. 2021. Labrador Coastal Service. Available at: https://lmsi.woodwardgroup.ca/labrador-coastal-service.html

Larkham, J. and J. Brake. 2011. Documenting Traditional Knowledge Relating to Labrador Inuksuit and Other Stone Markers. Final Report. Submitted to the Torngasok Cultural Centre. Available at: http://www.nunatsiavut.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Documenting-Traditional-Knowledge- Relating-to-Labrador-Inuksuit-and-Other-Stone-Markers.pdf.

MacLaren Plansearch. 1994. Innu of Labrador: Profile and Harvesting Practices: Technical Report 12. Prepared for Department of National Defence for Environmental Impact Statement on Military Flying Activities in Labrador and Québec.

Martin, D.H. 2009. Food Stories: A Labrador Inuit‐Metis Community Speaks about Global Change. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dalhousie University, Halifax in Nalcor Energy. 2010. Supplemental Information to IR JRP.151 (Consultation Assessment Report).

Martin, D.H., J.E. Valcour, J.R. Bull, J.R. Graham, M. Paul and D. Wall. 2012. NunatuKavut Community Health Needs Assessment: A Community-Based Research Project. Available at: http://www.nunatukavut.ca/home/files/pg/ncha_web.pdf.

Minaskuat. 2009. Lower Churchill River Fish Consumption and Angling Survey. Component study in support of the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Development Environmental Impact Statement in Nalcor Energy. 2010. Supplemental Information to IR JRP.151 (Consultation Assessment Report).

Nalcor Energy. 2010. Supplemental Information to IR JRP.151 (Consultation Assessment Report).

Nalcor Energy. 2012. Labrador-Island Transmission Link – Environmental Impact Statement. Available at: http://www.mae.gov.nl.ca/env_assessment/projects/Y2010/1407/component_studies/ch_4_9.pdf

Nametau Innu. No date. Nametau Innu Website. Available at: http://www.nametauinnu.ca/en/culture/nation/detail/74

Natcher, D., L. Felt, K. Chaulk, A. Procter and the Nunatsiavut Government. 2011. Monitoring the Domestic Harvest of Migratory Birds in Nunatsiavut, Labrador. Arctic, 64(3): 362 – 366

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Transportation and Works. 2020. Labrador Ferries. Available at: https://www.tw.gov.nl.ca/ferryservices/schedules/h_goosebay_nain.html and https://www.tw.gov.nl.ca/ferryservices/schedules/i_cartwright.html

10-67 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

Nexen Energy ULC. 2018. Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Project (2018-2028) – Environmental Impact Statement. Available at: http://ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p80117/122066E.pdf

NLDTCII (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry, and Innovation). 2017. Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Tourism Performance 2017. Available at: http://www.tcii.gov.nl.ca/tourism/tourism_research/pdf/Annual_Performance_Report_2017_(Final %20April%202018).pdf

NLDTCR (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation). 2007. Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation Backgrounder Year-End Provincial Tourism Performance 2007 and Early Tourism Outlook 2008. Available at: http://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/Statistics/Tourism/PDF/Tourism%20performance2007.pdf.

NLOA (Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association. 2013. Regions. Available at: http://nloa.ca/member/listing

Nunatsiavut Government. No date. The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project and Labrador Inuit. Living Downstream: Our Land, Our Life, Our Future. Available at: http://www.acee.gc.ca/050/documents/48878/48878F.pdf.

Nunatsiavut Government. 2018. Imappivut Knowledge Collection Study (Interview transcripts and spatial data provided to Aivek-Stantec for incorporation into the SEA Update Report).

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2010. Unveiling NunatuKavut: Describing the Lands and People of South/Central Labrador.

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2013. Who We Are. Available at: http://www.nunatukavut.ca/home/who_we_are.htm

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2018. NunatuKavut News – Canada and NunatuKavut enter into historic talks to recognize Indigenous rights and self-determination. Available at: http://www.nunatukavut.ca/home/blog-1155

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2019. Labrador Shelf Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment Update Traditional Knowledge Study – NunatuKavut Community Council. Report prepared in collaboration with Aivek Stantec.

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2020. Environment and Natural Resources. Available at: https://nunatukavut.ca/departments/natural-resources-environment/

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2021. 2021 Spring Bird/ Egg Harvest and Conservation Guidelines. Available at: https://nunatukavut.ca/site/uploads/2021/04/NCC-Spring-Bird-Hunt-Guidelines- 202188.pdf

Samson, C. and Pretty, J., 2006. Environmental and health benefits of hunting lifestyles and diets for the Innu of Labrador. Food Policy, 31(6), pp.528-553.

10-68 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Human Use July 2021

SEM (Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd.). 2008. Strategic Environmental Assessment Labrador Shelf Offshore Area. Project No. P 064. Prepared for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John’s, NL. 518 pp.

SEM (Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd.). 2009. Labrador Inuit Knowledge of Lake Melville.

Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation. No date. Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation Website. Available at: http://www.sheshatshiu.ca

Tanner, A. 1977. Land Use and Occupancy Among the Sheshatshiu Innu of Labrador. Unpublished report for the Naskapi Montagnais Innu Association.

Trudel, F. 1978. The Inuit of Southern Labrador and the Development of French Sedentary Fisheries (1700‐ 1760). Musée National de l'Homme. Collection Mercure. Division d'Ethnologie. Service Canadien d'Ethnologie. Dossier Ottawa. 40: 99‐121 in Nalcor Energy. 2010. Supplemental Information to IR JRP.151 (Consultation Assessment Report).

VBNC (Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company Limited). 1997. Voisey's Bay Mine/Mill Project Environmental Impact Statement. Available at: http://www.vbnc.com/Reports.asp.

Williamson, T. and Labrador Inuit Association. 1997. From Sina to Sikujâluk: Our Footprint: Mapping Inuit Environmental Knowledge in the Nain District of Northern Labrador. Nain, Labrador: Labrador Inuit Association, 1997.

10-69 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

11.0 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Oil and gas activities can result in environmental effects that are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other but can act cumulatively. “Cumulative environmental effect” is generally used to describe environmental change resulting from several anthropogenic alterations with environmental effects overlapping in both time and space. These effects could result from the activities of several large-scale developments or the combined effects of multiple developments. SEA allows for a description of potential cumulative effects at a broad scale before individual project development to assist with planning and environmental management on a regional basis and to inform project specific assessments. 11.1 SOURCES OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

An important step in describing potential cumulative effects is the identification of other actions whose effects will likely act in combination with those of the proposed activities under review to bring about cumulative effects. The cumulative effects of the potential offshore exploration and production activities within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area may include cumulative effects in combination with:

• Marine traffic • Commercial and Indigenous fisheries • Traditional resource use by Indigenous people • Tourism and recreation activities • Other proposed exploration and production activities (as per C-NLOPB registry) within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. • Terrestrial activities and/or developments that have effects extending to the marine environment

11.1.1 Marine Traffic

Shipping activity in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area involves vessels travelling to, from Labrador ports, and to other ports in the province and vessels that are travelling mostly to and from ports in the Canadian High Arctic. Shipping is mostly seasonal, beginning in June when ice conditions permit and ending in November at the onset of winter. There are exceptions, for example, the offshore fishing activities and freighters travelling between Greenland and eastern North American ports continue throughout the year. The shipping of concentrated ore from the mining operations in Voisey’s Bay also continues during the winter months at the rate of one vessel trip every month on average. Marine traffic includes Labrador marine ferry traffic, fuel transportation, general cargo and barge towing, shipping related to mining activities, and small craft harbours. Additional details are provided in Section 10.4.1. Marine research activity also contributes to existing marine traffic in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area during certain times of the year, and will depend on the size and scale of the research program.

11.1.2 Commercial and Indigenous Fisheries

As described in Section 9.1, the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area lies within the NAFO fisheries management areas 2GHJ. These areas contain commercial quotas of finfish and shellfish species.

11-1 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

Vessels licensed to fish these quotas are in various size classes based on length of the vessel. The size of the vessels <65 feet overall length are known as the inshore fleet, although many of these vessels, especially those in the larger size range, fish offshore throughout the 200 nautical mile EEZ.

The inshore vessels fish the Labrador Sea from June, ice permitting, up to October when quotas are caught and/or stormy fall weather reduces operations to the level that it is not practical or economically feasible to fish.

The offshore fleet that includes the larger freezer trawler fleet is capable of fishing year around in the north and conduct fishing operations for shrimp in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area.

11.1.3 Traditional Resource Use by Indigenous People

As discussed in Section 10.2, the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is used extensively by local Indigenous peoples for traditional hunting and fishing. The activities are spread widely throughout the region and vary by season. Indigenous people consider these activities as part of their culture and history and concerns were expressed in the public engagement sessions and through the process of collecting IK over the impact that oil and gas operations and/or accidental events may have on them. Some of the activities and issues that were highlighted for the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area are:

• Fishing: the area is used extensively for fishing for crab, rock cod, cod, Arctic char, sculpins, mussels, clams, wrinkles, and sea urchins. • Harlequin duck, a threatened species, migrate through the area. • Ducks and geese are also hunted in the area and the spring hunt has been reported to put additional pressure on duck and geese populations (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). • Declining capelin populations from overfishing and/or habitat degradation (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019) • Traditional activities are well dispersed throughout the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Traditional uses such as egging and berry picking are conducted on the islands in the area.

11.1.4 Tourism and Recreation

As discussed in Section 10.3, the tourism industry is a key component of the Labrador economy and includes travel by residents within the province and visiting non-residents. In 2017, there were an estimated 553,103 non-resident visits to NL (an increase of 2.6% over 2016). These visits equated to tourism expenditures estimated at $575.2 million (an increase of 2.4% over 2016) (NLDTCII 2017). Scenic, natural, and cultural attractions translate into economic opportunities for the resident population and provide domestic, national, and international travelers with world-class outdoor recreation activities. These activities include bird watching, whale watching, kayaking, boat tours, hiking, fishing, and camping, as well as activities associated with cruise ship and private vessel (sailing) visitation and the area’s cultural and historical attractions.

11-2 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

11.1.5 Exploration and Production Activities

Oil and gas is an established industry in NL, with exploration related activities beginning in the 1960s, and production activities occurring since 1997. Seismic surveys and gathering geophysical data have also been a large component of offshore oil and gas related activity that has occurred in NL. There are currently two offshore oil and gas industry projects listed on the C-NLOPB public registry that have a temporal and spatial overlap with the Labrador Shelf SEA Update. However, the PGS / MKI Labrador seismic program 2018-2023 (within the SEA Update Area) does not have an EA Update for 2021, and the Seitel seismic (2016-2025) program, and MG3 (Survey) UK Limited Offshore Labrador geochemical and seabed sampling program 2015-2024 have no activity within those files since 2017 and 2016, respectively. If ELs are acquired during the current land bid process, there will be limited activity to overlap, both spatially and/or temporally, with known proposed exploration projects.

11.1.6 Terrestrial Activities and/or Developments

Terrestrial activities and development in Labrador that may contribute to effects on the marine environment include mining, Muskrat Falls hydroelectric generating facility, road construction, and abandoned infrastructure (e.g., dams) (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019; Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Potential environmental effects on the marine environment from terrestrial activities and/or development are primarily related to effects on anadromous fish species, which can be affected by disruptions (e.g., infrastructure, construction, pollution) or increased access to freshwater streams and therefore migration and/or overfishing.

11.1.7 Climate Change

Climate change has already been manifested through changes in ocean temperatures, ice, ocean chemistry, precipitation, and the intensity and frequency of storms throughout the region (Nunatsiavut Government 2018). Recent climate projections for the region indicate even more pronounced changes to these variables are anticipated, and at an unprecedented speed (ECCC 2019). Changes to species’ ranges and habitat suitability are likely to follow climate change impacts to the physical environment (IPCC 2019).

Oil and gas activities would also contribute GHG emissions to national and global totals. Depending on the nature and duration of these activities, these emissions may affect the ability of provincial and federal governments to meet current and future scientifically based targets and objectives. This would be a consideration for project-specific EAs. 11.2 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS INTERACTIONS

The description of potential cumulative effects considers the six VCs for which potential Project-related environmental effects were assessed in Chapters 5 to 10:

• Fish and Fish Habitat (Chapter 5) • Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (Chapter 6) • Marine Birds (Chapter 7)

11-3 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

• Special / Sensitive Areas (Chapter 8) • Commercial, Recreational, and Indigenous Fisheries (Chapter 9) • Human Use (Chapter 10)

The nature, magnitude, and spatial and temporal distribution of environmental effects from planned future offshore oil and gas projects would have to be assessed and evaluated through project-specific analyses as part of individual EA reviews. Cumulative effects assessments that are undertaken as part of such EAs typically use approaches and methods that allow for an analysis and consideration of the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities, as well as whether and how the effects of these will interact or otherwise accumulate with those of the project in question. Table 11.1 presents a summary of potential cumulative effects for the VCs identified above in consideration of potential residual effects discussed in Chapters 5 to 10 of this SEA and potential cumulative effects from other ocean uses and/or other contributing factors which could affect the resilience of a VC.

Other oil and gas activities have the potential to result in cumulative effects in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Potential cumulative effects from other physical activities, including oil and gas activity, are described in Table 11.1 for each VC. The safety zones associated with other offshore petroleum exploration and production drilling projects will increase the cumulative area that will be temporarily unavailable to commercial, recreational, and Indigenous fishers and harvesters at a given time during project activities. In addition to the safety zones associated with offshore petroleum exploration and production, the presence of support vessels and tankers, competing fishing vessels, seismic vessels and streamers associated with geophysical survey programs, and the marine traffic associated with other ocean users are other sources of potential conflict with fishing vessels as a result of space-use conflicts.

Operators applying to undertake a seismic program are required to obtain a Geophysical Program Authorization (GPA) by submitting an application to the C-NLOPB. The process for obtaining a GPA and a description of the information to be provided in support of the GPA application is described in the Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines (C-NLOPB 2019). A proposed seismic program requires a project-specific EA that examines cumulative effects in detail, including background sound levels. Geophysical (seismic, including 2D, 3D, and VSP) surveys do not overlap spatially, as this may interfere with data collection; however, these activities could occur during the same season (with distances between geophysical locations determined by simultaneous operations discussions between operators) and could occur sequentially. This could result in a cumulative effect to fish, marine mammals and sea turtles, and marine birds that may be sensitive to sound generated during geophysical programs. During the EA process, seismic operators are required to engage with interested other ocean users who may be affected by program activities, including Indigenous groups and fisheries organizations as appropriate. Once a seismic program is authorized, operators are also required to submit an annual EA Update to the C-NLOPB for the duration of the program. EA Updates must include the results of engagement activities. EA documentation, including annual EA Updates, are posted on the C-NLOPB’s website.

11-4 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

Table 11.1 Potential Cumulative Effects

Mitigation VC Name Residual Effects of Other Past, Existing or Future Projects / Activities Potential Cumulative Effects Measures Fish and Fish • Other physical activities have the potential to contribute to fish mortality and injury • Injury or mortality See mitigation Habitat from: • Disturbance or avoidance measures of an area - underwater sound emissions from various sources (such as drilling activity, described in • Behavioural changes VSP, vessel movement); Section 5.7.3 • Change in habitat quality - discharges of drill muds and cuttings from other offshore drilling projects causing smothering of benthic species; - disturbance to fish habitat due to construction of excavated drill centres and smothering of benthic species due to the disposal of the dredge spoils and/or - direct mortality or injury from commercial fishing activities where targeted fish species as well as non-targeted fish species that may be taken as bycatch. • Other physical activities have the potential to affect fish habitat from routine operational discharges from offshore petroleum production facilities and vessels (e.g., produced water, grey and black water, ballast water, bilge water, and deck drainage). • Ongoing changes in ocean conditions, such as sea surface temperature, stratification, and ocean chemistry, due to climate change Marine • Other physical activities (including shipping, oil and gas projects, commercial • Injury or mortality See mitigation Mammals and fishing) have the potential to result in increased sound emissions which can • Disturbance or avoidance measures Sea Turtles potentially affect marine mammal and sea turtle behavior. of an area described in • Entrapment and entanglement in fishing gear (including bycatch) and collision with • Behavioural changes Section 6.9.3 ships contribute to adverse effects on marine mammals and sea turtles. • Change in habitat quality • Operational discharges (e.g., produced water, grey and black water, ballast water, bilge water, and deck drainage deck drainage) may cause a change in habitat quality and use for marine mammals and sea turtles. • Ongoing changes in ocean conditions due to climate change, leading to changes in food availability and/or habitat suitability

11-5 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

Table 11.1 Potential Cumulative Effects

Mitigation VC Name Residual Effects of Other Past, Existing or Future Projects / Activities Potential Cumulative Effects Measures Marine Birds • Potential for attraction and/or disorientation of marine bird species to other physical • Injury or mortality See mitigation activities, particularly oil and gas exploration or production installations and • Avoidance or attraction of measures vessels, including their lights, flares, or other emissions. marine birds to offshore described in • Disturbance of marine birds from the movement of vessels and/or aircraft related to and/or onshore structures Section 7.9.3 other physical activities (including shipping, oil and gas projects, commercial • Behavioural changes fishing). • Change in habitat quality • Potential changes in the health and/or distribution of marine birds due to exposure to routine discharges from other oil and gas activities. • Entangled in fishing gear (e.g., gillnets, longlines, and bottom trawls) as accidental bycatch, thereby resulting in a change in risk of mortality or physical injury for marine birds. • Ongoing changes in ocean conditions due to climate change, leading to changes in food availability and/or habitat suitability Special / • Operational discharges, underwater sound, and artificial night-lighting from other • Change in habitat quality See mitigation Sensitive physical activities within or near a special area have potential to cause localized and use measures Areas water quality effects, sensory disturbance, and a resultant change in habitat quality described in for marine species within the affected special area(s). Section 8.2.3 • Fishing activities, particularly bottom trawling, can adversely affect areas of benthic ecological significance (i.e., areas of corals and sponges) causing a change in habitat quality. • Helicopter traffic has potential to affect habitat quality and use in special areas where marine mammals and/or marine and migratory birds are likely to occur. Commercial, • Past and existing petroleum exploration and production projects have resulted in • Changes to fish See mitigation Recreational, loss of commercial, recreational, and Indigenous fishing access due to distribution, abundance, measures and establishment of safety zones (typically 500 m) around operational survey vessels and or quality described in Indigenous and/or platforms. • Damage to fishing gear Section 9.6.3 Fisheries • Potential for direct damage to fishing gear and vessels as a result of a collision or and/or vessels entanglement with other physical activities, particularly offshore oil and gas activity • Disruption to recreational (e.g., seismic streamers, platforms, vessels, subsea infrastructure). fishing activity • Potential effects on fish species presence, abundance, and quality from other • Loss of access to fishing physical activities (including overfishing) that may result in reduced economic areas returns for fishers (see potential effects to Fish and Fish Habitat VC).

11-6 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

Table 11.1 Potential Cumulative Effects

Mitigation VC Name Residual Effects of Other Past, Existing or Future Projects / Activities Potential Cumulative Effects Measures Human Use • Other physical activities (including shipping, oil and gas projects, commercial • Reduced access and See mitigation fishing) result in reduced access and availability of resources, such as marine availability of resources measures mammals, migratory birds, and fish, used in traditional harvesting and recreational • Increased social, described in activities. economic, and cultural Section 10.5.3 • Other physical activities (including shipping, oil and gas projects, commercial effects fishing) result in indirect economic effects to tourism opportunities, such as whale • Disruption to the aesthetic watching, iceberg watching, cruise ship activity, and outfitting activities. and acoustic environment • Other physical activities (including shipping, oil and gas projects, commercial fishing) result in aesthetic and acoustic effects to marine-based recreation and tourism opportunities. • Change in water flow caused by Muskrat Falls has resulted in a change in bathymetry in Happy Valley-Goose Bay that has affected marine traffic and shipping channels (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019) • GHG emissions affect ability to meet provincial and/or national GHG emissions targets.

11-7 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

Oil and gas activities may overlap temporally or spatially between licences and could result in cumulative effects to fish and fish habitat, marine mammals and sea turtles, marine birds, commercial, recreations, and Indigenous fisheries, special areas, and human use (see Table 11.1). The actual potential for cumulative effects associated with oil and gas activities will be based on a variety of factors, such as the location of activities; number, type, and duration of seismic surveys; number, type, and duration of exploratory and/or production drilling activities; type of exploration and/or production platform; and other factors intrinsic to the region. These project-related activities are examined in detail in project-specific EAs. A proposed drilling program would require an EA under the federal IAA and an authorization issued by the C-NLOPB.

Intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration around management of ocean resources has allowed ocean users and regulators to better understand the nature of cumulative effects on the marine ecosystem and identify applicable adaptive management strategies. For example, environmental effects monitoring programs conducted by the offshore petroleum industry are designed in cooperation with various regulators, scientific experts and interested stakeholders, so that data on ecosystem effects can be shared with other interested parties to inform future mitigation and environmental management decisions. DFO, other Canadian federal agencies, and international researchers have developed and continue to develop approaches to assess net impacts from multiple anthropogenic stressors (e.g., Hegmann et al. 1999; MacDonald 2000; Moore et al. 2012; Donovan et al. 2017; Hawkins et al. 2017; Murray et al. 2020; Lesage et al. (in press)). Continued cooperation and information sharing among ocean users and applicable regulators will help to manage potential cumulative effects on the marine environment.

Consideration of cumulative effects should also consider the effects of GHG from projects in combination with national and global totals and in consideration of established scientifically based targets to meet international climate change mitigation objectives. 11.3 REFERENCES

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board) 2019. Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines. vii + 55 pages (including appendices). Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp-content/uploads/guidelines/ggegpg.pdf

Donovan, C.R., C.M. Harris, L. Milazzo, J. Harwood, L. Marshall and R. Williams. 2017. A simulation approach to assessing environmental risk of sound exposure to marine mammals. Ecology and Evolution. 7(7): 2101-2111.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2019. Canada’s Changing Climate Report. Available online at: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change/impacts-adaptations/canadas-changing- climate-report/21177

Hawkins, E.R., R. Harcourt, L. Bejder, L.O. Brooks, A. Grech, F. Christiansen, H. Marsh and P.L. Harrison. 2017. Best Practice Framework and Principles for Monitoring the Effect of Coastal Development on Marine Mammals. Front. Mar. Sci. 4(59).

11-8 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Potential Cumulative Effects July 2021

Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners guideline. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. xii + 71 pp. + Appendices.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

Lesage, V., J.W. Lawson and C. Gomez. In Prep. Cumulative Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (CERAF) to quantify impacts from marine development projects on marine mammals and sea turtles. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc.

MacDonald, L.H. 2000. Evaluating and Managing Cumulative Effects: Process and Constraints. Environ. Manage. 26(3):299-315

Moore, S.E., R.R. Reeves, B.L. Southall, T.J. Ragen, R.S. Suydam and C.W. Clark. 2012. A New Framework for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals in a Rapidly Changing Arctic. BioSci. 62(3):289-295

Murray, C., L. Hannah and A. Locke. 2020. A Review of Cumulative Effects Research and Assessment in Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3357 vii + 51 p.

NLDTCII (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation). 2017. Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Tourism Performance 2017. Available at: http://www.tcii.gov.nl.ca/tourism/tourism_research/pdf/Annual_Performance_Report_2017_(Final %20April%202018).pdf

Nunatsiavut Government. 2018. Imappivut Knowledge Collection Study (Interview transcripts and spatial data provided to Aivek-Stantec for incorporation into the SEA Update Report).

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2019. Labrador Shelf Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment Update Traditional Knowledge Study – NunatuKavut Community Council. Report prepared in collaboration with Aivek Stantec.

11-9 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

12.0 ACCIDENTAL EVENTS

This section discusses the potential effects of accidental events from offshore oil and gas exploration and production activities within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. This section builds upon the discussion of accidental events highlighted in the original SEA Report (SEM 2008) and provides new information from literature regarding the potential effects of an accidental event on biological components of the environment. Indigenous groups in Labrador have expressed concern about the potential effects of an accidental event (SEM 2008; Nalcor Energy 2010; Nunatsiavut Government 2018; NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). Further, Innu Nation suggested that a potential oil and gas operator be required to post an environmental performance bond to ensure they have resources to respond, in the event of an accident or environmental crisis (Innu Nation 2000). This section is designed to provide a high-level overview of potential interactions and effects of hydrocarbons from an accidental event on the VCs discussed in this SEA Update. Mitigation measures have also been updated, as there have been new mitigation measures introduced to the Canada-NL Offshore Area since the original SEA Report was written.

An in-depth assessment of accidental events, including specific oil-spill modelling results and determination of significance, will be completed during project-specific EAs. This section is designed to be a general discussion of accidental releases of hydrocarbons into the marine environment and their potential effects. 12.1 PATHWAYS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Section 3.6 of this SEA Update, and Section 2.6 of the original SEA Report (SEM 2008), include the following main causes of an accidental event resulting in the release of hydrocarbons during oil and gas exploration or production activities:

• A vessel collision, resulting in the release of diesel fuel into the marine environment • A surface blowout on a platform, resulting in the release of hydrocarbons into the marine environment • A sub-surface blowout, resulting in a release of hydrocarbons into the marine environment and the water column • Batch spills and whole SBM mud spills that may occur during transfer of equipment to support vessels, during drilling activities, or when connecting and disconnecting tankers from a production platform

These pathways remain accurate for the purposes of this SEA Update and are the primary pathways for interactions between hydrocarbons and the marine environment. These accidental events could result in the release of different hydrocarbon compounds. This includes, but is not limited to diesel fuel, crude oil, lubricating oil, and SBM. The following sections provide a high-level overview of the potential interactions and effects from an accidental event on the VCs highlighted in this SEA Update. This assessment is designed to be a high-level summary of potential interactions and effects, in the absence of project- specific information, such as project location, hydrocarbon characteristics, and chemical properties of

12-1 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021 drilling fluids. Project-specific EAs would typically be required to perform oil spill modelling to provide further insights to the fate and trajectory of oil in the event of an accidental spill.

The following sections discuss interactions and potential environmental effects from an accidental event on the VCs identified in the SEA Update, including new or updated information that has become available since the original SEA Report (SEM 2008).

It is also acknowledged that climate change has and will continue to alter ocean characteristics and will need to be a key consideration in evaluating future projects and associated environmental effects including for accidental events. For example, climate change may affect the dispersion of oil in the event of a spill as well as the toxicity of the spill components on fish and marine mammals and birds in consideration of warmer waters. 12.2 FISH AND FISH HABITAT

12.2.1 Potential Interactions

The potential environmental interactions between an accidental event between fish and fish habitat relate to the exposure of fish and the surrounding environment to hydrocarbons. An accidental release of hydrocarbons into the marine environment would have adverse negative effects on fish and fish habitat (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). These interactions can have a range of potential effects that are related to the following:

• A change in fish mortality or injury resulting from direct exposure to hydrocarbons in the marine environment, and from indirect sources such as ingestion of contaminated prey species. • A change in habitat availability and quality through the interactions of water and sediment quality with hydrocarbons

The extent of potential effects of an accidental event on fish and fish habitat will depend on a number of factors, including the level of exposure to hydrocarbons, the toxicity of the hydrocarbons, and the exposure time.

12.2.2 Summary of Potential Effects

Table 12.1 provides a general summary of known effects that have been documented and described in scientific literature, and through IK collection where applicable. This is meant to build off the original SEA Report and to highlight new information regarding the effects of hydrocarbons on fish and fish habitat since 2008.

12-2 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.1 Summary of Potential Environmental Interactions and Effects from Accidental Events: Fish and Fish Habitat, Including Species at Risk

Component / Potential Summary of Effects Based on Available Literature Activity Environmental Effect Hydrocarbon • Change in fish • While plankton and other microorganisms do not generally have an avoidance response to contaminants as Spill from an mortality / injury their horizontal movements are controlled by tides / ocean conditions, certain taxa of coastal and estuarine accidental • Change in habitat copepods have shown an avoidance behaviour to hydrocarbon-contaminated water (Seuront 2010). event availability / • Crude oil concentrations up to 1.0 mg/L may have stimulant effects on phytoplankton growth, whereas quality concentrations over 1.0 mg/L may cause growth inhibition, and concentrations over 100 mg/L result in severe • Change in fish or complete growth inhibition (Rabalais 2014). presence and • Changes in both phytoplankton population (biomass) and community composition on the Louisiana Shelf were abundance noted after the Deep-water Horizon spill (Parsons et al. 2015). • Oil spills can result in zooplankton contamination and die-offs, and these effects can persist in excess of 70 days (Teal and Howarth 1984). Species that occur at the surface layers of the water column are considered to be most at risk (Boertmann and Mosbech 2012). • Phytoplankton and zooplankton communities exposed to dispersants and oil were more affected than by oil alone (Jung et al. 2012). • Saltmarsh arthropods (terrestrial and marine) can be suppressed by oil exposure but have been shown to recover after a year (McCall and Penning 2012). • Deep-water corals can show stress from oiling when they are exposed to spill plumes (i.e., deep-water blowouts; White et al. 2012). • Flocculated hydrocarbon material may be ingested by zooplankton and/or settle to benthic environments (AOSRT-JIP 2014). While an important link between benthic and pelagic environments that brings critical nutrients and organic matter from the surface waters to the deep sea, during spill events, this mechanism may serve to contaminate deep-sea corals and benthic communities (Rabalais 2014). • Finfish can be physically affected by hydrocarbons through coating of gills (suffocation), and more subtle effects such as abnormal gill function, decreased growth, and development or organ damage (LGL Limited 2005; Barron 2012; Jung et al. 2012). • Exposure to spilled oil can alter genomic expression in finfish (Whitehead et al. 2012). • Studies have shown that exposure to oil can affect fish embryo development and survival (Murakamia et al. 2008; Frantzena et al. 2012; Incardona et al. 2012; Ingvarsdottir et al. 2012). Species with buoyant eggs are particularly vulnerable (Boertmann and Mosbech 2012). • Juvenile and adult fish have been known to leave an area after a spill (Roth and Baltz 2009). • Laboratory exposure studies on Arctic species such as capelin (Frantzena et al. 2012) and larval sculpin (Gardiner et al. 2013) from hydrocarbons have found increased embryo mortality rates and decreased hatching success.

12-3 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.1 Summary of Potential Environmental Interactions and Effects from Accidental Events: Fish and Fish Habitat, Including Species at Risk

Component / Potential Summary of Effects Based on Available Literature Activity Environmental Effect • In general, it is accepted that development stages of fish and invertebrates are more sensitive to oil than adult stages (Lee et al. 2015; Sørensen et al. 2017); however, effects on larval stages does not necessarily result in effects on adult populations (Gallaway et al. 2017). • Acute toxicity effects on fish species can include sublethal effects such as reduced feeding (Lari et al. 2015) and larval deformities (Mager et al. 2014). Lethal effects can include depression in respiratory-cardiovascular activity, tissue hypoxia, and ultimately, respiratory paralysis (Lee et al. 2015). • Deep-sea fish species typically have lower metabolisms, are slower growing, have longer life spans, and would likely be more susceptible to disturbances such as oil spills (Cordes et al. 2016). • Studies on finfish have shown that the dissolved oil components can travel across respiratory membranes in gills (Lee et al. 2015). More recent studies have identified that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) phenanthrene disrupts cardiac function and is associated with heart malformations in developing fish and it becomes proportionally more toxic as the spilled oil weathers (Brette et al. 2017). • Cold-water invertebrate taxa (bivalves, gastropods, crustaceans) have been shown to have comparable reactions in terms of specific polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons sensitivities when compared to temperate species (Olsen et al. 2011). • Oil exposure can lower the density of invertebrate populations (Andersen et al. 2008) and can cause a notable change in the composition and abundance of the benthic fauna (Pérez del Olmo et al. 2007). • Effects on deep-water benthic fauna have been observed from deep-water blowouts (Schrope 2011; White et al. 2012; Montagna et al. 2013). • Gallaway et al. (2017) that predicted that even if large mortalities of Arctic cod juveniles and eggs were to occur due to a hypothetical spill event, the effects om the regional cod population would be insignificant. • Studies on the Deep-water Horizon spill noted strong declines in species richness and diversity in the decapod crustacean community post-spill (2010-2012) relative to earlier surveys (2004-2006) (Felder et al. 2014). • Observed lesions on deep-water shrimp species after Deep-water Horizon increased three-fold during post- spill surveys (Felder et al. 2014). • Visual indicators of coral stress as a result of the Deep-water Horizon spill included partial tissue loss, excessive mucus production, retracted polyps, partial coverage of brown flocculant sourced to the spill and mortality of coral species (Ragnarsson et al. 2017). • Follow-up studies on the Deep-water Horizon spill have shown that effects were not observed over the entire substrate surface but were patchy in distribution (i.e., the effects of the spill were highly site-specific). For example, over half of the corals on lease block MC294 (13 km southwest of the spill location) were partially covered by a brown flocculant material; recovery was observed during a follow-up survey conducted 16 months later (Fisher et al. 2014).

12-4 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

12.3 MARINE MAMMALS AND SEA TURTLES

12.3.1 Potential Interactions

The potential environmental interactions between an accidental event between marine mammals and sea turtles relate primarily to the exposure hydrocarbons to marine mammal and sea turtle species that may be in the area. These hydrocarbons can be released from either drilling or production installations and/or associated infrastructure, such as flow lines, or support or seismic vessels or tankers operating in the area. An accidental release of hydrocarbons into the marine environment would have adverse negative effects on marine life (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). These interactions can have a range of potential effects that are related to the following:

• A change in mortality or injury to marine mammals and/or sea turtles resulting from direct exposure to hydrocarbons in the marine environment, and from indirect sources such as ingestion of contaminated prey species. • A change in habitat availability and quality through the interactions of water and sediment with hydrocarbons and potential changes in quality of water and sediment

The extent of potential effects of an accidental event on marine mammals and sea turtles will depend on a number of factors, including the level of exposure to hydrocarbons, the toxicity of the hydrocarbons, and the exposure time.

12.3.2 Summary of Potential Effects

Table 12.2 provides a general summary of known effects that have been documented and described in scientific literature, and through IK collection where applicable. This is meant to build on the original SEA Report and to highlight new information or literature regarding the effects of hydrocarbons on marine mammals and sea turtles, since 2008.

12-5 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.2 Summary of Potential Environmental Interactions and Effects from Accidental Events: Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles, Including Species at Risk

Component / Potential Environmental Summary of Effects Based on Available Literature Activity Effect Hydrocarbon • Change in mortality / • Oil can coat the baleen of mysticetes and reduce filtration, thereby reducing feeding efficiency release from an injury (Geraci 1990; Dias et al. 2017). This effect is believed to be reversible once oil has been removed. accidental event • Change in habitat • Inhalation of volatiles and aspiration of aerosolized oil compounds from an oil spill or blowout can availability / quality result in inflammation of the mucous membranes and absorption of hydrocarbons into the • Change in presence, bloodstream (Geraci 1990; Helm et al. 2015). distribution, and • Mortality has been reported in seals fouled with oil (French-McCay 2009; Lee et al. 2015), abundance particularly in seal pups in colder waters (St. Aubin 1990). • Hydrocarbon exposure to seals can result in conjunctivitis (Spraker et al. 1994), corneal abrasion and swollen nictitating membranes, or permanent eye damage (St. Aubin 1990). • Observations in harbour seals immediately after they have been exposed to hydrocarbons show that they appear lethargic and disoriented. This response could be attributed to lesions observed in the thalamus of the brain (Spraker et al. 1994). • Seals may absorb oil into their tissues, which can result in minor kidney, liver, or brain lesions (Geraci and Smith 1976; Spraker et al. 1994). • Species such as harbour porpoise and harbour seals that feed in more restricted areas (e.g., bays) are likely at greater risk of ingesting oil (Würsig 1990). • According to NOAA (2018), more than 600 turtles were found deceased during the spill response for Deepwater Horizon. Approximately 18 were visibly oiled and 75% of the 600 turtles were kemp’s ridley sea turtles. More than 150 dolphins and whales were found dead during the spill response, of which nine were visibly oiled and more than 90% of the 150 dolphins were bottlenose dolphins. • Studies looking at the long-term implications of oil spills on marine mammals have outlined evidence that implicate the death of marine mammal species with accidental releases of hydrocarbons (e.g., Dahlheim and Matkin 1994; Matkin et al. 2008; Litz et al. 2014; Wallace et al. 2017). • In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, sea otters, sea lions, killer whales, and humpback whales were deemed to be most affected by the spill (Lee et al. 2015). • In addition to the more than 600 turtles found deceased during the spill response for Deepwater Horizon after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, 450 additional turtles were rescued, rehabilitated, and released (NMFS 2011). • A study in 2013 on bottlenose dolphins in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, noted that the population had higher disease conditions than dolphins in other areas, consistent with hydrocarbon exposure, including lung damage and adrenal hormone abnormalities (Schwake et al. 2014).

12-6 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.2 Summary of Potential Environmental Interactions and Effects from Accidental Events: Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles, Including Species at Risk

Component / Potential Environmental Summary of Effects Based on Available Literature Activity Effect • Marine mammals will likely avoid, where possible, areas affected by oil spills, and have been observed avoiding oil spills in the past (Matkin et al. 1994; Smultea and Wursig 1995; Ackleh et al. 2012). • Sea turtles may be more susceptible to exposure and effects of hydrocarbons, as they show little avoidance behavior and take large pre-dive inhalations (Milton et al. 2010; NOAA 2010; Vander Zanden et al. 2016)). • Exposure to oil through ingestion or contact is considered harmful to sea turtles, and potentially fatal (Howard 2012; Dupuis and Ucan-Marin 2015; Ylitalo et al. 2017; Wallace et al. 2020). • Studies by Matkin et al. (2008) and Monson et al. (2011) indicate that the long-term exposure of oil to marine mammals can inhibit the population to rebound to pre-spill numbers. • Gero et al. (2011) hypothesize that carcass recovery rates are low, and that a higher portion of cetacean species may have died as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. • Barron (2012) noted that recorded wildlife oiling observations from the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 included 140 recorded dead marine mammals, and numerous dolphin strandings. Oiled sea turtles were found to be deceased closer to shore as opposed to those offshore. • NOAA recently released updated Guidelines for Oil Spill Response and Natural Resource Damage Assessment for sea turtles (Stacy et al. 2019) which incorporates learnings from previous spills, including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

12-7 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

12.4 MARINE BIRDS

12.4.1 Potential Interactions

The potential environmental interactions between an accidental event and marine birds relate primarily to the exposure hydrocarbons to marine bird species that may be in the area at the time. These hydrocarbons can be released from exploration drilling or production installations, support vessels, tankers, or seismic vessels operating in the area. An accidental release of hydrocarbons into the marine environment would have adverse negative effects on marine and coastal birds (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). These interactions can have a range of potential effects that are related to the following:

• A change in mortality or injury to marine birds, including migratory birds, resulting from direct exposure to hydrocarbons in the marine environment, and from indirect sources such as ingestion of contaminated prey species. • A change in habitat availability and quality due to the presence of hydrocarbons on the water surface, in the water column, or along coastal environments.

The extent of potential effects of an accidental event on marine birds will depend on a number of factors, including the level of exposure to hydrocarbons, the characteristics of the hydrocarbons, and the exposure time. Certain times of the year (e.g., migration periods or breeding seasons) will also influence the potential level of exposure and resulting interactions and effects.

12.4.2 Summary of Potential Effects

Table 12.3 provides a general summary of known effects that have been documented and described in scientific literature, and through IK collection where applicable. This is meant to build off the original SEA Report and to highlight new information or literature regarding the effects of hydrocarbons on marine birds, since 2008.

12-8 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.3 Summary of Potential Environmental Interactions and Effects from Accidental Events: Marine Birds, Including Species at Risk

Component / Potential Environmental Summary of Effects Based on Available Literature Activity Effect Hydrocarbon • Change in mortality / injury • Marine birds are typically the most at-risk species from oil spills, as they spend much of their time at release from an • Change in habitat sea, on the surface of the ocean, or along coastal and shoreline environments (LGL Limited 2005; accidental event availability / quality Barron 2012). • Accidental discharges of hydrocarbons on the water surface can lead to sheens of crude oil and other substances. Marine birds (especially pelagic seabirds) may be exposed to these sheens (Wiese and Robertson 2004; O’Hara and Morandin 2010; Morandin and O’Hara 2016). • Possible effects on marine birds from exposure to hydrocarbons include feather matting, which can cause hypothermia, and drowning from a loss of buoyancy (Clark 1984; Montevecchi et al 1999). • Even small amounts of oil from sheens have been shown to affect the structure and function of seabird feathers (O'Hara and Morandin, 2010). This can cause increased energy expenditure from excessive preening instead of foraging for food and/or breeding. This energy expenditure can eventually lead to mortality at sea (Morandin and O’Hara 2016; Tuarze et al. 2019). • Morandin and O’Hara (2016) reviewed short- and long-term studies of marine oil spills, and found that the interaction of hydrocarbons and marine birds can result in increased mortality rates, physiological impairment, reduced reproductive success and in severe cases, possible long-term population declines. • Ecological effects of oiled areas may be transferred away from the affected site due to the migratory nature of some marine-bird species (Henkel et al 2012). • The correlation between mortality rates and potential changes in bird populations due to an accidental event are poorly known, but this is often cited as the main risk to marine birds from the offshore oil and gas industry (Fraser et al. 2008; Ellis et al. 2013). • The timing and location of a spill (and not just its size) has an important influence on avifauna mortality and injury rates (Wiese et al. 2001). • Ingested oil can cause lethal and sublethal effects (McEwan and Whitehead 1980), including damage to the liver (Khan and Ryan 1991), pneumonia (Hartung and Hunt 1966), brain damage (Lawler et al 1978), immunotoxic effects (Barron 2012), and starvation due to increased energy needs to compensate for heat loss resulting from oiling and loss of insulation (MMS 2001). • The long-lived nature of many bird species also suggests that oil-related reductions in population growth can have longer term population effects (Wiese and Robertson 2004). • Barron (2012) noted that reported wildlife oiling after Deepwater Horizon recorded approximately 10,000 bird observations. Of these, 2,085 birds were observed as visibly oiled and alive, while 2,303 were observed as visibly oiled and dead. • Using an exposure probability model, Haney et al. (2014a) estimated that between 36,000 to 670,000 birds died as result of exposure to oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

12-9 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.3 Summary of Potential Environmental Interactions and Effects from Accidental Events: Marine Birds, Including Species at Risk

Component / Potential Environmental Summary of Effects Based on Available Literature Activity Effect • Using a carcass sampling model and an exposure probability model, Haney et al. (2014b) estimated bird mortalities of 600,000 and 800,000, respectively, from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Results also indicated an especially low probability of recovery for small birds after oil spills at sea. Henkel et al. (2012) estimated that potentially more than 1,000,000 migratory shorebirds representing 28 species were exposed to some degree to Deepwater Horizon oil during their 2010-2011 non- breeding season. Approximately 8.6% of shorebirds trapped between fall of 2010 and spring of 2011 showed visible signs of oiling. • Franci et al. (2014) studied the Canadian breeding population of northern gannets that partly over- winter in the Gulf of Mexico; they found that abundance and reproductive success of the population had declined recently. However, this decline could not be linked to the Deepwater Horizon spill. • Finch et al. (2011) investigated effects of weathered oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill by placing oil onto the surface of mallard duck eggs. Results found mortality of duck embryos to occur within seven days. • Wilhelm et al. (2007) estimated that bird mortalities from the 2004 Terra Nova FPSO oil spill in the Canada-NL Offshore Area were on the order of 10,000. • King et al. (2021) summarized effects of oil exposure on birds, reporting that oil affects feather structure and function, and toxicity may result from ingestion, inhalation, or egg oiling, resulting in effects on behavior, reproduction, and survival.

12-10 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

12.5 SPECIAL AREAS

There are a number of marine and coastal areas within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area that have been identified as sensitive or special, based on the ecological, social, or cultural value and use that they provide. As a result, some of these areas are protected federally and/or provincially through legislation, to preserve their functions and use by both the biological and human environment. These areas include but are not limited to provincial parks and ecological reserves, national parks and national park reserves, national historic sites, EBSAs, MPAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, Marine Refuge Areas, Fisheries Closure Areas, and IBAs.

12.5.1 Potential Interactions

Potential environmental interactions between an accidental event and special or sensitive areas within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area are related primarily those interactions that would have adverse environmental effects on the ecological or social and cultural functions or areas that classify them as special or sensitive. As a result, this VC is linked to biological VCs such as Fish and Fish Habitat, Marine Birds, Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles, and socio-economic VCs, such as Human Use. Potential interactions with special areas from an accidental event include the presence of hydrocarbons from an oil spill reaching an area, and subsequently reducing or damaging its ecological, social, or cultural function of that area to the point where it is no longer able to provide that function which allowed its designation as special and/or sensitive.

12.5.2 Summary of Potential Effects

The potential effects of an accidental event from offshore oil and gas activities on special and/or sensitive areas is related to the biological effects that accidental events could have on marine species that may use these areas, and the socio-economic and cultural effects that could occur if areas used by humans for social or cultural means, loses the ability to provide that function. Therefore, the effects on special / sensitive areas from an accidental event are linked directly to effects on Fish and Fish Habitat (Section 12.2), Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (Section 12.3), Marine Birds (Section 12.4), and Human Use (Section 12.7). In the event of an oil spill, there could be direct and indirect environmental effects on the biophysical environment. If the spatial extent of a spill expands into areas that are considered special or sensitive, then the presence of hydrocarbons may affect the ecological and socio-economic integrity of the area. A real or perceived reduction in the ecological or socio-economic integrity of these areas may also reduce their importance or value as a special / sensitive area. This may in turn have implications for the species and/or communities that depend on these areas for their functions (e.g., nesting / spawning, migration, breeding, tourism, recreation).

12-11 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

12.6 COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND INDIGENOUS FISHERIES

12.6.1 Potential Interactions

As mentioned in Sections 9.2 to 9.4, commercial, recreational, and Indigenous fishing is an important component in NL for both economic, cultural, and social reasons. Fishing has been a foundation for NL culture and a way of life for Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents. As a result, an accidental event, such as a spill or blowout from an oil and gas project has the potential to interact with these fisheries and result in environmental effects to fishing activity in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, including in nearshore environments if hydrocarbons were to reach the coastline.

The potential environmental interactions between an accidental event and commercial, recreational, and Indigenous fisheries relate primarily to the following:

• Loss in access to fishing grounds due to the presence of an oil slick, or the area being restricted to fishing activity while response measures are in place to remediate an oil spill. • Damage to fishing equipment and/or vessels, through fouling and oiling of fishing gear, equipment, or vessels that may be in the area of a spill. • Indirect effects on commercial, recreational, and Indigenous fishing through biological effects on fish species from interactions with hydrocarbons. This includes fish mortality and tainting due to exposure of hydrocarbons to fish species that may be of commercial social, or cultural value (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019). • Loss of consumer confidence in commercial fish products being harvested in an area near or within the vicinity of an accidental event.

The extent of potential effects of an accidental event on fishing activity in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area will depend on a number of factors including time of year, location, volume, and characteristics of hydrocarbons. Certain times of the year, such as summer months when commercial and recreational fishing is active, could increase the potential for environmental effects to be greater in the case of an accidental event. The area in which an accidental event occurs may also be a factor for environmental interactions if the area in particular is historically a popular fishing location or close to the shoreline. Potential interactions from an accidental event on recreational and Indigenous fishing would be greater if oil from a spill were to reach the shoreline or nearshore areas, where most traditional and recreational activity takes place. 12.6.2 Summary of Potential Effects

A summary of potential environmental effects from an accidental event on commercial, recreational, and Indigenous fishing is provided below in Table 12.4 and in the following discussion. More recent studies on effects of accidental events on fishing activity has been conducted in response to the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico of 2010. This discussion is also supplemented with results of stakeholder engagement sessions from the original SEA Report and past EAs for offshore oil and gas projects in NL.

This section is designed to provide a general discussion on potential effects.

12-12 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.4 Summary of Potential Environmental Interactions and Effects from Accidental Events: Commercial, Recreational, and Indigenous Fisheries

Component / Activity Potential Environmental Summary of Effects Based on Available Literature Effect Hydrocarbon release • Loss of access to • Closures of fishing areas could result in economic losses to fishers if closure occurs in areas that from an accidental fishing ground are popular to fishing, or times of the year when fishing activity is high. event • Damage to fishing • Closures could translate into direct economic effects as fishers may have to delay or cease fishing gear activity until the area has been re-opened or move to other fishing grounds that may be available, • Biological effects on delaying their fishing schedule (Sumaila et al. 2012; European Union 2013; Beyer at al. 2016). fish species • Fisheries closures as a result of Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 resulted in the closure of • Effects on consumer approximately 207,200 km² of the United States EEZ to fishing activity (DFO 2013). perceptions of fish • Fouling of fishing gear and/or vessels could also affect commercial fishers harvests and have direct products economic effects on their operations if a spill ceases or delays fishing operations for a period of time (IPIECA 1997; ITOPF 2011). • Spills can also affect consumer perceptions on quality, which may affect the price and volume of catch that harvesters can market (IPIECA 1997; ITOPF n.d., 2004; 2011). Tainting or potential tainting may lead to reduced economic returns from fish harvests if the catch is deemed tainted or unfit (IPIECA 1997). • Consumer behaviour, and resulting effects based on consumer perceptions of fish that may be caught in an area near a spill, are difficult to predict. Loss of confidence in the market and public health concerns can have direct effects on the marketability and value of commercial fish landings (ITOPF n.d.; Yender et al. 2002; ITOPF 2011; Carroll et al. 2016; Naquin et al. 2016). • A scenario-based study from the Bureau of Ocean Management (Carroll et al. 2016) has indicated that the Deepwater Horizon spill resulted in total losses for the seafood industry of approximately $94.7 million. Shrimp and oysters saw the largest declines in landings from this study. • Stakeholder engagement in the original SEA Report indicated that there was concerns of spilled oil from an accidental event being brought by wind and tides into traditional fishing areas (SEM 2008). • Concerns raised from Indigenous groups included how underwater blowouts and spills would be contained, and general concerns for spills from drilling activities (SEM 2008).

12-13 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

One of the largest potential interactions from an oil spill on fishing activity is the loss of certain areas due to the presence of oil, or areas being restricted to fishers while cleanup efforts are in place. For commercial fishing enterprises, the loss of areas that may have historically been productive fishing grounds may result in fishers waiting for extended periods of time before they are allowed to fish again or taking their gear and moving to a new location to fish. This could translate into economic losses from reduction in fishing time, schedule delays and lost catch, and potentially result in adverse effects on commercial fishers’ livelihoods. Similar effects may occur if oil spills were to reach the shoreline, or areas where recreational and/or Indigenous fishing activities take place. If local residents, including Indigenous peoples, are restricted from being able to carry out social and traditional fishing activities, it could result in negative effects on the livelihoods of those individuals, including their use and enjoyment of the land and their overall health and wellbeing.

Damage to fishing gear as a result of an accidental event, through either direct contact with infrastructure relating to oil and gas activities or through fouling of fishing gear, may also have similar effects on commercial fishing. The loss of the ability for commercial harvesters to deploy their gear due to damage or fouling can result in lost fishing time and lost catch as commercial fishers will likely have to spend time and money to replace or fix their fishing equipment. These interactions can result in economic losses to fishers and further affect their livelihoods.

Indirect effects to fishing activities, and those who participate in fishing for commercial, recreational, or traditional purposes can also occur through biological effects on fish species from accidental events. For commercial fishers, biological effects on fish species that may be of commercial importance could result in reduced quantity or quality of their harvest due to fish taint or other biological effects, and lower the amount of catch sold to market, or the associated economic returns from their catch. For recreational and Indigenous fishers, the biophysical effects of hydrocarbons on marine fish species could affect the physical health of individuals through direct exposure to hydrocarbons, or through potential consumption of contaminated species. These biophysical effects on marine fish species could also have effects on the overall availability of species to be harvested by local residents both recreationally and traditionally. This potential lack of availability of fish species could affect the overall use and enjoyment of coastal and near- shore marine areas by residents and may result in effects on the overall quality of life of local communities. The potential environmental effects on fish species from accidental events is discussed in Section 12.2.2, and is closely linked with commercial, recreational, and Indigenous fisheries.

Consumer perceptions of quality of products can also be influenced by the occurrence of an accidental event such as an oil spill. If commercial fish species are caught in an area where a spill has occurred, the market value of the product and subsequent economic returns to commercial fishers can be affected by consumer perceptions and loss of confidence in the quality of the catch. These consumer behaviours are hard to predict. Regardless, if consumers avoid purchasing commercial fish products due to perceptions of taint and low quality related to an oil spill, then it could have associated adverse effects on commercial harvesters.

12-14 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

12.7 HUMAN USE

The use of coastal and marine waters by humans, including Indigenous communities, is an important component of the overall use of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Human-related activities discussed in Sections 10.1 to 10.4 include activities such as marine shipping, marine research activities, marine- based tourism and recreational use. It also includes activities that take place along the shoreline and in coastal environments. This includes land travel (including travel across pack ice), and hunting and gathering practices for both recreational and traditional purposes by Labrador residents. The following sections below discuss some of the potential interactions that could affect human use in the event of an accidental event, such as an oil spill.

12.7.1 Potential Interactions

The potential environmental interactions between an accidental event and human use within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area has been linked to the following pathways:

• Loss in access to areas for human-related marine activities due to the presence of an oil slick, or the area restricted to human-related marine activity while spill response measures are being implemented to clean up an oil spill. • Damage to research equipment through fouling and oiling of gear and/or vessels. • Indirect effects on human activities through biological effects on marine species. This includes potential effects to shoreline habitats that may reduce the availability, quality, or enjoyment of human use. • Possible effects on marine tourism activities due to the presence of oil in areas that have historically been used for tourism activities. • Effects on coastal or nearshore human activities due to the presence of oil along shorelines, and in areas that may be valued culturally or socially by Indigenous or non-Indigenous communities. • Indirect effects on traditional resources, through biological effects on fish, mammal and bird species from interactions with hydrocarbons. This includes mortality and tainting due to exposure of hydrocarbons to fish, mammal and bird species that may be of commercial, social, or cultural value, affecting many people’s livelihoods (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

If an accidental event occurs, interactions and potential effects on human use will be dependent on a number of factors, including the spatial extent of an oil spill, the location, and the characteristics of hydrocarbons. Certain times of the year (e.g., times of high tourism activity or times or popular harvesting activity along the coast) will also influence the potential level or magnitude of environmental interactions and effects.

12.7.2 Summary of Potential Effects

Within the offshore marine environment, the main potential effects on human use would likely be related to the loss of access to areas that have been affected by an oil spill. This could affect human activities such as marine research, military activities, and shipping operations. If marine research, military training exercises, or shipping lanes are impeded due to a spill, it may require vessels to change course to avoid

12-15 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021 the area while cleanup operations are taking place. This could result in added costs to vessels, as they would need to burn more fuel to avoid the area and then try and set a new course to their destination. It may also lead to increased costs for the military and research organizations if they have to suspend or abandon their planned activities due to the presence of oil in the water.

The presence of oil can also result in damages to vessels and equipment that may be within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area at the time of an accidental event. In the event of an oil spill during exploration and production activities, the presence of hydrocarbons along the surface of the water and within the water column has the potential to cause damage to vessels and equipment, including research equipment, through fouling. Fouling of research equipment has the potential to result in lost or tainted research data that may not be usable and require extra cost to conduct research again. Fouling of vessels operating in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, including domestic ferries and cruise ships, may require cleaning to remove oil and hydrocarbons from the ship hull. This has the potential to result in downtime and added costs to these enterprises and reduce the quality or enjoyment of services such as cruises and passenger traffic.

Other human use activities along the coastline and nearshore environments within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area could interact with an accidental event, if hydrocarbons were to reach the shoreline. As discussed in Sections 10.1 to 10.4, various human uses, for both recreational and traditional purposes, take place along the coastlines of Labrador. This includes traveling along the coastlines and over pack ice during certain times of the year, hunting for marine mammals and marine birds, collection of bird eggs for traditional purposes, and gathering of other resources such as plants and berries. If oil from a spill were to reach the shoreline, or edge of the pack ice in winter, the potential exists for ecological effects to the area, and could reduce the quality, enjoyment, and overall ability for human use to occur along these areas for prolonged periods of time until oil has been removed from the area.

The extent of interaction and effects on human use, in the event of a spill, would depend on a number of factors. Project-specific EAs and associated oil spill modelling will need to be conducted regarding oil and gas activities involving drilling, to determine the extent of potential interactions and resulting effects from and accidental event on human use. 12.8 MITIGATION MEASURES

Oil spill response capabilities will be critical given the number of potential sensitive areas, remoteness of the location, and unique nature of the environment (e.g., the number of ice-covered months per year). The most effective planning tool for reducing the effects of oil spills is oil spill prevention and preparedness. Spill response capabilities and containment equipment may not be readily available in many remote areas associated with the Labrador Shelf; therefore, oil spill contingency planning and mitigation measures will be very important. In addition, operators will be required to maintain some degree of spill response capabilities on site.

12-16 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

The following mitigation measures incorporate those from the original SEA Report, updated with additional mitigation measures that have been identified since the writing of the original SEA Report. These measures include, but are not limited to:

• Design and implementation of an Oil Spill Response Plan that is part of an overall Environmental Protection Plan to be approved by the C-NLOPB. Many operators have their own internal spill contingency plans, and are tailored to meet C-NLOPB requirements. As part of the Oil Spill Response Plan for drilling and production activities, operators will also be required to prepare a Wildlife Response Plan to monitor and limit impacts of oil spills on wildlife. The Wildlife Response Plan is developed in collaboration with CWS. • Emphasis on spill prevention through a combination of education, procedures, and policies. • Training and education of personnel onboard drilling or production installations. • Maintenance of spill response capabilities (trained personnel, absorbents, containment and cleanup systems, booms) on the drill units and/or support vessels and tankers. • Notification of an accidental event to relevant regional response contractors and agencies (e.g., C-NLOPB, Eastern Canada Response Corporation and Oil Spill Response Limited). Operators will also be required to have contracts in place with ECRC and OSRL to assist in spill response. • Notification of the Canadian Coast Guard of a spill and its location. • Notification to coastal communities, Indigenous groups, and other industry stakeholders of a spill occurrence. • Implementation of a Fisheries Communication Plan and an Indigenous Fishers Communications Plan, which would include procedures for informing fishers of an accidental event and appropriate response. Emphasis is on timely communication, thereby providing fishers with the opportunity to haul out gear from affected areas, reducing potential for fouling of fishing gear. • Compensation for damage to gear in accordance with Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating to Offshore Petroleum Activity (C-NLOPB and CNSOPB 2017). This includes damaged fishing gear and market losses associated with damage. • Implementation of a capping stack in the event of a subsurface blowout to reduce the length of release time for oil. • Use of chemical dispersants to enhance microbial degradation of oil. This includes undertaking a Spill Impact Mitigation Analysis (formerly referred to as a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis) to evaluate the risks and benefits of using chemical dispersants in the event of a hydrocarbon release. • Preparation to implement shoreline protection measures and clean-up in event of an accidental event • Implementation of measures to contain potential hydrocarbon spills. This includes booms and berms to contain or divert surface oil from sensitive environments, including coastal areas. • Preparation of a well capping and containment plan.

It should also be noted that the committee responsible for the recently completed Regional Assessment of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador (Bangay et al. 2020) recommended that, as part of the notification of Indigenous and stakeholder groups in the event of an offshore spill, the C-NLOPB should require that operators include associated imagery around the nature and extent of the spill, and information on affected marine biota. This recommendation from the Regional Assessment Committee is not currently standard practice and may therefore be considered enhanced mitigation in the context of present-day oil and gas activities in the Canada-NL Offshore Area. However,

12-17 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021 this currently non-standard measure has potential to become standard practice and/or a mandatory requirement in the future through industry leadership and/or through incorporation into relevant guidelines, policies, regulations, and/or conditions of regulatory approval.

Operators will likely have internal policies and procedures regarding the response and action taken to prevent an accidental event, and to reduce the potential for interactions with the marine environment if an accidental event were to occur. Project-specific EAs will provide a greater level of detail into these internal policies and procedures and the contingency plans that operators will have in place in case an accidental event occurs.

Since the writing of the original SEA Report (SEM 2008), two new mitigation measures have been introduced into the Canada-NL Offshore Area environment. These new mitigation measure include the use of a capping stack for well containment in the event of a subsurface blowout, and the use of chemical dispersants to help reduce the spread of oil, and to improve the speed of degradation of surface oil. These two measures are described in further detail in the following sections.

12.8.1 Capping Stack

In the event of a subsurface blowout, a capping stack may be required to stop or divert well flow if traditional well control methods such as the blow-out preventer fail. The capping stack is a temporary fixture while a relief well is drilled to permanently kill the well. Capping stacks are designed to withstand the maximum anticipated wellhead pressure to stop the spill and/or divert the flow to surface vessels for management and recovery of the hydrocarbons.

OSRL is an international, industry-owned organization that provides resources and expertise for oil spill response and clean-up. OSRL’s dedicated subsea division, Subsea Well Intervention Services (SWIS), provides OSRL members with the opportunity to access subsea intervention capabilities, including subsea dispersant equipment, and capping and containment equipment. Capping stacks are currently provided globally through OSRL, which holds capping stacks and associated infrastructure in locations around the world. Due to the lack of proper maintenance and storage facilities and appropriate yard space, it is currently not feasible for NL to hold a capping stack. As a result, it is anticipated that a capping stack would likely be sourced from Norway or Brazil, depending on availability. It is estimated that it would take approximately 18 to 36 days to mobilize the equipment to site via ship and cap a well (Figure 12-1). This is dependent on availability of the equipment, and the environmental conditions at the time.

12-18 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Source: OSRL n.d.

Figure 12-1 Approximate Timeline for Mobilization of Capping Stack Transported by Sea

Capping stacks and their equipment have historically been primarily transported via ships. This was the preferred transportation method because the capping stack could be shipped already assembled, with customs cleared during transit, and arrive without facing further delays, whereas the capping stack would need to be dismantled and then reassembled and tested on arrival if transported by air (OSRL n.d.). In 2018, OSRL, along with its members, created a single unit air-freightable capping stack and associated transport skid as a result of higher demand for increased response times. This new technology allows for a capping stack to be transported, fully assembled, by air. A demonstration flight was performed from Stavanger, Norway in November 2018. The combined capping stack and air freight skid design was verified for air transportation by aircraft manufacturer Antonov State Enterprise (Antonov) (formerly Antonov Design Bureau) and outsize freight carrier Volga Dnepr Airline, confirming that the cargo can be airlifted in Antonov’s AN-124-100 and AN-124-100M-150 variants as well as the AN-225. In 2019, OSRL ordered a new AN-124 air transport skid for its capping stack located in Singapore (OSRL 2019).

SWIS works closely with strategic partner Chapman Freeborn (air charter specialist) to continually monitor availability, location and status of the AN-124 and AN-225 airframes (of which there are 20 airframes in total globally) that are capable of transporting their capping stacks. AN-124 and AN-225 aircraft do not rely on airport main deck loader equipment for loading and unloading operations. Heavy load ramp systems (of which there are 10 available globally) are used under the control of the aircraft providers and are staged globally to meet aircraft operations (OSRL 2019).

In the case of an accidental event where a capping stack would be required (i.e., if initial well interventions were not successful) and if feasible, a capping stack could potentially be flown into Happy Valley-Goose Bay if the infrastructure was in place to deploy the capping stack from Labrador. If not feasible, then that capping stack would likely be shipped from the closest location.

12-19 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

12.8.2 Dispersants

Dispersants are chemical products used in oil spill response. Chemical dispersion, whether by surface application or subsea dispersant injection, is effective in transferring substantial quantities of oil from the surface to the water column (Coelho and Slaughter 2020). By breaking surface oil into small, dispersed droplets, the rate of oil dissolution increases due to increased surface area-to-volume ratio. This reduces the potential exposure for personnel and marine species at the surface (Coelho and Slaughter 2020).

The potential use of dispersants in Canada’s offshore waters has been recent, and in 2016, ECCC conducted scientific testing on two dispersants. Corexit® 9500A, the primary spill treating agent used during the Deepwater Horizon spill response effort, along with Corexit® EC9580A, are currently the only chemical dispersants approved for use in Canada. The intended use for Corexit® EC9580A is to treat substrates. Both these agents were found to have low toxicity during aquatic toxicity tests (ECCC 2016). While there are benefits to the use of chemical dispersants, there have also been some documented interactions with dispersants and biological components of the environment. Research on the effects of dispersants suggest that mixtures of oil and dispersant increase exposure of aquatic life to oil-based compounds and can cause negative effects to many pelagic and benthic organisms, as well as seabirds (Lively and McKenzie 2014; DeLeo et al. 2016; Bosker et al. 2017; Whitmer et al. 2018). Table 12.5 provides a summary of effects and observations from current available literature.

In recognition that there is a potential for increased exposure to components of oil by aquatic organisms following the use of dispersants, ECCC has stressed the need for consideration of net environmental benefits when making a determination for approval of dispersant use during a spill (ECCC 2016). As a result, operators would likely be required to conduct an analysis to determine the net environmental benefit to justify the use of chemical dispersants in the event of a hydrocarbon release. Approval must be obtained from C-NLOPB before the use of chemical dispersants and all applications must undergo a Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment (SIMA) as per the requirements under section 138.21 of the Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, which states: “The Board shall not permit the use of a spill-treating agent in an authorization issued under paragraph 138(1)(b) unless the Board determines, taking into account any prescribed factors and any factors the Board considers appropriate, that the use of the spill-treating agent is likely to achieve a net environmental benefit”. Operators are required to submit a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) and/or SIMA as part of the Oil Spill Response Plan required for C-NLOPB authorization. The C-NLOPB facilitates review of operator NEBA or SIMA by expert departments (e.g., DFO, CWS).

12.8.3 In-situ Burning

In-situ burning is the combustion of oil spilled from a vessel or a facility, at the location of the spill that can rapidly remove substantial amounts of oil from the marine environment. It involves the collection of oil into a fire-resistant boom, ignition of the oil and the resulting spread of flames over the slick, which burns oil down to approximately 1 mm. When the amount of vapour is insufficient to maintain combustion, the fire ends (Fingas 2018).

12-20 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

In 1993, there was a Newfoundland offshore burn experiment and results suggested that in-situ burning does not produce a burn residue that is more toxic than the weathered oil itself, no adverse effects were evident as aquatic toxicity of the water was below the detection levels at the time, and 150 m or farther from the burn source emissions from in-situ burning were lower than health criteria levels at the time (Fingas et al. 1995; Blenkinsopp et al. 1996). However, more knowledge regarding environmental fate and effect of residues is required. Another experiment in Canada-NL Offshore Area has been proposed as part of the Multi-Partner Research Initiative (DFO n.d.). Field trials are planned for summer 2021 (Feiyue n.d.)

Benefits of in-situ burning include its potential to remove large amounts of oil from the sea surface, and thereby protect aquatic species, prevent shoreline contact, and reduce waste generation. Potential negative effects can result from smoke effects on human health, change in air quality in the burn area and downwind, and chemical and/or physical effects of burn residue (Feiyue n.d.). For example, compared to fresh oil, burn residue can have similar or larger negative effects on seabird feathers (Fritt-Rasmussen et al. 2016). Depending on residue density, seawater density, and the residue temperature, burn residues also have the potential to sink. The potential effects of sinking residues on benthic organisms (e.g., smothering) are not known and further research is needed (Fritt-Rasmussen 2015).

12-21 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.5 Summary of Known Environmental Interactions of Chemical Dispersants

Biological Component Summary of Known Interactions Fish and Fish Habitat • Dispersant use reduces the potential for surface oil to reach ecologically sensitive areas (e.g., EBSAs, shoreline environments), but also temporarily results in elevated exposure of organisms to in-water concentrations of oil in the immediate area of treatment. • Dispersant use after a spill has the potential to increase the exposure to contaminants in the water column (i.e., plankton, pelagic fish) and eventually, the benthos (demersal fish, benthic invertebrates). • Bivalves such as mussels showed cytotoxilogical and gentoxilogical effects after being exposed to dispersants in response to an oil spill (Barsiene et al. 2012). • Chemically dispersed oil has more pronounced effects on the early life stages of fish and invertebrates as opposed to adults - specifically eggs and larvae (Cordes et al. 2016; DeLeo et al. 2016). • Chemically dispersed oil is known to reduce larval settlement, cause abnormal development and tissue degradation in sessile invertebrates (Cordes et al. 2016). • Laboratory studies on Atlantic herring eggs showed an increase rate of deformities and mortalities for dispersed oil exposure (1 mg/L total hydrocarbons; up to 14-day exposure) (Greer et al. 2012). • The effects of chemically dispersed oil on Arctic cod indicated that lethal and sublethal effects on juvenile fish may not necessarily have an effect on regional fish populations (Gallaway et al. 2017). • Laboratory studies on deep-sea coral from the Gulf of Mexico indicate that dispersed oil solutions were more toxic to the coral than untreated oil solutions (DeLeo et al. 2016). • While responses to dispersed oil are species-specific, there is evidence that relative sensitivity to dispersed oil is similar among Arctic, temperate, and tropical species (Olsen et al. 2011; Bejarano et al. 2017). Marine Birds • The use of dispersants, which enhances the natural microbial degradation, may be beneficial for marine and migratory birds within a spill area by reducing the exposure to floating oil on the sea surface (Statoil 2017). • The quicker rate of degradation greatly reduces the chance of accidentally released oil reaching shorelines, where it could potentially cause harm to shorebirds and adversely affect seabird nesting colonies (Prince 2015). • The use of dispersants results in increased oil in the water column, potentially resulting in exposure of food sources (fish and water column invertebrates) to oil, and exposure of diving birds near the dispersed oil (Peakall et al. 1987). • The magnitude of these effects depends on the proximity of wildlife during dispersant application as well as the effectiveness of the dispersant on the surface oil (National Research Council 2005). • Fingas’ (2017) review of oil spill dispersants found that oils and surfactants can have an effect on birds. • An experimental study found that ocular (eye) exposure to oil or dispersant may result in the development of conjunctivitis in seabirds (Fiorello et al. 2016). • An experimental study on common murres found that exposure to high concentrations of pure dispersant can have life- threatening effects on waterproofing and buoyancy in birds and that birds exposed to oil, or a dispersant and oil mixture experienced loss of waterproofing (Whitmer et al. 2018). Marine Mammals and • The dispersion of oil may expose swimming or feeding marine mammals to the consumption of contaminated plankton, Sea Turtles skin / fur contamination, and potential clogging of baleen (Lee et al. 2015).

12-22 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Table 12.5 Summary of Known Environmental Interactions of Chemical Dispersants

Biological Component Summary of Known Interactions Commercial Fishing • Dispersant use has the potential to affect fish species that may be commercially viable (see above for effects of Activity dispersants on fish species). • After the Deepwater Horizon spill, the US Food and Drug Administration conducted laboratory tests on the effects of a commonly used dispersant on Eastern oyster, blue crab, and red snapper and found little to no bioaccumulation; the dispersant was depurated from the organisms’ tissues with 24 to 72 hours (Tjeerdema et al. 2013).

12-23 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Assessment of spill response options is done through the operator’s NEBA or SIMA and appropriate course of action in a spill event would be determined by C-NLOBP and other regulators (e.g., DFO, CWS, ECCC-NEEC, Coast Guard).

12.8.4 Oil in Ice-covered Waters

There is limited information regarding the behaviour of oil and hydrocarbons as it relates to sea ice (Boertmann and Mosbech 2011, 2012; Merkel et al. 2012). Hydrocarbons from a spill have the potential to accumulate under ice and into cracks within the ice and persist until the ice breaks up. While there are multiple factors that determine how oil under ice will spread and migrate (e.g., temperature, oil viscosity, hydrostatic pressure, and rate of oil being introduced), a study by Karlsson et al. (2011) noted that oil could reach several centimetres into the ice through brine channels. In warmer temperatures, oil migration can allow hydrocarbons to move upward through the ice and to the surface (Wilkinson et al. 2017). However, the nature of oil migration is poorly understood due to lack of current field observation (Wilkinson et al. 2017). Under certain conditions, sea ice can also grow around the layer of oil at the bottom, encapsulating the oil into the sea ice (Wilkinson et al. 2017).

While oil may not spread as far as it would in open water (Boertmann and Mosbech 2012), the presence of ice inhibits weathering processes from occurring. Therefore, the toxicity of the hydrocarbons may persist for a longer period of time. This prolonged presence of hydrocarbons under sea ice may result in more pronounced effects on fauna and fish species that may be present near ice. Arctic cod, for example, lay their eggs under ice cover, and there have been documented cases of sub-lethal effects being detected in Arctic cod due to exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and crude oil (Boertmann and Mosbech 2011).

There have been a number of techniques that have been discussed to recover oil from sea ice and ice- covered waters. These techniques include mechanical recovery of oil using booms and skimmers, the use of dispersants, and in-situ burning of oil. These methods have various capabilities and limitations, and selected methods would likely depend on the existing environment characteristics are the time of a spill as well as the time of year. For example, ice thickness plays a role in determining whether in-situ burning can be conducted efficiently, while open water / density of ice is a factor in determining whether dispersants or mechanical recovery methods should be used (Wilkinson et al. 2017).

The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) Arctic Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Programme has conducted research into oil spill detection and mapping in low visibility and ice and have issued a number of reports (IOGP 2013a, 2013b, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b). International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOFP) (2018) research on Arctic and cold climates has also conducted research on detecting and tracking oil in ice, at sea response to Arctic oil spills, shoreline response in the Arctic, and the limitations of Arctic oil spill response.

Mitigation measures and the consideration of sea ice in relation to an accidental event will likely be required by regulators as part of an operator’s overall spill response plan that would be completed at the project-specific EA stages.

12-24 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

12.9 REFERENCES

Ackleh, A.S., G.E. Ioup, J.W. Ioup, B. Ma, J.J. Newcomb, N. Pal, N.A. Sidorovskaia and C. Tiemann. 2012. Assessing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact on marine mammal population through acoustics: Endangered sperm whales. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 131: 2306-2314.

Andersen, L.E., F. Melville and D. Jolley. 2008. An assessment of an oil spill in Gladstone, Australia - impacts on intertidal areas at one month post-spill. Mar. Poll. Bull., 57(6-12): 607-15.

AOSRT-JIP (Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Program). 2014. Environmental Impacts of Arctic Oil Spills and Arctic Spill Response Technologies: Literature Review and Recommendations. 205 pp.

Bangay, G., W. Foote, G. Anderson, M. Murphy Rustad, and K. Storey. 2020. Regional Assessment of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador. Available at: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p80156/134068E.pdf

Barron, M.G. 2012. Ecological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Implications for immunotoxicity. Toxicol. Pathol., 40: 315-320.

Barsiene, J., A, Rybakovas, G. Garnaga and L. Andreikenaite. 2012. Environmental genotoxicity and cytotoxicity studies in mussels before and after an oil spill at the marine oil terminal in the Baltic Sea. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184: 2067-2078.

Bejarano, A.C., W.W. Gardiner, M.G. Barron and J.Q. Word. 2017. Relative sensitivity of Arctic species to physically and chemically dispersed oil determined from three hydrocarbon measures of aquatic toxicity. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 122(1-2): 316-322.

Beyer, J., C. Trannum, T. Bakke, P.V. Hodson and T.K. Collier. 2016. Environmental Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: A Review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 110: 28-51.

Blenkinsopp, S.A., G. Sergy, K. Doe, G. Wohlgeschaffen, K. Li and M. Fingas. 1996. Toxicity of the weathered crude oil used at the Newfoundland offshore burn experiment (NOBE) and the resultant burn residue. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, 3(4): 277-280.

Boertmann, D. and A. Mosbech. (Editors) 2011. Eastern Baffin Bay - A strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities. Aarhus University. Scientific Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 9: 270 pp.

Boertmann, D. and A. Mosbech (Editors). 2012. The Western Greenland Sea, A Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrocarbon Activities. Aarhus University. Scientific Report from DCE – Danish Centre For Environment and Energy, 22: 268 pp.

12-25 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Bosker, T., L. van Balen, B. Walsh, M.S. Sepúlveda, S. DeGuise, C. Perkins and R.J. Griffitt. 2017. The combined effect of Macondo oil and corexit on sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) during early development. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 80(9): 477- 484.

Brette, F., H.A. Shiels, G.L. Galli, C. Cros, J.P. Incardona, N.L. Scholz and B.A. Block. 2017. A novel cardiotoxic mechanism for a pervasive global pollutant. Scientific Reports, 7: .414.

Carroll, M., B. Gentner, S. Larkin, K. Quigley, N. Perlot, L. Dehner and A. Kroetz. 2016. An analysis of the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the Gulf of Mexico seafood industry. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2016-020. 202 pp.

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board) and CNSOPB (Canada- Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2017. Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating to Offshore Petroleum Activity. November 2017. Available at: http://www.cnlopb.ca/pdfs/guidelines/compgle.pdf?lbisphpreq=1.

Clark, R.B. 1984. Impact of oil pollution on seabirds. Environ. Poll., 33: 1-22.

Coelho, G. and A. Slaughter. 2020. Equinor Canada Ltd – East Coast Operations Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area. Spill Impact Mitigation Assessment. Sponson Group Inc. Technical Project Report 20-01. Mansfield, TX.

Cordes, E.E., D.O. Jones, T.A. Schlacher, D.J. Amon, A.F. Bernardino, S. Brooke, R. Carney, D.M. DeLeo, K.M. Dunlop, E.G. Escobar-Briones, A.R. Gates, L. Génio, J. Gobin, L.-A. Henry, S. Herrera, S. Hoyt, M. Joye, S. Kark, N.C. Mestre, A. Metaxas, S. Pfeifer, K. Sink, A.K. Sweetman and U. Witte. 2016. Environmental impacts of the deep-water oil and gas industry: A review to guide management strategies. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 4(Article 58): 26 pp. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00058

Dahlheim M.E. and C.O. Matkin. 1994. Assessment of injuries to Prince William Sound killer whales. Pp. 163-172. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.). Marine Mammals and the ‘Exxon Valdez’, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, xix + 395 pp.

DeLeo, D.M., D.V. Ruiz-Ramos, I.B. Baums and E.E. Cordes. 2016. Response of deep-water corals to oil and chemical dispersant exposure. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 129: 137-147.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). No Date. Multi-Partner Research Initiative. Available at https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/partnerships-partenariats/research-recherche/mpri- irmp/index-eng.html

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2013. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Provides Expertise to Assess the Impacts of Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Available at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2012/07-06-12-eng.html.

12-26 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Dias, L.A., J. Litz, L. Garrison, A. Martinez, K. Barry and T. Speakman. 2017. Exposure of cetaceans to petroleum products following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Endangered Species Research 33: 119-125.

Dupuis, A. and F. Ucan-Marin. 2015. A literature review on the aquatic toxicology of petroleum oil: An overview of oil properties and effects to aquatic biota. DFO Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res. Doc. 2015/07. vi + 52 pp.

Ellis, J., S. Wilhelm, A. Hedd, G. Fraser, G. Robertson, J.F. Rail, M. Fowler and K. Morgan. 2013. Mortality of migratory birds from marine commercial fisheries and offshore oil and gas production in Canada. Avian Conserv., Ecol., 8(2): 4.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2016. Regulations Establishing a List of Spill-treating Agents (Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act). Available at: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp- pr/p2/2016/2016-06-15/html/sor-dors108-eng.php#footnoteRef.53232.

European Union Parliament. 2013. Directorate-General for Internal Policies: The Impact of Oil and Gas Drilling Accidents on EU Fisheries. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2014/513996/IPOL- PECH_NT(2014)513996_EN.pdf.

Feiyue, W. No Date. MPRI Offshore Burning Experiment (MOBE). Available at https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp- content/uploads/sr/2021/mprimobe.pdf

Felder D.L, B.P. Thoma, W.E. Schmidt, T. Sauvage, S.L. Self-Krayesky, A. Chistoserdov, H.D. Bracken- Grissom and S. Fredericq. 2014. Seaweeds and decapod crustaceans on Gulf deep banks after the Macondo Oil Spill. Bioscience, 64(9): 808-819.

Finch, B.E., K.J. Wooten and P.N. Smith. 2011. Embryotoxicity of weathered crude oil from the Gulf of Mexico in mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 30(8), 1885-1891.

Fingas, M. 2017. A Review of Literature Related to Oil Spill Dispersants 2014-2017. Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (PWSRCAC), Anchorage, AK. Pp. 264

Fingas, M. 2018. In-Situ Burning for Oil Spill Countermeasures. CRC Press.

Fingas, M.F., G. Halley, F. Ackerman, R. Nelson, M. Bissonnette, N. Laroche, Z. Wang, P. Lambert, K. Li, P. Jokuty and G. Sergy. 1995. The Newfoundland offshore burn experiment-NOBE. In International Oil Spill Conference, 1995(1): 123-132).

Fiorello, C.V., K. Freeman, B.A. Elias, E. Whitmer, and M.H. Ziccardi. 2016. Ophthalmic effects of petroleum dispersant exposure on common murres (Uria aalge): An experimental study. Mar. Poll. Bull.. 113(1-2): 387-391.

12-27 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Fisher, C.R., A.W. Demopoulos, E.E. Cordes, I.B. Baums, H.K. White and J.R. Bourque. 2014. Coral communities as indicators of ecosystem-level impacts of the Deepwater Horizon spill. BioScience, 64(9): 796-807.

Franci, C.C., M. Guillemette, E. Pelletier, O. Chastel, S. Bonnefoi and J. Verreault. 2014. Endocrine status of a migratory bird potentially exposed to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: A case study of northern gannets breeding on Bonaventure Island, Eastern Canada. Science of the Total Environment, 473-474: 110-116. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.006.

Frantzena, M, I.B. Falk-Pettersen, J. Nahrgang, T. Smith, G.H. Olsen, T.A. Hagstad and L. Camus. 2012. Toxicity of crude oil and pyrene to the embryos of beach spawning capelin (Mallotus villosus). Aquat. Toxicol., 108: 42-52.

Fraser, G.S., J. Ellis and L. Hussain. 2008. An international comparison of governmental disclosure of hydrocarbon spills from offshore oil and gas installations. Mar. Poll. Bull., 56(1): 9-13.

French-McCay, D.P. 2009. State-of-the-art and research needs for oil spill impact assessment modeling. Pp. 601-653. In: Proceedings of the 32nd AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response, Emergencies Science Division, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. Available at: http://www.asascience.com/about/publications/pdf/2009/FrenchMcCay_AMOP09- biomodel-with-cite.pdf

Fritt-Rasmussen, J., J.F. Linnebjerg, M.X. Sørensen, N.L. Brogaard, F.F Rigét, P. Kristensen, G. Jomaas, D.M. Boertmann, S. Wegeberg and K. Gustavson. 2016. Effects of oil and oil burn residues on seabird feathers. Mar. Poll. Bull., 109(1): 446-452.

Fritt-Rasmussen, J., S. Wegeberg and K. Gustavson. 2015. Review on burn residues from in situ burning of oil spills in relation to Arctic waters. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 226(10): 1-12.

Gallaway, B.J., W.J. Konkel and B.L. Norcross. 2017. Some thoughts on estimating change to Arctic cod populations from hypothetical oil spills in the eastern Alaska Beaufort Sea. Arctic Science, (ja).

Gardiner, W.W., J.Q. Word, J.D. Word, R.A. Perkins, K.M. McFarlin, B.W. Hester, L.S. Word and C.M. Ray. 2013. The acute toxicity of chemically and physically dispersed crude oil to key arctic species under arctic conditions during the open water season. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(10): 2284-2300.

Geraci, J.R. 1990. Cetaceans and oil: Physiologic and toxic effects. Pp. 167-197. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.). Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 282 pp.

Geraci, J.R., and T.G. Smith. 1976. Direct and indirect effects of oil on Ringed Seals (Phoca hispida) of the Beaufort Sea. J. Fish. Brd,.Can., 33(9): 1976-1984, https://doi.org/10.1139/f76-252.

12-28 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Gero, S., R. Williams, L. Bejder. J. Calambokidis. S. Kraus. D. Lusseau, A. Read and J. Robbins. 2011. Underestimating the Damage: Interpreting Cetacean Carcass Recoveries in the Context of the Deepwater Horizon/BP Incident. Conservation Letters, Wiley-Blackwell.

Greer, C.D., P.V. Hodson, Z. Li, T. King and K. Lee. 2012. Toxicity of crude oil chemically dispersed in a wave tank to embryos of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 31(6): 1324-1333.

Haney, J.C., H.J. Geiger, and J.W. Short. 2014a. Bird mortality from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I. Exposure probability in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 513: 225-237. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10991

Haney, J.C., H.J. Geiger, and J.W. Short. 2014b. Bird mortality from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. II. Carcass sampling and exposure probability in the coastal Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 513: 239-252. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10839

Hartung, R. and G.S. Hunt. 1966. Toxicity of some oils to waterfowl. J. Wildl. Manage., 30: 564-570.

Helm, R.C., D.P. Costa, T.D. DeBruyn, T.J. O’Shea, R.S. Wells and T.M. Williams. 2015. Overview of Effects of Oil Spills on Marine Mammals. Pp. 455-475. In: M.V. Fingas (ed.). Handbook of Oil Spill Science and Technology. Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ.

Henkel, J.R., B.J. Sigel and C.M. Taylor. 2012. Large-scale impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Can local disturbance affect distant ecosystems through migratory shorebirds? Bioscience, 62: 676-685.

Howard, B. 2012. Assessing and managing the ecological risk to leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) from marine oil pollution in Atlantic Canada. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10222/15533.

Incardona, J.P., C.A. Vines, B.F. Anulacion, D.H. Baldwin, H.L. Day, B.L. French, .S. Labenia, T.L. Linbo, M.S. Myers, O.P. Olson, C.A. Sloan, S. Sol, F.J. Griffin, K. Menard, S.G. Morgan, J.E. West, T.K. Collier, G.M. Ylitalo, G.N. Cherr and N.L. Scholz. 2012. Unexpectedly high mortality of Pacific herring embryos exposed to the 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: E51-E58.

Ingvarsdottir, A., C. Bjorkblom, E. Ravagnan, B.F. Godal, M. Arnberg, D.L. Joachim and S. Sanni. 2012. Effects of different concentrations of crude oil on first feeding larvae of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). J. Mar. Sys. 93: 69-76.

Innu Nation. 2000. Power Struggle: An Innu Look at Hydro Developments in Nutassinan. Final Report. Innu Nation Community Consultation on the new Mishta-shipu Hydro Project. Available at: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/46059/46059E.pdf.

12-29 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers). 2013a. Oil Spill Detection and Mapping In Low Visibility And Ice: Surface Remote Sensing. Available at: http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Report-5.1-SURFACE- REMOTE-SENSING.pdf

IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers). 2013b. Capabilities for Detection Of Oil Spills Under Sea Ice from Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. Available at: http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Report-5.2- CAPABILITIES-FOR-DETECTION-OF-OIL-SPILLS-UNDER-SEA-ICE.pdf

IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers). 2016a. Remote Sensing Guide to Oil Spill Detection in Ice-Covered Waters. Available at: http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/Remote-Sensing-Guide-to-Oil-Spill-Detection-in-Ice-Covered- Waters.pdf

IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers). 2016b. Detection of Oil on-in-and-under Ice Final Report. Available at: http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/Remote-Sensing-Report-Final.pdf

IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers). 2017a. Evaluation of Infrared Sensors and Visible Spectrum Sensors to Detect Oil Spills on Ice Surfaces. Available at: http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Report-Evaluation-of- Infrared-Se.pdf

IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers). 2017b. Continued Development of an FMCW Radar System for Airborne Detection of Oil Spills Under and In Arctic Sea Ice. Available at: http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Report-Continued- development-of-.pdf

IPIECA (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association). 1997. Biological Impact of Oil Pollution: Fisheries. IPIECA Report Series, Volume 8. Available at: http://www.amn.pt/DCPM/Documents/Fisheries.pdf.

ITOPF (International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited). No date. Effects of Oil Pollution on Fisheries and Mariculture: Technical Information Paper. Available at: http://www.itopf.com/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS/TIP11EffectsofOilPollutiononFish eriesandMariculture.pdf.

ITOPF (International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation Limited). 2004. Oil Spill Effects on Fisheries. Available at: http://www.cleancaribbean.org/.

ITOFP (International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation). 2011. Effects of Oil Pollution on Fisheries and Mariculture. Technical Information Paper 11. Available at: https://www.itopf.org/knowledge- resources/documents-guides/technical-information-papers/

12-30 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

ITOFP (International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation). 2018. Arctic & Cold Climates. Available at: https://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/arctic-cold-climates/

Jung, S.W., O.Y. Kwon, C.K. Joo, J.-H. Kang, M. Kim, W.J. Shim and Y.-O. Kim. 2012. Stronger impact of dispersant plus crude oil on natural plankton assemblages in short-term marine mesocosms. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 217-218: 338-349.

Karlsson, J., C. Petrich, and H. Eicken. 2011. Oil entrainment and migration in laboratory–grown saltwater ice. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions.

Khan, R.A. and P. Ryan. 1991. Long term effects of crude oil on common murres (Uria aalge) following rehabilitation. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxic., 46: 216-222.

King, M.D., J.E. Elliott, and T.D. Williams. (2021). Effects of petroleum exposure on birds: a review. Science of the Total Environment. 755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142834.

Lari, E., B. Abtahi, M.S. Hashtroudi, E. Mohaddes and K.B. Døving. 2015. The effect of sublethal concentrations of the water‐soluble fraction of crude oil on the chemosensory function of Caspian roach, Rutilus caspicus (YAKOVLEV, 1870). Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 34(8), 1826-1832.

Lawler, G.C., W. Loong and J.L. Laseter. 1978. Accumulation of aromatic hydrocarbons in tissues of petroleum-exposed mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). Environ. Sci. Technol. Res., 12: 51-54.

Lee, K., M. Boufadel, B. Chen, J. Foght, P. Hodson, S. Swanson and A. Venosa. 2015. Expert Panel Report on the Behavior and Environmental Impacts of Crude Oil Released into Aqueous Environments. Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, ON.

LGL Limited. 2005. Orphan Basin Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Assessment. LGL Rep. SA825. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc., St. John’s, NL, SL Ross Environmental Research Limited, Ottawa, ON, Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, Lorax Environmental, Vancouver, BC, and PAL Environmental Services, St. John’s, NL, for Chevron Canada Limited, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, Calgary, AB and Shell Canada Limited.

Litz, J., M. Baran, R. Carmichael, K. Colegrove, S. Fire, E. Fougeres, R. Hardy, S. Holmes, W. Jones, B. Mase, D. Odell, D. Shannon, J. Saliki, S. Shippee, S. Smith, E. Stratton, S. Bowen-Stevens, M. Tumlin, H. Whitehead and T. Rowles. 2014. Review of historical unusual mortality events (UMEs) in the Gulf of Mexico (1990-2009): Providing context for the multi-year northern Gulf of Mexico cetacean UME declared in 2010. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 112: 161-175.

Lively, J.A.A. and J. McKenzie. 2014. Toxicity of the dispersant Corexit 9500 to early life stages of blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 93(6): 649- 653.

12-31 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Mager, E.M., A.J. Esbaugh, J.D. Stieglitz, R. Hoenig, C. Bodinier, J.P. Incardona, N.L. Scholz, D.D Benetti and M. Grosell. 2014. Acute embryonic or juvenile exposure to Deepwater Horizon crude oil impairs the swimming performance of mahi-mahi (Coryphaena hippurus). Environ. Sci. Technol., 48(12): 7053-7061.

Matkin, C.O., E.L. Saulitis, G.M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk and S.D. Rice. 2008. Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 356: 269-281.

Matkin, C.O., G.M. Ellis, M.E. Dahlheim and J. Zeh. 1994. Status of killer whales in Prince William Sound, 1985-1992. Pp. 141-162. In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.). Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 395 pp.

McCall, B.D. and S.C. Penning. 2012. Disturbance and recovery of salt marsh arthropod communities following BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. PLoS ONE. 7e32735. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032735.

McEwan, E.H. and P.M. Whitehead. 1980. Uptake and clearance of petroleum hydrocarbons by the glaucous-winged gull (Laras glaucescens) and the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos). Can. J. Zool., 58: 723-726.

Merkel, F., D. Boertmann, A. Mosbech and F. Ugarte (Editors). 2012. The Davis Strait. A preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the eastern Davis Strait. Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 280 pp. Scientific Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 15. Available at: http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/SR15.pdf.

Milton, S., P. Lutz and G. Shigenaka. 2010. Oil Toxicity and Impacts on Sea Turtles. In: G. Shigenaka (ed.). Oil and Sea Turtles. Biology, Planning and Response.

MMS (Minerals Management Service - Pacific OCS Region). 2001. Delineation Drilling Activities in Federal Waters Offshore Santa Barbara County, CA. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Camarillo, CA: US Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service.

Monson, D.H., D.H. Doak, B.E. Ballachey and J.L. Bodkin. 2011. Could residual oil from the Exxon Valdez spill create a long-term population ‘‘sink’’ for sea otters in Alaska? Ecological Applications, 21(8): 2917-2932.

Montagna P.A., J.G. Baguley, C. Cooksey, I. Hartwell and L.J. Hyde. 2013 Deep-sea benthic footprint of the Deepwater Horizon blowout. PLoS ONE 8(8): e70540. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070540;

Montevecchi, W.A., F.K. Wiese, G. Davoren, A.W. Diamond, F. Huettmann and J. Linke. 1999. Seabird Attraction to Offshore Platforms and Seabird Monitoring from Offshore Support Vessels and Other Ships: Literature Review and Monitoring Design. St. John’s, NL: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

12-32 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Morandin, L.A. P.D. and O’Hara. 2016. Offshore oil and gas, and operational sheen occurrence: Is there potential harm to marine birds? Environ. Reviews, 24(3): 285-318.

Murakamia, Y., S.-I. Kitamurab, K. Nakayamab, M. Matsuokac and H. Sakaguchi. 2008. Effects of heavy oil in the developing spotted halibut, Verasper variegates. Mar. Poll. Bull. 57(6-12): 524-528.

Nalcor Energy. 2010. Consultation Assessment Report: Supplemental Information to IR JRP.151. Available at: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/45397/45397E.pdf.

Naquin, M., W. Gillan, E. Masawe, C. Haynes, J. Osborn and M. Zannis. 2016. Perceptions and Behaviors Regarding Seafood Consumption Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Athens J. Health 3(3), 203-216.

National Research Council. 2005. Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 396 pp.

NMFS (US National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Sea Turtles, Dolphins, and Whales and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/gulf2010.htm.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Deepwater Horizon Response Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Report. 2010 Nov 2: Operational Period 196. Available at: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Consolidated%20Wildlife%20Tabl e%20110210.pdf.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2018. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 2010 - Sea Turtles, Dolphins, and Whales. Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life- distress/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-2010-sea-turtles-dolphins-and-whales .

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2019. Labrador Shelf Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment Update Traditional Knowledge Study – NunatuKavut Community Council. Report prepared in collaboration with Aivek Stantec.

O’Hara, P. and L.A. Morandin., 2010. Effects of sheens associated with offshore oil and gas development of the feather microstructure of pelagic seabirds. Mar. Pol. Bull., 60(5): 672-678.

Olsen, G.H., M.G. Smit, J. Carroll, I. Jæger, T. Smith and L. Camus. 2011. Arctic versus temperate comparison of risk assessment metrics for 2-methyl-naphthalene. Mar. Environ. Res. 72(4): 179- 187.

OSRL (Oil Spill Response Limited). No Date. Timelines. Available at: https://www.oilspillresponse.com/swis-appreciation-site/cappingsirt- process/mobilisation/timelines/

12-33 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

OSRL (Oil Spill Response Limited). 2019. OSRL Increases SWIS Air Freight Capability with new Transport Skid for Singapore Capping Stack. Available at: https://www.oilspillresponse.com/news--media/news/osrl-increases-swis-air-freight-capability- with-new-transport-skid-for-singapore-capping-stack/

Parsons, M.L., W. Morrisson, N.N. Rabalais, R.E. Turner and K.N. Tyre. 2015. Phytoplankton and the Macondo Spill: A comparison of the 2010 phytoplankton assemblage to baseline conditions on the Louisiana Shelf. Envir. Poll., 207: 152-160.

Peakall, D.B., Wells, P.G., and Mackay, D. 1987. A hazard assessment of chemically dispersed oil spills and seabirds. Mar. Environ. Res. 22: 91-106.

Pérez-del Olmo A., J.A. Raga A. Kostadinova and M. Fernández. 2007. Parasite communities in Boops boops (L.) (Sparidae) after the Prestige oil-spill: Detectable alterations. Mar. Poll. Bull., 54: 266- 276.

Prince, R.C. 2015. Oil spill dispersants: Boon or bane? Environ. Sci. Technol. 49: 6376-6384.

Rabalais N. 2014. Assessing early looks at biological responses to the Macondo event. BioScience, 64(9): 757-9.

Ragnarsson, S. Á., J.M. Burgos, T. Kutti, I. van den Beld, H. Egilsdóttir, S. Arnaud-Haond and A. Grehan, 2017. The impact of anthropogenic activity on cold-water Corals. Pp. 989-1023. In. S. Rossi, L. Bramanti, A. Gori and C. Orejas (eds.). Marine Animal Forests: The Ecology of Benthic Biodiversity Hotspots, Springer International Publishing. 1366 pp.

Roth, A.-M.F. and D.M. Baltz. 2009. Short-term effects of an oil spill on marsh-edge fishes and decapod crustaceans. Estuaries and Coasts, 32(3): 565-572

Schrope, M. 2011. Deep wounds. Nature, 472: 152-154.

Schwacke, L., C.R. Smith, F. Townsend, R. Wells, L. Hart, B. Balmer, T. Collier, S. De Guise, M. Fry, L. Guillette, S. Lamb, S. Lane, W. McFee, N. Place, M. Tumlin, G. Ylitalo, E. Zolman and T. Rowles. 2014. Health of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48(1): 93-103.

SEM (Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd.) 2008. Strategic Environmental Assessment Labrador Shelf Offshore Area. Project No. P 064. Prepared for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John’s, NL. 518 pp.

Seuront L. 2010. Zooplankton avoidance behaviour as a response to point sources of hydrocarbon- contaminated water. Mar. Freshw. Res., 61(3): 263-270.

Smultea, M.A. and B. Würsig. 1995. Behavioral reactions of bottlenose dolphins to the Mega Borg oil spill, Gulf of Mexico 1990. Aquatic Mamm., 21: 171-181.

12-34 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Sørensen, L., E. Sørhus, T. Nordtug, J.P.Incardona, T.L. Linbo, L. Giovanetti, Ø. Karlsen and S. Meier. 2017. Oil droplet fouling and differential toxicokinetics of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in embryos of Atlantic haddock and cod. PloS one, 12(7), e0180048.

Spraker, T.R., L.F. Lowry and K.J. Frost. 1994. Gross necropsy and histopathological lesions found in harbor seals. Pp. 281-311 In: T.R. Loughlin (ed.). Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 395 pp.

St. Aubin, D.J. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects on polar bears. Pp. 235-239. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.). Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 282 pp.

Stacy, B.A., B.P. Wallace, T. Brosnan, S.M. Wissmann, B.A. Schroeder, A.M. Lauritsen, R.F. Hardy, J.L. Keene and S.A. Hargrove. 2019. Guidelines for Oil Spill Response and Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Sea Turtles. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and National Ocean Service, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-61. 197 pp.

Statoil Canada. 2017. Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Program Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by AMEC Foster Wheeler and Stantec Consulting. St. John’s NL Canada. December 2017.

Sumaila, U.R., A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, A. Dyck, L. Huang, W. Cheung, J. Jacquet, K. Kleisner, V. Lam, A. McCrea-Strub, W. Swartz, R. Watson, D. Zeller and D. Pauly. 2012.. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon well blowout on the economics of US Gulf fisheries. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69: 499–510.

Teal, J.M. and R.W. Howarth. 1984. Oil spill studies: a review of ecological effects. Environ. Mgmt. 8: 27- 44.

Tjeerdema, R., A.C. Bejarano and S. Edge. 2013. Biological Effects of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil on Surface and Deep Ocean Species. From the Oil Spill Dispersant-related Research Workshop, hosted by the Center for Spills in the Environment. March 12-13, 2013. Baton Rouge, LA.

Tuarze, P., M. Stephenson, P. Mazzocco, and L. Knopper. 2019. A physiologically based oiling model (PBOM) to predict thermoregulatory response in oiled birds. Pp. 111-123. In: Proceedings of the 42nd AMOP Technical Seminar, Environment and Climate Change Canada, ON.

Vander Zanden, H.B., A.B. Bolten, A.D. Tucker, K.M. Hart, M.M. Lamont, I Fujisaki, K.J. Reich, D.S. Addison, K.L. Mansfield, K.F. Phillips, M. Pajuelo and K.A. Bjorndal. 2016. Biomarkers reveal sea turtles remained in oiled areas following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Ecological Applications: A Publication of the Ecological Society of America, 26(7): 2145-2155.

Wallace, B.P., T. Brosnan, D. McLamb, T. Rowles, E. Ruder, B. Schroeder, L. Schwacke, B. Stacy, L. Sullivan, R. Takeshita and D. Wehner. 2017. Effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on protected marine species. Endangered Species Research 33: 1-7.

12-35 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Accidental Events July 2021

Wallace, B.P., B.A. Stacey, E. Cuevas, C. Holyoake, P.H. Lara, C.J. Marcondes, J.D. Miller, H. Nijkamp, N.J. Pilcher, I. Robinson, N. Rutherford and G. Shigenaka. 2020. Oil spills and sea turtles: documented effects and considerations for response and assessment efforts. Endangered Species Research 41: 17-37. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr01009

White, H.K., P.Y. Hsing, W. Cho, T.M. Shank, E.E. Cordes, A.M. Quattrini, R.K. Nelson, R, Camilli, A.W. Demopoulos, C.R. German and J.M. Brooks. 2012. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral community in the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50): 20303-20308.

Whitehead, A., B. Dubansky, C. Bodinier, T.I. Garcia, S. Miles, C. Pilley, V. Raghunathan, J.L. Roach, N. Walker, R.B. Walter, C.D. Rice and F. Galvez. 2012. Genomic and physiological footprint of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident marsh fishes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (50): 20298-20302. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109545108

Whitmer, E.R., B.A. Elias, D.J. Harvey and M.H. Ziccardi. 2018. An experimental study of the effects of chemically dispersed oil on feather structure and waterproofing in Common Murres (Uria aalge). Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 54(2): 315-328.

Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond and J. Linke. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the Northwest Atlantic. Mar. Poll. Bull., 42(12): 1285-1290.

Wiese, F.K. and G.J. Robertson. 2004. Assessing seabird mortality from chronic oil discharges at sea. J. Wildl. Manage. 68: 627-638.

Wilhelm, S.I., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan, and D.C. Schneider. 2007. Comparing an estimate of seabirds at risk to a mortality estimate from the November 2004 Terra Nova FPSO oil spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 54(5): 537-544. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.12.019

Wilkinson, J., C.J. Beegle-Krause, KU Evers, N. Hughes, A. Lewis, M Reed and P. Wadhams. 2017. Oil spill response capabilities and technologies for ice-covered Arctic marine waters: A review of recent developments and established practices. Ambio. 46: 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0958-y

Würsig, B. 1990. Cetaceans and oil: Ecologic perspectives. Pp. 129-1653. In: J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.). Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Yender, R.J., J. Michel and C. Lord. 200). Managing Seafood Safety after an Oil Spill. Seattle Hazardous Materials Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 72 pp.

Ylitalo, G.M., T.K. Collier, B.F. Anulacion, K. Juaire, R.H. Boyer, D.A.M. Da Silva, J.L. Keene and B.A. Stacy. 2017. Determining oil and dispersant exposure in sea turtles from the northern Gulf of Mexico resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Endangered Species Research 33: 9-24.

12-36 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021

13.0 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT

Offshore oil and gas activities occurring in the Canada-NL Offshore Area, including those projects that have the potential to occur within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, can be influenced by the existing environmental conditions and associated factors where the project is located. These environmental factors include met-ocean conditions (e.g., wind, precipitation, fog, visibility), oceanographic factors (e.g., waves and currents), presence of sea ice and icebergs, and the existing geology of the area. Anticipated climate change effects on the above factors also need to be considered. These existing environmental factors should be considered in the design and planning of potential future offshore oil and gas activities if they do occur within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, including mitigation measures to reduce the potential for interaction from the existing environment on project-related activities and infrastructure.

This chapter considers how existing environmental conditions and potential natural hazards in and around the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area could interact with and result in adverse effects on oil and gas activities, including exploration and production activities. These sections are designed to provide an updated discussion to the original SEA Report (SEM 2008). Also discussed in this section are relevant engineering and environmental design criteria, industry standards, guidelines, regulatory conditions, and mitigation measures to help further reduce the potential for interactions. 13.1 MET-OCEAN CONDITIONS

Met-ocean conditions that could influence oil and gas operations offshore include low temperatures, snow, sleet, rain, and high sea-states, which can occur in sub-Arctic environments, such as the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Extreme low temperatures have the potential to reduce the integrity of some components and increase susceptibility to accidental events. The materials and components selected for offshore oil and gas activities will be required to comply with applicable codes and standards, and are expected to maintain structural integrity at the anticipated minimum ambient temperatures in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area.

Wind, snow, sleet, high sea-states, and ice have the potential to increase structural loadings of the components associated with exploratory and production platforms, seismic vessels that may be present offshore, and support vessels and tankers transiting throughout the area. Many NunatuKavut Community Council members highlighted the increased potential of accidental events from the more frequent, stronger winds in the region (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

As discussed in Section 4.4.5, the majority of significant wave heights lie between 1 to 3 m in height and have the highest potential to occur in the winter and lowest potential in the summer. Wind speeds are also higher within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area during the late fall and winter months, compared to the summer. This is due to a higher amount of low pressure systems entering offshore Labrador during this time of year. Winds in this area are typically ranging between light and strong (0.5 to 17.5 m/s), with gale force winds have a lower frequency of occurrence and usually the result of a low-pressure system or remnants of a tropical storm. As tropical storms move northward and lose their strength as they enter colder waters, they often turn into extratropical systems, resulting in a larger overall size, gale -force

13-1 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021 winds, larger waves, and intense rainfall. Between 1986 and 2015, approximately 32 tropical systems have passed within 278 km of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area (see Section 4.4.4.5).

Extreme wind and wave analysis conducted for the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area show annual 100- year significant wave heights ranging between 11.6 and 14.5 m, and annual 100-year wind speeds between 27.4 and 31.4 m/s.

Throughout the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, there is between 20% and 30% chance of precipitation occurring annually. In the winter months, snow comprises the highest amount of precipitation, comprising of approximately 50% of precipitation in northern portions of the area, to approximately 21% in the more southerly portions of the area. Rain and drizzle is more common form of precipitation in the summer months throughout the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area.

Reduction in visibility due to precipitation is also common in the offshore environment, and can occur during every month of the year. Advection fog is one of the main contributors of reduced visibility. It occurs as warm moist air moves over cooler surface water. This occurrence of fog is most common in the spring and summer months when the surface water is cooler than the warmer airflows offshore. In the winter, snow, freezing drizzle, and other freezing forms of precipitation are the main causes of reduced visibility. The months of June, July, and August have the most observations where visibility is reduced to <1 km. June and July are noted as the months that have the most days of reduced visibility.

The combination of wave height, sea spray, and air and water temperature can generate spray icing on vessels or other oil and gas components. Ice buildup on structures depends on a number of environmental factors, including air temperature, water temperature, water salinity, wave conditions, and wind speed. The freezing of salt spray may also occur under certain conditions like when air temperature is below -1.8°C, sea temperature is below 6°C, and wind speeds are greater than 10 m/s (Statoil Canada 2017). Other factors that could influence the rate of icing on a structure include the size, weight, hull design, and amount of equipment and superstructure exposed to the elements. Vessel speed and heading into the wind will determine the amount of icing experienced. Superstructure icing can result in a raised centre of gravity of offshore structures and vessels, slower speeds of vessels, maneuvering difficulty, and problems with cargo-handling equipment (DFO 2012). Delays in offshore activities could occur if operations are slowed down or suspended to remove ice accumulations caused by superstructure icing. In worst-case scenarios, if ice build-up is not managed, it could cause permanent damage to structures (DFO 2012). The design of offshore infrastructure, such as vessels and platforms, is such that they must be able to withstand extreme wind, ocean waves, snow, sleet and ice events.

As discussed in Section 4.4.10, spray icing predictions for the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area indicate that potential for spray icing occurs in September with a 0.7% chance of occurring and remains until July, which has a 0.2% chance of occurring. However, in February there was a 97.7% chance of icing potential. This high potential of icing in the winter decreases in more southerly portions of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area.

13-2 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021

The main effect of severe weather conditions on oil and gas activities occurring offshore would be to limit operations or force them to stop for a period of time. This could include things such as delayed helicopter flights and/or support vessel / tanker trips to offshore platforms or ceasing drilling or production activities until the weather conditions improve.

As discussed in the original SEA Report (SEM 2008), operating thresholds for a drillship and semi- submersible are such that they can stay drilling up to an approximately 2.5 m heave, with some pitch / roll limits. Between a 2.5 m and 6 m heave, a rig can stay on location and stay connected but will be unable to drill. At a 6 m heave and above, a rig will need to disconnect and move off location. Both types of hulls would have generally same limits in terms of heave, different limits in terms of pitch and roll, with a drillship having less tolerance for pitch / roll. This will be an important consideration during project planning for operators.

With respect to seismic vessels, most environmental constraints on seismic surveys offshore Labrador are those imposed by wind and wave conditions. If wind speeds are generally 33 knots (approximately 17 m/s), there is generally too much noise and can compromise seismic data. A Beaufort wind scale of 7 is equivalent to wind speeds of 33 knots (approximately 17 m/s), and is associated with wave heights ranging from 4.0 to 5.5 m. Wave heights that reach a height greater than 3 m warrant consideration of suspending seismic surveys (LGL 2018).

In addition to subsea infrastructure, seawater is used as a cooling medium for a number of processes, exposing piping and other infrastructure to potential corrosion. Platforms have corrosion protection / control and systems to monitor corrosion systems and foundation integrity. Corrosion inhibitors or biocides (hypochlorite) are typically used in the OLS and/or flowlines. Engineering design adheres to national / international standards and the design life of a platform is taken into consideration so that materials are chosen with sufficient durability and corrosion resistance (ExxonMobil Canada Properties 2011).

In terms of potential production and potential future projects, a fixed production facility selected to operate within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area would have to be designed and built according to engineering standards, to be able to withstand pack ice conditions and icebergs. Such examples exist in the form of the Hibernia and Hebron production platforms that currently operate on the Grand Banks. 13.2 SEA ICE AND ICEBERGS

One aspect of working in the offshore environment, and within the harsh-environmental conditions of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, is the presence of sea ice and icebergs during certain times of the year. Sea ice and icebergs represent navigational hazards with the potential to affect operations of oil and gas activities through interactions such as:

• Limiting or delaying movements of support vessels / tankers to offshore platforms • Reducing operating time of offshore platforms or forcing platforms such as FPSOs to disconnect from flowlines to avoid icebergs in the case of an emergency • Interfering with seismic surveys if the presence of sea ice prevents certain areas from being surveyed, or if the vessel has to move off course to avoid an iceberg

13-3 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021

• Potential iceberg scouring in shallower depths, which has the potential to damage subsea components of offshore oil and gas activities (e.g., flowlines).

The presence of sea ice and icebergs can also increase the risk of an accidental event and safety to personnel offshore in the event of an emergency like a collision with an iceberg. Many NunatuKavut Community Council members highlighted the increased potential of accidental events from the increasing amount of sea ice and icebergs in the region (NunatuKavut Community Council 2019).

As discussed in Section 4.6, The Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is subject to the presence of both sea ice and icebergs during certain times of the year. Pack ice is predominantly present in the winter (i.e., December to February) and spring (i.e., March to May) months, with data showing pack ice being present along the entire Labrador coastline, and with higher thicknesses of pack ice present than in other months of the year. Days with open water in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area are also lower in the winter and spring due to the presence of pack ice and icebergs. On average between 2007 and 2016, days of open water were reduced in both the winter and spring months. During the spring, the majority of the Labrador coast ranged from 5 to 55 days of open water.

Environmental factors such as iceberg concentration, ocean currents, and wind determine how icebergs will drift through the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Icebergs typically tend to follow bathymetric contours, which may allow some predictability on where they may travel as they move from north to south. Sea ice conditions vary each year and by location and are influenced by winter conditions (colder or milder) and seasonal wind patterns. Ice is moved further offshore when there are cold and dry winds from the west and through the north, while ice is brought towards shore when there are northeasterly winds (Statoil Canada 2017).

Sea ice is an important factor in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, and it affects oil and gas industry- related issues that include underwater sound transmission, spill behaviour, and spill remediation. 13.3 EXISTING GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

As discussed in the original SEA Report (SEM 2008), the existing geology of the Labrador Shelf is important to the oil and gas industry in terms of determining oil and gas potential within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Eastern Canada is located within a relatively stable area of the North American Plate, where seismic events such as earthquakes have a relatively low potential of occurring. According to AMEC (2014), there are approximately 450 earthquakes that occur each year in eastern Canada, with the majority of these events registering magnitudes between two and three on the Richter scale.

As mentioned in Section 4.2, there have been approximately 104 registered seismic events that have occurred in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area between 2000 and 2018. Of these events, 94 had magnitudes of 2 to 4 and 10 had magnitudes between 4 and 5. Many of these events occurred along the Labrador Ridge Seismic Zone.

Potential other hazards related to geology other than earthquakes include slope and seabed instabilities, sediment loading, venting of shallow gas, and gas hydrates. The gradient, magnitude of seismic acceleration, and sediment strength determine whether sediment failure will occur (Statoil Canada 2017).

13-4 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021

Most sediments found on continental margins are relatively stable and would require seismic accelerations associated with a large earthquake, with a magnitude of five or greater, to cause sediment failure (Nadim et al. 2005), with the exception of slopes of more than a few degrees.

Analysis has indicated that there is a major risk of a landslide approximately every 20,000 years, and risk of a minor one every few thousand years in a given area in the Eastern Canada offshore. Most larger sediment failures that have been observed on the seabed date back more than 10,000 years, when large amounts of sediment were deposited onto the slope of the continental shelf from glaciers (Statoil Canada 2017).

While the east coast of Canada, including the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, has been classified as having a low seismic hazard, a seismic event could contribute to seafloor and sediment instability and could disrupt Project activities and increase the potential for accidental events. It has been estimated that earthquakes with a magnitude of six or greater could potentially cause structural damage to offshore facilities and components. This would include things such as direct interactions from landslides on the seabed or tsunamis on subsea infrastructure or drilling / production installations operating at the surface. 13.4 SUMMARY

The potential for interactions from the existing environment on potential oil and gas activities that may occur within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area will depending primarily on the scale of the activity. Projects with more associated offshore components and a longer temporal scope will naturally have a higher probability for an interaction with environmental events if they were to occur. Production projects, which last between 10 and 40 years and have more associated infrastructure (e.g., flowlines, tie-backs, drill centres) would likely have a greater potential for interaction than a seismic survey, which may only last a month and does not require permanent offshore infrastructure. 13.5 MITIGATING EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON POTENTIAL PROJECTS

While there is potential for interactions between the existing environment on offshore oil and gas activities, there are several mitigation measures and industry best-practices that can be implemented in order to reduce this potential. The primary means of mitigating adverse environmental effect of the environment on oil and gas activities offshore is through detailed engineering design that takes environmental factors into consideration, avoidance of environmental hazards when feasible, and compliance with industry standards and codes of best practice. Table 13.1 provides a summary of mitigation measures, many of which are required by regulation and/or through the C-NLOPB’s authorization processes, to reduce the risk for interactions from the environment on projects.

Offshore operators typically have company-specific response plans for things such as extreme weather events, icebergs and sea ice, and natural hazards, as well as emergency response plans / oil spill response plans to react to the potential environmental effect(s) that could result from these environmental events / hazards. As a result, this summary table is not meant to be exhaustive, and project-specific EAs may have mitigation measures specific to a project.

13-5 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021

Table 13.1 Mitigation Measures for Potential Effects of the Environment on Oil and Gas Activities

Environmental Mitigation Measures Condition General Conditions • Operators will obtain daily forecasts for the area of operations to determine if there is increased risk to activities • Communication protocols and channels will be in place between various project components (e.g., platforms, vessels, and shore base) • The overall engineering and design of offshore components will consider the loads imposed by ice, snow, waves, tides, current, and temperature • Exploration / drilling platforms and/or vessels selected to operate in offshore Labrador will be designed for all-weather and certified to operate in extreme environments • A Certificate of Fitness will be obtained for offshore platforms and vessels from an independent certifying authority prior to commencing operations, as per the Newfoundland Offshore Certificate of Fitness Regulations • Support vessels will receive inspections and audits by the C-NLOPB as part of the pre-authorization inspection process • Operators are required to implement a physical environment monitoring program, in accordance with the Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Drilling and Production Regulations that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Offshore Physical Environmental Guidelines (September 2008). The physical environment monitoring program needs to be submitted to the C-NLOPB for acceptance prior to the start of the drilling or production activities Reduced Visibility • If visibility requirements for helicopter flights offshore are not met, then flights to platforms will not occur until those requirements are met • Support vessels / tankers will operate at slower speeds during periods of severely reduced visibility • Obstruction lights, navigational lights, and foghorns associated with offshore platforms will be maintained, regularly inspected, and be in working condition • Communication protocols will be established to further accommodate reduced visibility Extreme Weather • Support vessel / tanker captains, helicopter pilots, and Offshore Installation Managers Condition Events will have the authority to modify or cease operations in the case of extreme weather events • If required to extreme weather events, offshore platforms will be designed with the ability to disconnect quickly from a well of flowlines and be able to move to reduce the risk of an incident or damage to equipment or personnel. • Support vessels and offshore platforms will be equipped with lightning protection systems to ground electrical charges and transfer the energy to the sea water to be dissipated • Safe work practices will be implemented to reduce to potential of injury to personnel, including restricting access to external areas of offshore platforms or vessels during adverse weather conditions Climate Change • Careful and considered design in accordance with factors of safety, best engineering practice, and adherence with standards and codes • Engineering design practices that will consider predictions for climate and climate change Waves and Currents • Offshore platforms, if built, will incorporate water current loads into their design Corrosion • Platforms should have corrosion protection / control systems • Corrosion inhibitors or biocides (hypochlorite) are typically used • Engineering design includes materials with sufficient durability and corrosion resistance

13-6 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021

Table 13.1 Mitigation Measures for Potential Effects of the Environment on Oil and Gas Activities

Environmental Mitigation Measures Condition Sea Ice and • Operators will develop and submit an ice management plan prior to conducting drilling Icebergs activity, as required for an operations authorization from the C-NLOPB and as per the Offshore Physical Environment Guidelines (NEB et al. 2008) • Equipment will be installed and functioning on offshore structures and vessels to detect pack ice or icebergs when they come within a certain distance of offshore components • When detected, sea ice will be monitored to determine its movement speed, direction, classification, and determination of its general track • Detailed information on physical dimensions, iceberg draft of depth, and accurate drift is required the closer that the ice approaches offshore components • Subsea infrastructure will be designed and installed at a depth that will prevent damage from iceberg scouring in shallower water depths • In the event of an approaching iceberg, offshore platforms will be designed to be able to quickly disconnect from a riser / drill stem or flowlines to avoid if and reduce the potential risk for an accidental event Superstructure Icing • Offshore platforms used for drilling and production will be a certified all-weather platform specifically designed to operate in harsh environmental conditions • Ice accumulation will be monitored in times when superstructure icing is visible and will be removed on a regular basis • Offshore components will incorporate added load pressures due to ice and snow accumulation Earthquakes and • The design of offshore infrastructure, including drilling and production platforms, and Seismic Events subsea components, will incorporate the potential loads imposed by seismic activity such as earthquakes and other phenomenon • Operators are required to undertake geohazard surveys prior to commencing project activities such as drilling or production, to determine if there are hazards present in the immediate area

Within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, sea ice and icebergs represent one of the largest environmental challenges to offshore oil and gas activities and are an important consideration when planning and designing future oil and gas activities offshore. The iceberg season in Labrador is typically during the spring and summer, as icebergs move from west Greenland and make their way along the Labrador Shelf and south to the waters of Newfoundland. Seasonal outlooks combined with aerial reconnaissance flights are typically completed in association with oil and gas activities to determine the intensity of sea ice in a certain area. Forecasting and monitoring the presence of sea ice is common practice for oil and gas operators in areas where sea ice and iceberg intrusion occurs frequently. In addition to real-time ice monitoring that happens onboard offshore platforms and vessels, the Canadian Ice Service provides summaries of ice distribution in areas of NL regularly, and this information is available to operators.

Physical iceberg management often includes towing icebergs away from or deflecting them off their free- drifting track and is done upstream to reduce potential for interaction and allow icebergs and sea ice to move south without coming into contact with oil and gas activities (Statoil Canada 2017). Iceberg towing typically uses ropes or tow nets that are specifically designed for icebergs. Other management

13-7 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021 procedures for sea ice may include breaking up ice with an icebreaker or using water cannons to break apart or push sea ice away from offshore platforms.

The planning, design, and regulatory review and approval of future seismic survey programs, exploration drilling, and production activities within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area will take into consideration the analysis of existing information on the physical environmental conditions in the region and the potential effects that the existing physical environment could have on project components, safety of personnel, and the natural environment. Regulations and associated guidance, include the Offshore Physical Environmental Guidelines (NEB et al. 2008), provide an overview of requirements for operators of offshore drilling or production platforms regarding weather reporting, observing, and forecasting. Operators are also required to submit management plans to the C-NLOPB regarding weather observations, forecasting, reporting, and response measures as part of the C-NLOPB Operations Authorization process, prior to offshore drilling taking place. These programs and plans are designed to provide the necessary weather, oceanographic, and ice information to both operators and regulators, so that operations can be carried out with the least amount of risk for interaction. 13.6 REFERENCES

AMEC Environment and Infrastructure. 2014. Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment. Final Report. Submitted to Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John’s, NL. Available at: http://www.cnlopb.ca/sea/eastern.php.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2012. Ice Navigation in Canadian Waters. 153 pp. Available at: https://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/publications/icebreaking-deglacage/ice-navigation-glaces/docs/ice- navigation-dans-les-galces-eng.pdf

ExxonMobil Canada Properties. 2011. Hebron Development Project Comprehensive Study Report. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/assessments/hebron/

LGL Limited. 2018. Environmental Assessment of Multiklient Invest Labrador Offshore Seismic Program, 2018-2023. LGL Rep. FA0106B. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL for Multiklient Invest AS, Oslo, Norway, and TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA, Houston, Texas, USA. 221 pp. + Appendices.

Nadim, F., T.J. Kvalstad and T. Guttormsen. 2005. Quantification of risks associated with seabed instability. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 22: 311-318.

NEB (National Energy Board), Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. 2008. Offshore Physical Environmental Guidelines. vii + 28 pp. + Appendices. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp- content/uploads/guidelines/peg_guidelines.pdf

13-8 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Effects of the Environment on the Project July 2021

NunatuKavut Community Council. 2019. Labrador Shelf Offshore Area Strategic Environmental Assessment Update Traditional Knowledge Study – NunatuKavut Community Council. Report prepared in collaboration with Aivek Stantec.

SEM (Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd.) 2008. Strategic Environmental Assessment Labrador Shelf Offshore Area. Project No. P 064. Prepared for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, St. John’s, NL. 518 pp.

Statoil Canada. 2017. Flemish Pass Exploration Drilling Program – Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by AMEC Foster Wheeler and Stantec Consulting. St. John’s, NL, Canada. December 2017.

13-9 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

14.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This SEA Update has been completed in relation to potential offshore oil and gas activities in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, including potential seismic surveys (2D, 3D, geohazard, and VSP), exploration and delineation drilling programs, and field development / production. The C-NLOPB will use the information presented in this SEA Update in decision-making for offshore oil and gas activities for the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. The SEA provides an overview of the existing environment of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, discusses in broad terms the potential environmental effects that may be associated with offshore oil and gas exploration and production in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, identifies knowledge and data constraints, highlights key issues of concern and makes recommendations for mitigation and planning. Information from the SEA will assist the C-NLOPB in determining whether exploration rights should be offered in whole or in part for the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area and may identify general restrictive or mitigative measures that may be considered for application to seismic surveys and/or drilling activities. 14.1 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION

The C-NLOPB is responsible, on behalf of the Government of Canada and the Government of NL, for petroleum resource management in the Canada-NL Offshore Area through the Accord Acts. In addition to the Acts, regulations and guidelines have been established to assist with the governance of the Acts and Operators would be required to comply with both the Accord Acts and applicable regulations and guidelines.

• Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Drilling and Production Regulations • Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Petroleum Geophysical Operations Regulations • Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Installations Regulation • Newfoundland Offshore Certificate of Fitness Regulation • Newfoundland Offshore Area Oil and Gas Operations Regulations • Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Financial Requirements Regulations • Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act • Development Plan Guidelines (C-NLOPB 2006) • Offshore Physical Environmental Guidelines (NEB et al. 2008) • Guidelines Respecting the Selection of Chemicals Intended to be Used in Conjunction with Offshore Drilling and Production Activities on Frontier Lands (NEB et al. 2009) • Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (NEB et al. 2010) • Safety Plan Guidelines (NEB et al. 2011a) • Environmental Protection Plan Guidelines (NEB et al. 2011b) • Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits Plan Guidelines (DRAFT) (C-NLOPB 2016) • Drilling and Production Guidelines (C-NLOPB and CNSOPB 2017a) • Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating to Offshore Petroleum Activity (C-NLOPB and CNSOPB 2017a)

14-1 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• Guidelines Respecting Financial Requirements (NEB et al. 2017) • Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines, Newfoundland Offshore Area (C-NLOPB 2019) • Statement of Canadian Practice with Respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment (DFO 2007) • Regulations Respecting Reduction in the Release of Methane and Certain Volatile Organic Compounds (Upstream Oil and Gas Sector) (ECCC 2020)

The key regulations and guidelines of relevance to offshore oil and gas activities listed above are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all potentially applicable requirements. Applicable regulations [https://www.cnlopb.ca/legislation/regulations/] and guidelines [https://www.cnlopb.ca/legislation/guidelines/] are available on the C-NLOPB website. 14.2 SENSITIVE AREAS

The Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is a unique subarctic environment that has a number of areas and places that are described in the original SEA Report as sensitive areas. For the purposes of the SEA Update, the term sensitive area is defined as:

• An area that is afforded some level of protection (for the primary purpose of conservation) under provincial or federal legislation. • An area that may be under consideration for such legislative protection (e.g., candidate area or area of interest). • An area that is known to have particular ecological and/or cultural importance and is not captured under federal or provincial regulatory framework (e.g., corals, spawning, nursery, rearing, or migratory areas, areas of high productivity, IBAs, EBSAs, SBAs, VMEs, and areas of traditional harvesting activities).

An identified sensitive area within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area does not automatically imply that this area will require the application of enhanced mitigation measures or restriction on activities. The timing, spatial extent, and nature of proposed oil and gas activities, in addition to mitigation measures prescribed by legislation, will determine the level of restriction or mitigation that will be required.

Sensitive areas that have been identified within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area include:

• Thirteen Canadian EBSAs (Northern Labrador, Outer Shelf Saglek Bank, Outer Shelf Nain Bank, Nain Area, Hopedale Saddle, Labrador Slope, Labrador Marginal Trough, Hamilton Inlet, Lake Melville, Gilbert Bay, Orphan Spur, Southern Pack Ice, and Strait of Belle Isle) • Coral and sponge SBAs • Four marine refuges (Hatton Basin, Hopedale Saddle, Northeast Newfoundland Slope Closure, and Hawke Channel) • Torngat Mountain National Park • Mealy Mountain National Park Reserve • Gilbert Bay MPA

14-2 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• A number of historic sites and structures located on the Labrador coast within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Areas, including, but not limited to Battle Harbour National Historic District, Hopedale Mission National Historic Site, Battle Harbour Historic District National Historic Site of Canada, Bunkhouse / Cookhouse Registered Heritage Structure, Benjy’s Cove, Hebron Mission National Historic Site, Okak National Historic Site, White Elephant Building Registered Heritage Structure, Makkovik, Moravian Church Registered Heritage Structure, Nain • In September 2019, the Federal Government, along with the Nunatsiavut Government, announced an Area of Interest in the waters east of Torngat Mountains National Park for the potential creation of Inuit Protected Area under the National Marine Conservation Act. • Gannett Islands Ecological Reserve • Fourteen IBAs (in additional to Gannett Islands) (Galvano Island, Seven Island Bay, Nain Coastline, Offshore Island Southeast of Nain, Quaker Hat Island, Northeast Groswater Bay, South Groswater Bay Coastline, Tumbledown Dick and Stag Islands, Cape Porcupine, Table Bay, Bird Island, Goose Brook, The Backway, and St. Peter Bay) • Two CBD EBSAs (Labrador Sea Deep Convection Area and Seabird Foraging Zone in the Labrador Sea) 14.3 POTENTIAL ISSUES

While there are a variety of potential issues that are generally applicable to offshore oil and gas activities, the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is a subarctic environment that has its own unique set of issues that may not be found in more temperate environments. Issues are not considered in isolation, although these are provided below in a list for ease of identification. Associated with potential issues are data constraints that may in part be why an item is considered an issue. Issues and related data constraints result in the need for potential mitigation measures and planning implications to address or mitigate the issue. Potential issues associated with offshore oil and gas activities, regardless of the locale, include:

• Effects of sounds associated with industrial activities, including seismic surveys, on marine mammals including polar bears, sea turtles, seabirds, invertebrates, fish, and SAR • Attraction of seabirds to drill units and survey and support vessels • Fishery exclusion / safety zones • Potential sensitivity of suspension and filter-feeding benthic invertebrates, including hard corals, to drilling discharges • Potential collision between survey and support vessels and tankers and marine mammals (including SAR) • Disturbance to sensitive areas and life histories such as migration routes, spawning areas, and nurseries • Potential cumulative environmental effects from offshore oil and gas activities and effects from other users in the same vicinity (e.g., commercial fishing, vessel traffic, traditional land and resource use by Indigenous peoples, and tourism and recreation-related activities) • Effects of routine discharges (drill cuttings, produced water, storage displacement water, bilge and ballast water, deck drainage, cooling water, cement slurries, BOP fluid, sewage, and food wastes) on birds, marine mammals, sea turtles, invertebrates, fish and related habitat, commercial fisheries, and SAR

14-3 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• Effects of accidental events on birds, marine mammals, sea turtles, invertebrates, fish and related habitat, commercial fisheries, and SAR

There are several potential issues that are specific to the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area because of its unique environment. These include:

• Potential sensitivity of eelgrass beds, shallow subtidal and intertidal areas to accidental events, as they are host to a variety of migratory birds (including SAR) • Important habitat within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area used by birds for breeding, nesting, and overwintering • The presence of a coral conservation area, near the northern edge of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area • Area of Interest in the waters east of Torngat Mountains National Park for the potential creation of Inuit Protected Area under the National Marine Conservation Act • Potential sensitivity of key fish spawning and nursery areas within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, in particular the Hamilton Bank-Hawkes Channel and Gilbert Bay • Ice conditions (including pack ice, icebergs, and iceberg scour) and related ice management issues that are unique to the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area and would greatly influence timing and type of oil and gas activities • Recent and projected future climate change impacts on the subarctic environments such as the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area ecosystem and in particular species that are closely associated with or require ice environment for life history activities • Challenges associated with accidental events (oil spill) in subarctic environment with ice interactions • Presence of three species of wolffish that are protected under SARA throughout the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, including identified critical habitat for northern and spotted wolffish • The presence of 14 IBAs and the Gannett Islands Ecological Reserve within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area • The reliance of Labrador Innu and Inuit on the Labrador marine environment for their social, cultural, and economic wellbeing and their use of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area for historic and current traditional and cultural activities, such as travel routes, hunting and gathering, and other harvesting activities 14.4 DATA CONSTRAINTS

The availability of information varies considerably among the various components of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. While there are data available for the VCs and issues identified and discussed throughout the SEA Update, there are a variety of data constraints associated with the existing data. These data constraints include (but are not limited to) “limited or aged” data sets with respect to populations estimates and limited knowledge on the ecology of a species.

The key data constraints listed below are an overview of those identified throughout the SEA Update. The applicable data constraints sections provide greater details with respect to species-specific constraints. It must be recognized while at the time of this report these data constraints existed, studies and research are ongoing, both filling many existing data constraints and often identifying new constraints. A review of

14-4 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021 data constraints will be required during project-specific EAs to ensure that the data constraints noted below and throughout the report are still valid. It is important to note that a lack of available data about a particular environmental component or potential environmental effect does not indicate the absence of that component or effect.

• Geological information is limited to certain areas and further detailed geological information will be required. Boulder fields have been recorded but there is no detailed mapping • There are insufficient data to determine the frequency of ice island occurrence and this will be important as they are difficult to detect and track • The exact trajectory (where, when, and how much will reach shore) from an oil spill in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is unknown; and is a data gap for this SEA Update. However, spill trajectory modelling and fate and effect of spills is a requirement for site-specific drilling and production EAs • The focus of noise and vessel interactions has been on marine mammals and sea turtles; there is still an overall lack of data with respect to noise and vessel interactions. A complicating factor for the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area will be noise and vessel interactions coupled with sea-ice dynamics. There are limited data for noise with respect to plankton, invertebrates, and fish species • There are no sound models for the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area and as such, knowledge regarding the propagation of sound waves within the area is limited. The impact of ice on the effects of sound wave propagation is limited • The effects of drill cuttings and routine discharges in subarctic environments are limited, and it is not known if the effects signals will be similar as per temperate environment. The effects of drill cuttings and routine discharges on some of the unique assemblages, such as epontic communities and phytoplankton, have not been examined to an extent • Much of the basic biological and ecological information related to SAR, COSEWIC species and marine mammals in general is lacking, such as identification of critical habitat, migration patterns, behaviour of critical life stages, effects of ongoing human activities on species and their habitat, effects of events outside SARA’s geographical jurisdiction, and inter-relationships with other species • The migration routes, breeding grounds, and feeding areas are known for relatively few of the marine mammals and sea turtles. In order to predict the importance of noise effects on marine mammal behaviour, the seasonal and geographic distribution of the marine mammals and sea turtles needs to be better known. • There is a paucity of life history data for species in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area based on studies conducted within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Much of the information on life histories and ecology is inferred from research on these species in other locales, including temperate locations and the western Arctic • Current distribution and abundance of ivory gull within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is unknown and the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area could be an important wintering area for this SARA-listed species • Very little is known about the eskimo curlew’s basic biology, breeding biology, or migration, and it is unlikely that much will be known about eskimo curlew unless the species status can be confirmed as no nests have been located in 140 years (Environment Canada 2007)

14-5 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• An emerging data constraint is the understanding of what effect climate variations play in species and ecosystem interactions. This is very relevant for species that are at their ecological limits because their distribution and abundance will change depending upon the ecological regime of the time. Current research efforts are being undertaken to fill data constraints in this area. A considerable amount of the current research on climate change is being conducted in the western Arctic and equivalent information for the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is limited, although it is recognized that this is a new and evolving focus area • Plankton are the keystone to the marine ecosystem as they transfer energy up to higher trophic levels. While there are data available on plankton in general, it is limited in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. The understanding of the contribution of epontic communities to the overall primary productivity of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is limited • The role and importance of sea ice dynamics for ecosystem component interaction and health is limited • The data constraints associated with benthic invertebrate communities including basic biology and ecology, including the ability of benthic species to adapt to cold and subarctic environment, is poorly understood. The processes controlling distribution, abundance, and production is limited with the role of the benthic communities and seabed to the marine ecosystem in high-altitudes being poorly understood • There are data constraints with respect to detailed distribution and general life history dynamics of corals and sponges • Many scientific assessments for commercial species are dated; therefore, it is difficult to accurately describe and assess the population size and structure for several species • The distribution of fish and shellfish eggs and larvae within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is not well documented and understood, including spatial and temporal variability • There also remains gaps in the effects that seismic surveys have on physiological and biological processes in fish, such as metabolic rate, reproduction, larval development, foraging and intraspecific communication • While there is information on fish and invertebrate species, there are a variety of uncertainties including basic life history information. The role of environmental variations on natural mortality, production, and recruitment is poorly understood. Non-commercial species have more data constraints than commercial species with respect to life history and ecology in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, in particular with respect to spawning locations, abundance, and distribution. The information on the biology, life history, and ecology is often inferred from research conducted in other areas. The location of spawning areas and other critical habitat for invertebrates and fish species is often unknown • Detailed information on locations of enhanced productivity for fish species, including areas of concentrations of feeding seabirds and marine mammals (e.g., Hawkes Channel), is limited • There is an overall lack of toxicity information for polar marine species (Chapman and Riddle 2003, 2004) and much of the effects are based upon data for temperate and tropical climates. There are some data for invertebrates, less for microalgae and microbial communities; there are no data for vertebrates including fish, mammals, and birds (Chapman and Riddle 2005)

14-6 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• In addition to the Gannett Island Ecological Reserve, there are 14 IBAs within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area and many have not been assessed since 1978 (Bird Island, Quaker Hat Island, Northeast Groswater Bay, and Offshore Islands Southeast of Nain). The IBAs require updated population estimates and based on current estimates, some areas may warrant protective area status • Existing datasets provide information on the relative distribution and abundance of seabirds at sea but understanding of offshore patterns of marine birds is compromised in some cases by low survey effort • Although comprehensive data on the distribution and relative abundance of some colonial waterbird species are available, surveys are not likely to have accurately identified some colony sites • Comprehensive data on the distribution of waterfowl in coastal Labrador are currently lacking • Information on the distribution and relative abundance of shorebirds within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area from most parts of coastal Labrador is unavailable because of lack of survey effort • Although eBird records have served as an important data source for SAR, survey coverage is opportunistic and focused on more frequently visited areas of coastal Labrador • Population trends for marine bird species in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area are unclear and long-term surveys are lacking • Due to privacy-related limitations, large amounts of DFO data from their commercial fisheries datasets cannot be released, which inserts a level of uncertainty regarding other smaller fisheries that may occur within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area • A lack of research documents, including stock assessments for some species in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, such as Arctic char fishing, and species such as scallop, witch flounder, Atlantic cod, and halibut also have lower levels of information pertaining to stock statuses in areas of offshore Labrador • There is limited information on emerging or potential fisheries within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, as well as those underused fisheries in the area 14.5 ADDRESSING DATA CONSTRAINTS

Some of the data constraints noted above can be addressed by government departments under their respective mandates, through collaborative efforts between industry and government, as part of site- specific EAs, and through site-specific monitoring programs associated with oil and gas activities. Some activities that could assist in addressing identified data constraints include the following:

• The collection of spatial and temporal data on fish spawning and distribution of fish and shellfish eggs and larvae would be valuable for use in environmental effects assessments, as well as fisheries management • The collection of data and information with respect to SARA-listed species, including wolffish, leatherback sea turtles and various whale species, would be beneficial for fisheries and resource management • Ongoing collection of IK would continue to enhance existing scientific knowledge • Project-specific EAs may identify the need to collect baseline data or undertake modelling or monitoring programs. Depending on the timing of exploration project activities, collection of data may be undertaken opportunistically or there may be a requirement to collect data prior to the commencement of activities

14-7 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• Marine mammal and seabird observation programs during exploration and production programs will continue to add to the existing knowledge • The C-NLOPB will promote research through the Environmental Studies Research Fund, Petroleum Research Atlantic Canada, and Memorial University of Newfoundland, to address data constraints identified in the SEA Update Report • The requirement for site-specific cuttings deposition and/or produced water dispersion modelling as part of the EA process • The requirement for site-specific oil spill trajectory modelling as part of the environmental process. • Community-based training in oil spill response capabilities • As per the Offshore Physical Environmental Guidelines (NEB et al. 2008), various metocean data, including current mooring data, will be collected during drilling and production operations 14.6 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

A number of key environmental planning and management considerations related to future offshore oil and gas activities in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area are summarized below.

• Several SAR are known or likely to occur in or adjacent to the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Mitigating potential effects to species and habitats protected by the SARA will be an important consideration in decisions related to future offshore exploration and development • A number of areas and times are particularly important to fish and fish habitat (including benthic invertebrates) in the region (e.g., spawning areas and periods, migration routes, areas of high productivity). Individual seismic survey programs should, where possible, be planned so as to reduce potential interactions during particularly sensitive times • The coastal areas (including islands) within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area are used by the Indigenous peoples for traditional food gathering (including the harvest of most fish species, hunting of marine mammals (including polar bears) and birds, egging and berry gathering). Mitigating potential effects to traditional resource use within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area will be an important consideration in decisions related to future offshore exploration and development • Ice conditions and ice management strategies will be a major planning consideration • The remote locale of the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is such that timeliness of an emergency response will be crucial. One planning consideration will be to assess and upgrade spill response capabilities within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area to support offshore oil and gas activities for that area. The appropriate equipment combined with locally trained people to conduct emergency response operations should be in place for activities planned within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area • Seismic surveys are planned to coordinate program activities with the fishing industry to reduce potential conflict with commercial fishing activity during peak fishing times. It is important to note that Nunatsiavut fishers are not part of the FFAW and coordination with Indigenous governments and their commercial fishers is imperative. • Pre-spud ROV surveys, to collect data regarding corals / benthic communities are a standard mitigation

14-8 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• The current fishery within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is dominated by shellfish, particularly shrimp and crab. Historically the groundfish fishery played a vital role to the area. Future EAs should consider appropriate mitigation measures for historical groundfish species as it is possible these fisheries could return to prominence in the future • A project-specific EA will require consultation and engagement with stakeholders, including fishers • There is opportunity for research to be conducted on the health of these groundfish species in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area • There is limited information on emerging or potential fisheries within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area, as well as those underused fisheries in the area. This is due to a lack of available data from both DFO and the province of NL. More research and innovation into the potential for new fisheries would provide more clarity on what potential oil and gas operators can expect to see in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area in the future 14.7 MITIGATION MEASURES

The following sections provide a summary of mitigation measures that were identified in various sections of the SEA Update; these are not meant to be exhaustive. Project-specific EAs will determine the nature and extent of restrictions or mitigation measures for each activity proposed during projects undertaken within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. Many of the mitigation measures identified below have been previously implemented for projects, depending upon the specific situation and in some cases may be considered best industry practices.

Mitigation measures may employ spatial or temporal considerations and restrictions when planning operational activities. Many mitigation measures considered and implemented are put into place to avoid critical life stages and/or habitat. Depending on the nature and timing of the oil and gas activity, additional mitigation measures may be required to prevent environmental effects and will be determined at the project-specific EA stage.

14.7.1 Seismic Surveys

Mitigation measures (as per C-NLOPB 2019) that may be employed by operators for activities undertaken during seismic survey operations (including VSP) include:

• Design and/or select energy source to use the least amount of energy required to achieve operational goals • Reduce the proportion of the energy that propagates horizontally • Reduce the amount of energy at frequencies above those necessary for the purpose of the survey • Schedule seismic surveys to avoid sensitive stages (i.e., fish eggs, fish larva, areas of known concentrations of juvenile fish, and shellfish moulting periods) • Plan to avoid areas that could raise concerns with respect to gear conflicts • Schedule seismic surveys to avoid potential impacts on fishing catch rate by avoiding heavily fished areas when these fisheries are active to the greatest extent possible • Schedule seismic surveys to avoid displacing an individual marine mammal or sea turtle of a species listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA from breeding, feeding or nursing

14-9 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• Implement mitigation measures outlined in the SOCP (DFO 2007) into planned geophysical surveys. As indicated in Section 6.9.3, DFO’s SOCP is included within the C-NLOPB’s Geophysical, Geological, Environmental, and Geotechnical Program Guidelines (C-NLOPB 2019); these Guidelines represent minimum requirements. DFO’s Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat recently completed a review of the SOCP and identified several potential modifications and additions to the SOCP for consideration if/when an update to the SOCP occurs (DFO 2020). These recommendations for potential future updates to the mitigation measures in the SOCP are summarized in Section 6.9.3 • Schedule seismic surveys to avoid diverting an individual migrating marine mammal or sea turtle of a species listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of the SARA from a known migration route or corridor • Schedule seismic surveys to avoid displacing a group of breeding, feeding or nursing marine mammals, if it is known there are no alternate areas available to those marine mammals for those activities, or that if by using those alternate areas, those marine mammals would incur significant adverse effects • Schedule seismic surveys to avoid diverting aggregations of fish or groups of marine mammals from known migration routes or corridors if it is known there are no alternate migration routes or corridors, or that if by using those alternate migration routes or corridors, the group of marine mammals or aggregations of fish would incur significant adverse effects • Schedule seismic surveys to avoid gear conflicts and fish disruptions during the execution of DFO surveys • Establish a safety zone, which is a circle with a radius of at least 500 m as measured from the centre of the air source array • Ramp-up procedures as outlined in Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines, Newfoundland Offshore Area (C-NLOPB 2019) • Airgun shut downs must be instituted (when active and not only during ramp-up procedures) if a SARA-List endangered or threatened marine mammal or sea turtle is sighted within 500 m of the array • Use of marine mammal and seabird observers during seismic surveys to prevent starting or restarting an air source array after they have been shut-down for more than 30 minutes if a SARA-List endangered or threatened marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within the defined safety zone • Seismic surveys must implement a Marine Mammal Program (30 minutes prior to start up procedures and maintain watch if the proposed seismic survey is of a power that it would meet a threshold requirement for an assessment under the IAA) • Conduct daily searches on geophysical vessels using methods from Best Practices for Stranded Birds Encountered Offshore Atlantic Canada (Environment Canada 2015). Obtain the appropriate permits from CWS. • Publish a Canadian Coast Guard NOTMAR and NAVWARN and a “Notice to Fishers” via the CBC Radio program Fisheries Broadcast • Compensation in the event that gear is damaged due to project-related activities d in accordance with industry best practices in the Canada-NL Offshore Area and relevant industry guidance material such as the Geophysical, Geological, Environmental, and Geotechnical Program Guidelines (C-NLOPB 2019) and the Canadian East Coast Offshore Operators Non-attributable Fisheries Damage Compensation Program (CAPP 2007)

14-10 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• Use standard pollution prevention policies and procedures • Avoid sensitive times and areas for selected periods and times to reduce potential effects to sensitive species • Maintain communication with fishers in the area of seismic surveys

14.7.2 Drilling Programs

Mitigation measures that may be employed by operators for activities undertaken during drilling programs (exploration and/or production) include:

• Conduct imagery-based, pre-drilling surveys of the sea bed to assess for the potential presence of sensitive benthic habitats (such as corals) prior to a drilling campaign • The use of WBMs whenever possible • Treatment and disposition of drill cuttings (described in Section 3.5.4.1) as per requirements of the OWTG (NEB et al. 2010) • SBM that can no longer be used are sent to shore for disposal at an approved waste management facility (described in Section 3.5.4.1) • Adherence to OWTG (NEB et al. 2010) limits on discharges • Screening and selection of chemicals used for drilling • Waste management plans for the storage, handling and disposal of waste generated offshore • Well abandonment procedures to be approved by C-NLOPB • Selection of support vessel / tanker and aircraft routing to avoid sensitive areas and/or times • Conduct daily searches on support vessels and exploration and production platforms, using methods from Best Practices for Stranded Birds Encountered Offshore Atlantic Canada (Environment Canada 2015). Obtain the appropriate permits from CWS. • Use programs and protocols for the collection and release of marine birds that become stranded on offshore installations and vessels • Collect migratory birds that come into contact with flares or collide with rig structures (see Protocol for Collecting Dead Birds from Platforms) • Avoid or reduce flaring when possible and use high efficiency burners • Avoid established seabird colonies, where possible. Vessels and helicopters will avoid known coastal seabird colonies per requirements of the NL Seabird Ecological Reserve Regulations, 2015 • Compensation in the event that gear is damaged due to project-related activities d in accordance with industry best practices in the Canada-NL Offshore Area and relevant industry guidance material such as the Geophysical, Geological, Environmental, and Geotechnical Program Guidelines (C-NLOPB 2019) and the Canadian East Coast Offshore Operators Non-attributable Fisheries Damage Compensation Program (CAPP 2007) • Use of best available technologies and environmental criteria for equipment and chemical selection whenever feasible, reducing environmental discharges and emissions from planned operations and activities • Limit blasting during abandonment activities through use of mechanical procedures, including the proactive design of well structures to facilitate this • Ballast and de-ballasting activities to be in compliance with the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act

14-11 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

• Publish a Canadian Coast Guard NOTMAR and NAVWARN and a “Notice to Fishers” via the CBC Radio program Fisheries Broadcast

14.7.3 Accidental Events

Mitigation measures that may be employed by operators in the event of an accidental event (oil spills and vessel collisions) include:

• Design and implement an Oil Spill Response Plan (part of an Environmental Protection Plan) to be approved by the C-NLOPB • Design and implement a Wildlife Emergency Response Plan in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the C-NLOPB, DFO, and ECCC-CWS • Emphasize oil spill prevention through a combination of education, procedures and policies • Maintain oil spill response capabilities (trained personnel, absorbents, containment and cleanup systems) on the drill units and/or support vessels / tankers that is appropriate to the environment and potential type of produced under exploration or production • Preventive equipment should be put into place and be appropriate to mitigate future damages after the causative factor of a spill has been established to reduce the recurrence • Exercise oil spill response plans on a regular basis • Prepare to implement shoreline protection measures and clean-up in event of an oil spill • Compensation for damaged gear and market losses, associated with damage due to an oil spill or authorized discharge, emission or escape of petroleum as per the Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating to Offshore Petroleum Activity (C-NLOPB and CNSOPB 2017b) • Training and education of personnel to handle oil spills • Reduced speeds (vessel collision reduction) in areas known to be frequented by marine mammals or areas of know marine mammal concentrations 14.8 CONCLUSION

This SEA Update is an addendum to the 2008 Labrador Shelf Offshore Area SEA Report, focusing on new information that has become available since that time. The report describes the environmental setting in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area and the potential effects of offshore petroleum activities in the region. Environmental planning considerations are discussed, including applicable mitigation measures and data gaps. It is important that a lack of available data should not be interpreted to indicate the absence of a particular species or environmental component.

The SEA Update will inform the C-NLOPB regarding future licensing decisions in the Labrador Shelf Offshore Area. This includes understanding the key environmental considerations in the region, and identifying sensitive areas and other ocean activities in relation to areas that may be in consideration for inclusion in the C-NLOPB’s scheduled land tenure system.

Aside from its main purpose related to the C-NLOPB’s land tenure process, the SEA Update is an informative resource for potential operators of proposed petroleum activities. However, each project will have specific potential effects that would need to be considered, with specific restrictions and mitigation measures, as well as data gaps that may have to be addressed or mitigated.

14-12 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

There are several sensitive areas within the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area. These are areas that are protected by provincial or federal legislation, or are under consideration for such protection, and areas that are known to be important but are not within the current regulatory framework. Key sensitive areas are summarized in Chapter 8. Decisions about land tenure will be based on an understanding of the restrictions within regulated areas. Consideration must also be given to the ecological and cultural importance of other sensitive areas identified by IK and public engagement.

The fact that an area has been determined to be a sensitive area does not immediately indicate that enhanced mitigation measures are required. For many potential issues, there are standard mitigation measures to avoid and reduce effects. Standard mitigation measures are codified in existing legislation, regulations, and C-NLOPB guidelines. Operators will be required by the C-NLOPB to comply with all applicable legislation and guidelines. Additional mitigation measures s may be determined through project-specific EAs or other regulatory processes in consultation with relevant federal authorities (e.g., DFO, CWS), Indigenous groups, and other ocean users. In addition, current and future research conducted under the Environmental Studies Research Fund, Program on Energy Research and Development, and others will continue to address data gaps and provide new information about enhanced mitigation measures.

The results of public engagement and IK illustrate that use of the coast and offshore in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update Area is dynamic and important for several socio-economic and cultural factors. The C-NLOPB will require that operators build on the engagement conducted for this SEA Update to collect feedback on specific projects, and to understand any changes that have occurred. Throughout the SEA Update, IK has been integrated with biophysical science. The C-NLOPB will note the value in this approach for future decisions regarding offshore petroleum activities.

It is noted that members of Indigenous Groups and the participants in engagement activities expressed the importance of being informed about potential activity and decisions in the Labrador Shelf Offshore Area. The C-NLOPB will continue to seek assistance from the organizations represented on the Working Group to distribute information about the area.

As noted, it is the C-NLOPB’s expectation that potential operators engage with the public and Indigenous groups. This is an area in which expectations have been increased in recent years, for example with the federal government’s new Impact Assessment Act process for federal impact assessments, and in the C-NLOPB’s own increased expectations for engagement related to project-specific EAs under the Accord Acts for activities such as seismic surveys. It is clear from the SEA Update that engagement with Indigenous Groups, fisheries stakeholders and other ocean users will continue to be important.

The SEA Update indicates that the potential interactions of petroleum activities with the environment are fairly well-understood. While some baseline environmental factors have remained unchanged, changes have been observed both through scientific data and from Indigenous and local knowledge. It is important to recognize that there will be new factors to consider as more is understood about the environment, the effects of petroleum activities, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Both the regulatory framework and human use of coastal and ocean areas are also dynamic. The C-NLOPB will continue cooperating with agencies such as DFO to understand changes in environmental setting and human use in the Canada-NL Offshore Area.

14-13 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

The information provided in the Labrador Shelf SEA Update supports the conclusion that petroleum activities may be conducted with appropriate restrictions and mitigation measures, and with consideration of the identified data gaps and environmental and socio-economic risks. There may be requirements for enhanced mitigation measures, depending on the type of petroleum activity under consideration and its specific environmental setting. These measures would be determined by the C-NLOPB in consultation with appropriate federal authorities, Indigenous Groups, and stakeholders. The C-NLOPB will be adaptive to new developments in science and technical feasibility with respect to mitigation requirements, and will refer to the information provided by the SEA Update in its decision-making for any potential petroleum activity in the Labrador Shelf Offshore Area. 14.9 REFERENCES

CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers). 2007. Canadian East Coast Offshore Operators Non-attributable Fisheries Damage Compensation Program. 24 pp. Available at: https://www.capp.ca/wp- content/uploads/2019/11/Canadian_East_Coast_Offshore_Operators_Nonattributable_Fisheries_ Damage_Compensation_Progr-117754-.pdf

Chapman, P.M. and M.F. Riddle. 2003. Missing and needed: Polar marine ecotoxicology. Mar. Poll. Bull. 46: 927-928.

Chapman, P.M. and M.J. Riddle. 2004. Reply to Wells: There really is a paucity of polar marine ecotoxicity data! Mar. Poll. Bull. 48: 606-607.

Chapman, P.M. and M.J. Riddle. 2005. Polar marine toxicology--Future research needs. Mar. Poll. Bull. 50: 905-908.

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board). 2006. Development Plan Guidelines. ii + 50 pp. + Appendices. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp- content/uploads/guidelines/devplan.pdf

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board). 2016. Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Benefits Plan Guidelines (DRAFT). ii + 20 pp. + Appendices. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp-content/uploads/guidelines/draftbenplan.pdf

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board). 2019. Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines. vii + 55 pp. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp-content/uploads/guidelines/ggegpg.pdf

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board) and CNSOPB (Canada- Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2017a. Drilling and Production Guidelines. 136 pp. Available at: https://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/dp_guidelines_working.pdf

14-14 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board) and CNSOPB (Canada- Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2017b. Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating to Offshore Petroleum Activity. 20 pp. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp- content/uploads/guidelines/compgle.pdf

DeCola, E., T. Robertson, S. Fletcher and S. Harvey. 2006. Offshore Oil Spill Response in Dynamic Ice Conditions: A Report to WWF on Considerations for the Sakhalin II Project. Alaska, Nuka Research, 74 pp. Available at: https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwfreportoilice.pdf

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007. Statement of Canadian Practice with Respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment. Available at: https://waves-vagues.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/Library/363838.pdf

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2020. Review of the Statement of Canadian Practice with Respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2020/005: 25 pp. Available at: https://waves-vagues.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/Library/40875751.pdf

Environment Canada. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. v + 10 pp. Available at: https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk- registry/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_eskimo_curlew_final_2007_e.pdf

Environment Canada. 2015. Best Practices for Stranded Birds Encountered Offshore Atlantic Canada, Draft 2 - April 17, 2015. Environment Canada. 12 pp. + Appendices.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2020. Regulations Respecting Reduction in the Release of Methane and Certain Volatile Organic Compounds (Upstream Oil and Gas Sector). Available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2018-66.pdf

NEB (National Energy Board), Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 2008. Offshore Physical Environmental Guidelines. vii + 28 pp. Appendices. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp- content/uploads/guidelines/peg_guidelines.pdf

NEB (National Energy Board), Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 2009. Guidelines Respecting the Selection of Chemicals Intended to be Used in Conjunction with Offshore Drilling and Production Activities on Frontier Lands. iii + 13 pp. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp- content/uploads/guidelines/ocsg.pdf

NEB (National Energy Board), Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 2010. Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines. vi + 28 pp. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp-content/uploads/guidelines/owtg1012e.pdf

14-15 LABRADOR SHELF OFFSHORE AREA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Summary and Conclusions July 2021

NEB (National Energy Board), Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 2011a. Safety Plan Guidelines. vi + 21 pp. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp-content/uploads/guidelines/safety_plan_guidelines.pdf

NEB (National Energy Board), Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 2011b. Environmental Protection Plan Guidelines. viii + 20 pp. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp- content/uploads/guidelines/env_pp_guide.pdf

NEB (National Energy Board), Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 2017. Guidelines Respecting Financial Requirements. 59 pp. Available at: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp- content/uploads/guidelines/respecting_financial_responsibility_requirements.pdf

OSRL (Oil Spill Response Limited). No date. Timelines. Available at: https://www.oilspillresponse.com/swis-appreciation-site/cappingsirt- process/mobilisation/timelines/

OSRL (Oil Spill Response Limited). 2019. OSRL Increases SWIS Air Freight Capability with new Transport Skid for Singapore Capping Stack. Available at: https://www.oilspillresponse.com/news--media/news/osrl-increases-swis-air-freight-capability- with-new-transport-skid-for-singapore-capping-stack/

14-16