MGE0741RP0007 Addendum to Edge 2D HR Seismic Survey and Site Survey – Screening for EIA and ERA Report Response to RFI F01 21 October 2019

ADDENDUM TO EDGE 2D HR SEISMIC SURVEY AND SITE SURVEY – SCREENING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 2ND AUGUST 2019

rpsgroup.com

RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Document status

Review Version Purpose of document Authored by Reviewed by Approved by date Response to RFI and Gareth Gareth F01 James Forde 21/10/2019 Clarifications McElhinney McElhinney

Approval for issue

Gareth McElhinney 21 October 2019

The report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by RPS Group Limited no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this report.

The report has been compiled using the resources agreed with the client and in accordance with the scope of work agreed with the client. No liability is accepted by RPS Group Limited for any use of this report, other than the purpose for which it was prepared.

RPS Group Limited accepts no responsibility for any documents or information supplied to RPS Group Limited by others and no legal liability arising from the use by others of opinions or data contained in this report. It is expressly stated that no independent verification of any documents or information supplied by others has been made.

RPS Group Limited has used reasonable skill, care and diligence in compiling this report and no warranty is provided as to the report’s accuracy.

No part of this report may be copied or reproduced, by any means, without the written permission of RPS Group Limited.

Prepared by: Prepared for:

RPS CNOOC Petroleum Europe Limited

Dr James Forde Stephen Parker Senior Project Scientist Exploration Manager Ireland

Lyrr 2, IDA Business & Technology Park, Prospect House, 97 Oxford Road, Mervue, Galway, Ireland Uxbridge, UK, H91 H9CK UB81LU T +353 (0) 91 400 200 T +44 (0) 1895 237700 E [email protected] E [email protected]

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page i RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION/ CLARIFICATIONS ...... 2 2.1 Query 1 ...... 2 2.2 Query 2 ...... 4 2.3 Query 3 ...... 11 2.4 Query 4 ...... 12 2.4.1 Part B - Potential Impact to Commercial Fish Species ...... 12 2.5 Query 5 ...... 18 2.6 Query 6 ...... 22 2.7 Query 7 ...... 23 2.8 Query 8 ...... 25 2.9 Query 9 ...... 26 3 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REGARDING POTENTIAL IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS ...... 31

Tables Table 2.1: Coordinates of provisional survey line start- and end-points ...... 7 Table 2.2: Coordinates of survey area node points ...... 10 Table 2.3: Survey aspects associated with proposed activities and unplanned events...... 13 Table 2.4: Screening assessment of potential effects of the survey aspects to commercial fish species ...... 13 Table 2.5: Fisheries active in the proposed survey ...... 16 Table 2.6: SACs designated for Annex II marine mammal species and assessed for potential impacts ...... 18 Table 2.7: SACs designated for Annex II migratory fish species and assessed for potential impacts ...... 19 Table 2.8: SACs designated for Annex I reef habitat and assessed for potential impacts ...... 20 Table 2.9: SPAs assessed for potential impacts ...... 21 Table 2.10: Equipment Soft-start Procedures ...... 23 Table 2.11: CNOOC survey commitments to address recommendations detailed in the Pre-survey Fishery Assessment ...... 27 Table 3.1: Other offshore activities and potential for in-combination effect with the proposed Edge Survey ...... 33

Figures Figure 2.1: Provisional vessel survey lines relative to the proposed greater working area ...... 6

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page ii RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

1 INTRODUCTION On 2 August 2019 the EAU wrote to CNOOC requesting further information and clarifications on the Edge Survey application to enable a screening of the proposed activities in accordance with the requirements set out in the EIA Petroleum Exploration Regulations 2013 (as amended) and the 2014 Directive amending the 2011 EIA Directive (in particular the criteria specified in Annex III that are required to be taken into account when compiling the information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects). The EAU raised a total of 9 No. requests for further information or clarifications (queries) relating the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening and Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) report, the Pre-survey Fisheries Assessment and the Survey Technical Specifications Report. CNOOC has considered the 9 queries raised by the EAU and presents below a detailed response to each query (see Section 2.1 to Section 2.9). We trust that these responses provide the required additional information and clarity to enable an EIA screening determination to be made.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 1 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2 REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION/ CLARIFICATIONS 2.1 Query 1 EAU Query …Clarification is required on the technical specification of some items of equipment proposed, specifically the Massa sub bottom profiler, as the frequency range given in the CNOOC report does not specify which model is being used and differs from the frequency range quoted in the manufacturer’s technical specifications for the current Massa TR-1075 sub bottom profiler;

CNOOC Response Table 2.1 and Table 3.4 of the EIA Screening and ERA report lists the geophysical equipment that could potentially be used for the survey. The sub bottom profiler is listed in Table 2.1 as “Massa 3x3 (or similar)”. The frequency range for the “Massa 3x3 Array” is quoted in Table 3.4 as 2 kHz to 8 kHz. It is possible that the Massa TR-1075 (2.5 kHz – 10 kHz) sub bottom profiler could be used on the survey. The noise modelling assessment was carried out using generic frequency range data for the Massa equipment (2-8 kHz). As this includes a lower bottom frequency than for the TR-1075, this is considered a slightly more conservative approach. A source level of 211 dB re 1 uPa is used in the model, and this is the same as for the Massa TR-1075. To generate a sufficiently fast impulse (rise time) the frequency range of sound signals produced by a sub- bottom profiler are dominated by low frequency sounds. Consequently, the vast majority of the energy is present at the lower frequencies with significantly less high frequency energy emitted. In this context, by using 2 kHz as the low end of the frequency range the noise model produces an output that is slightly more conservative than would be provided using the 2.5 kHz specified for the Massa TR 1075. As the minority of energy for the impulse signal is contained in higher frequencies, the upper frequency cut- off point is of less importance (than low frequency sounds) when modelling emissions for sub-bottom profilers, i.e. energy levels decrease with increasing frequency. Noise levels are added logarithmically, and this has the effect that lower level emissions at higher frequencies do not change the overall noise level. In terms of modelling acoustic impacts 8 kHz is in the same frequency range as the 10 kHz specified for the Massa TR-1075. The wider frequency band has no significant impact on the overall broadband noise level. The survey vessel and its associated full equipment list has not yet been confirmed, consequently the noise sources listed represent the ‘worst-case scenario’ in terms of potential impact (i.e. the most powerful equipment potentially available on candidate survey vessels), and therefore the most robust basis for the impact assessment. The source level and frequency specifications used in the noise modelling of these equipment items are taken from manufacturers datasheets and RPS’s database of acoustic equipment specifications. Modelling the ‘worst-case scenario’ equipment allows for subsequent flexibility in selecting equipment that is available at the time of contracting and covers the full range of possible survey activities. CNOOC confirm that the

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 2 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

equipment that will be used during the Edge Survey will be of equal (or lower) power to the equipment used in the noise model. Based on the above, it can be concluded that using the 10 kHz instead of 8 kHz as the maximum frequency in the noise model would result in no discernible change in the predicted noise impact.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 3 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.2 Query 2 Query …The applicant’s project description references the total expected line distance to be covered but does not provide a line plan. The line plan is required to be submitted;

CNOOC Response The proposed site survey will cover a large area to assess the conditions of the seabed and shallow geology in a range of potential well locations. The provisional proposed line plan provides full coverage of an area up to a distance of 250 m beyond the maximum likely anchor radius around a potential drilling location and takes into account uncertainty around the location of a potential well, as well as the location of its associated re-spud and relief well(s) in the unlikely event that a relief well should have to be drilled. The proposed survey line plan is presented in Figure 2.1 below. Coordinates for the start- and end-point of each line are presented in Table 2.1. Coordinates of the survey area node points illustrated in Figure 2.1 are listed in Table 2.2. The proposed survey line density is 150 m x 500 m away from and 100 m x 50 m in the vicinity of the proposed well location(s). The provisional survey lines measure approximately 340 km in total length. Along the proposed lines CNOOC propose to acquire geophysical data with: • Single-beam echosounder (SBES) • Multi-beam echosounder (swathe bathymetry) (MBES) • Side scan sonar (SSS) • Sub-bottom profiler (SBP) • Magnetometer – towed fish • High-resolution 2D seismic (HR2D).

It should be noted that the line plan described below, including exact survey position, number of lines and number of line kilometres is provisional and may change, as detailed planning and design proceeds on the well location, and as observed conditions in the field dictate. Changes, if required, will be minor in nature. For instance, minor adjustments to the line plan and/ or changes to the number of lines and/ or the number of line kilometres may be required due to potential observed seabed obstructions in the field. In circumstances where additional lines are required to be run this would conservatively take an additional 1 to 2 days. This eventuality has already been taken into account in the stated survey duration of 10 - 20 days. The assessment of potential impact of the survey on environmental receptors covers the worst-case scenario survey requirement (i.e. the assessments consider the greatest potential survey requirement and the longest potential survey duration). The environmental assessments presented within the application reports take into account the uncertainty regarding the position of the survey within the survey GWA, the number of lines and the number of line kilometres and have assessed the worst-case scenario. The assessments have identified that the only source of potential impact of the survey to environmental receptors is the underwater noise generated by survey equipment. The environmental receptors of concern are marine mammal species. Based on the

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 4 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

nature and duration of the proposed site survey operations, and strict adherence to DAHG Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters (DAHG, 2014) and recommendations from PAD and NPWS, in relation to the separation distance between the concurrent acoustic surveys, no significant impacts will occur. The conclusions in the EIA Screening and ERA report, presented in application documentation submitted on 10 May 2019 remain the same.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 5 1 Legend 0 10 20 Km ¯ Survey Greater Working Area Node

3 0 0.5 1 Km

Esri, Garmin, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors

Client CNOOC International

Title Provisional vessel survey lines relative to the proposed greater working area

Figure 2.1

RPS | Consulting UK & Ireland Lyrr 2, IDA Business & Technology Park, Mervue Galway, H91 H9CK, Ireland T +353 (0)791 941030 829009 E [email protected] W rpsgroup.com/ireland

Issue Details

File Identifier: MGE0471Arc0001

Rev: F01

Drawn: JF Date: 09/10/2019

Checked: GMcE Scale: 1:500,000 (A3)

Approved: GMcE Projection: ITM

NOTE:

Esri, Garmin, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors 1. This drawing is the property of RPS Group Ltd. It is a confidential document and must not be copied, used, or its contents divulged without prior written consent. 2. Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence EN 0005019 Esri, Garmin, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors ©Copyright Government of Ireland. RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Table 2.1: Coordinates of provisional survey line start- and end-points

Line Start of Line End of Line ID ED 50 ED 50 ED 50 ED 50 Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude SL01 54° 25' 14.298" N 10° 44' 41.572" W 54° 27' 34.837" N 10° 40' 51.917" W SL02 54° 25' 13.183" N 10° 44' 39.563" W 54° 27' 33.721" N 10° 40' 49.908" W SL03 54° 25' 15.413" N 10° 44' 43.581" W 54° 27' 35.953" N 10° 40' 53.926" W SL04 54° 25' 12.068" N 10° 44' 37.554" W 54° 27' 32.604" N 10° 40' 47.898" W SL05 54° 25' 16.528" N 10° 44' 45.590" W 54° 27' 37.069" N 10° 40' 55.936" W SL06 54° 25' 10.953" N 10° 44' 35.545" W 54° 27' 31.488" N 10° 40' 45.889" W SL07 54° 25' 17.643" N 10° 44' 47.599" W 54° 27' 38.185" N 10° 40' 57.945" W SL08 54° 25' 9.838" N 10° 44' 33.536" W 54° 27' 30.372" N 10° 40' 43.880" W SL09 54° 25' 18.758" N 10° 44' 49.609" W 54° 27' 39.301" N 10° 40' 59.954" W SL10 54° 25' 8.723" N 10° 44' 31.527" W 54° 27' 29.256" N 10° 40' 41.871" W SL11 54° 25' 19.873" N 10° 44' 51.618" W 54° 27' 40.417" N 10° 41' 1.964" W SL12 54° 25' 5.378" N 10° 44' 25.500" W 54° 27' 25.908" N 10° 40' 35.843" W SL13 54° 25' 23.218" N 10° 44' 57.646" W 54° 27' 43.765" N 10° 41' 7.993" W SL14 54° 25' 2.033" N 10° 44' 19.473" W 54° 27' 22.560" N 10° 40' 29.816" W SL15 54° 25' 26.563" N 10° 45' 3.674" W 54° 27' 47.113" N 10° 41' 14.021" W SL16 54° 24' 58.688" N 10° 44' 13.447" W 54° 27' 19.211" N 10° 40' 23.789" W

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 7 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Line Start of Line End of Line ID ED 50 ED 50 ED 50 ED 50 Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude SL17 54° 25' 29.907" N 10° 45' 9.703" W 54° 27' 50.460" N 10° 41' 20.051" W SL18 54° 24' 55.342" N 10° 44' 7.421" W 54° 27' 15.862" N 10° 40' 17.762" W SL19 54° 25' 33.252" N 10° 45' 15.731" W 54° 27' 53.808" N 10° 41' 26.080" W SL20 54° 24' 51.997" N 10° 44' 1.395" W 54° 27' 12.514" N 10° 40' 11.736" W SL21 54° 25' 36.596" N 10° 45' 21.760" W 54° 27' 57.156" N 10° 41' 32.110" W SL22 54° 24' 48.651" N 10° 43' 55.370" W 54° 27' 9.165" N 10° 40' 5.710" W SL23 54° 25' 39.941" N 10° 45' 27.790" W 54° 28' 0.503" N 10° 41' 38.140" W SL24 54° 24' 45.305" N 10° 43' 49.345" W 54° 27' 5.816" N 10° 39' 59.684" W SL25 54° 25' 43.285" N 10° 45' 33.819" W 54° 28' 3.851" N 10° 41' 44.170" W SL26 54° 24' 41.960" N 10° 43' 43.320" W 54° 27' 2.467" N 10° 39' 53.659" W SL27 54° 25' 46.629" N 10° 45' 39.849" W 54° 28' 7.198" N 10° 41' 50.201" W SL28 54° 24' 38.614" N 10° 43' 37.295" W 54° 26' 59.118" N 10° 39' 47.633" W SL29 54° 25' 49.973" N 10° 45' 45.879" W 54° 28' 10.545" N 10° 41' 56.231" W SL30 54° 24' 35.268" N 10° 43' 31.271" W 54° 26' 55.769" N 10° 39' 41.608" W SL31 54° 25' 53.317" N 10° 45' 51.910" W 54° 28' 13.892" N 10° 42' 2.263" W SL32 54° 24' 31.922" N 10° 43' 25.247" W 54° 26' 52.420" N 10° 39' 35.584" W SL33 54° 25' 56.661" N 10° 45' 57.940" W 54° 28' 17.239" N 10° 42' 8.294" W SL34 54° 24' 28.576" N 10° 43' 19.223" W 54° 26' 49.071" N 10° 39' 29.559" W

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 8 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Line Start of Line End of Line ID ED 50 ED 50 ED 50 ED 50 Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude SL35 54° 26' 0.005" N 10° 46' 3.971" W 54° 28' 20.586" N 10° 42' 14.326" W SL36 54° 24' 25.230" N 10° 43' 13.200" W 54° 26' 45.721" N 10° 39' 23.535" W SL37 54° 26' 3.349" N 10° 46' 10.003" W 54° 28' 23.933" N 10° 42' 20.357" W SL38 54° 24' 21.883" N 10° 43' 7.177" W 54° 26' 42.372" N 10° 39' 17.511" W SL39 54° 26' 6.693" N 10° 46' 16.034" W 54° 28' 27.280" N 10° 42' 26.390" W

SL40 54° 27' 32.062" N 10° 44' 8.160" W 54° 25' 40.501" N 10° 40' 47.235" W SL41 54° 27' 29.719" N 10° 44' 11.988" W 54° 25' 38.160" N 10° 40' 51.063" W SL42 54° 27' 34.405" N 10° 44' 4.332" W 54° 25' 42.843" N 10° 40' 43.406" W SL43 54° 27' 27.376" N 10° 44' 15.816" W 54° 25' 35.819" N 10° 40' 54.891" W SL44 54° 27' 36.748" N 10° 44' 0.504" W 54° 25' 45.184" N 10° 40' 39.578" W SL45 54° 27' 25.033" N 10° 44' 19.644" W 54° 25' 33.477" N 10° 40' 58.719" W SL46 54° 27' 39.091" N 10° 43' 56.676" W 54° 25' 47.525" N 10° 40' 35.749" W SL47 54° 27' 13.317" N 10° 44' 38.780" W 54° 25' 21.770" N 10° 41' 17.858" W SL48 54° 27' 10.973" N 10° 44' 42.607" W 54° 25' 19.429" N 10° 41' 21.685" W SL49 54° 27' 15.660" N 10° 44' 34.953" W 54° 25' 24.112" N 10° 41' 14.030" W SL50 54° 27' 8.630" N 10° 44' 46.434" W 54° 25' 17.087" N 10° 41' 25.512" W SL51 54° 27' 18.003" N 10° 44' 31.126" W 54° 25' 26.453" N 10° 41' 10.203" W SL52 54° 27' 39.091" N 10° 43' 56.676" W 54° 25' 47.525" N 10° 40' 35.749" W

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 9 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Line Start of Line End of Line ID ED 50 ED 50 ED 50 ED 50 Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude SL53 54° 27' 39.091" N 10° 43' 56.676" W 54° 25' 47.525" N 10° 40' 35.749" W SL54 54° 27' 39.091" N 10° 43' 56.676" W 54° 25' 47.525" N 10° 40' 35.749" W SL55 54° 27' 39.091" N 10° 43' 56.676" W 54° 25' 47.525" N 10° 40' 35.749" W SL56 54° 27' 25.033" N 10° 44' 19.644" W 54° 25' 33.477" N 10° 40' 58.719" W SL57 54° 27' 8.630" N 10° 44' 46.434" W 54° 25' 17.087" N 10° 41' 25.512" W SL58 54° 27' 8.630" N 10° 44' 46.434" W 54° 25' 17.087" N 10° 41' 25.512" W SL59 54° 27' 8.630" N 10° 44' 46.434" W 54° 25' 17.087" N 10° 41' 25.512" W SL60 54° 27' 8.630" N 10° 44' 46.434" W 54° 25' 17.087" N 10° 41' 25.512" W

Table 2.2: Coordinates of survey area node points

ID ED 50 ED 50 Latitude Longitude 1 54° 36' 00.842" N 10° 44' 41.932" W 2 54° 28' 12.302" N 10° 29' 31.481" W 3 54° 11' 07.382" N 10° 55' 18.889" W 4 54° 18' 52.672" N 54° 18' 52.672" N

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 10 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.3 Query 3 EAU Query …The number of expected box cores/grab samples is provided however the number of expected gravity cores is not stated. The number of expected gravity cores is required;

CNOOC Response A maximum of 10 gravity core samples will be retrieved.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 11 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.4 Query 4 EAU Query …CNOOC has submitted a pre-survey fisheries assessment report. It is necessary fully to address the impacts on protected fish species (Annex II migratory fish) and commercial fish species. CNOOC are now requested to address both protected and commercial fish species in its application, which may include a summary of the pre-survey or cross referencing to the pre- survey but must fully address these matters;

CNOOC Response For clarity, our response to Query 4 has been split into separate responses to address element A and element B. A. protected fish species (Annex II migratory fish); and, B. commercial fish species. The information requested in Query 4 part A in relation to the assessment of impacts to protected fish species (Annex II migratory fish) is presented in Section 2.4 of the Addendum to Edge 2D HR Seismic Survey and Site Survey – Screening for Appropriate Assessment Report1; the assessment presented confirms the conclusions of the EIA Screening and ERA report that is: the proposed survey will not have significant effects on the environment. Information requested in Query 4 part B in relation to commercial species is presented in Section 2.4.1 below. 2.4.1 Part B - Potential Impact to Commercial Fish Species

2.4.1.1 Screening Assessment The Pre-Survey Fisheries Assessment submitted as part of the application to conduct a site survey includes an assessment of the potential interaction of the survey and commercial fisheries. Recommendations are made pertaining to limiting any potential impacts of the survey on fishing activities within the Pre-Survey Fisheries Assessment document. (These are clarified further in the response to Query No. 9 (Section 2.9 of this document). The following sections address potential impacts to commercial fish species. The aspects (impact mechanisms) associated with proposed survey activities and unplanned events considered with respect to potential impacts to physical, biological and socio-economic environmental receptors considered in the EIA Screening and ERA report and the Screening for AA and NIS report are listed in Table 2.3 below.

1 Document reference: MGE0741RP0008 - CNOOC - Edge Survey - Response to AA RFIs and Clarification.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 12 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Table 2.3: Survey aspects associated with proposed activities and unplanned events

Survey Aspect Planned Activities and Impact Mechanisms 1 Physical Presence of Vessel and Equipment restriction of access to fishing grounds for commercial fishing fleets injury to fauna from collision with the vessels and/ or equipment disturbance to fauna 2 Physical Changes localised physical disturbance to the seabed sediment 3 Underwater noise emissions noise will be generated by vessel engines noise generated by survey geophysical equipment 4 Atmospheric Emissions engine exhausts emission 5 Discharges food waste, grey-, black-, bilge- and ballast-water 6 Solid or Liquid Waste; waste that cannot be discharged at sea Survey Aspect Unplanned Events and Impact Mechanisms 7 Accidental Spills of Hydrocarbons spills arising from accidental events or mechanical failure

Table 2.4 presents a screening assessment to establish whether survey aspects 1 through 7 are likely to have effects on commercial fish species and based on the consideration of the connectivity between survey aspects and the receptors.

Table 2.4: Screening assessment of potential effects of the survey aspects to commercial fish species

Survey Planned Impact Mechanism Is it possible to screen out likely significant effects? Aspect Activities 1 Physical injury to fauna from Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. Presence of collision with the The physical presence of the survey vessel and equipment do Vessel and vessels and/ or not pose a collision risk to commercial fish species; Equipment equipment consequently, it can be concluded that this survey aspect will not result in likely significant effects to commercial fish species. As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out. disturbance to fauna Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. The physical presence survey vessel and equipment do not pose a disturbance risk to commercial fish species; consequently, it can be concluded that this survey aspect will

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 13 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

not result in likely significant effects to commercial fish species. As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out. 2 Physical localised physical Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. Changes disturbance to the The potential environmental impact of seabed sampling seabed sediment. equipment is limited to seabed habitats; in summary, equipment has the potential to result in physical changes to seabed habitats through the compaction and removal of sediment, and through the resuspension of sediments. The environmental impact of seabed sampling equipment will be highly localised (limited to the footprint of the samplers) and temporary in nature; as a result, no significant effects to the seabed are likely. This localised and temporary physical disturbance of seabed habitats does not pose a risk to commercial fish species; consequently, it can be concluded that this survey aspect will not result in likely significant effects to commercial fish species. As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out. 3 Underwater noise will be generated Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. noise by vessel engines EMODnet vessel density mapping2 indicates that fishing and emissions shipping activity in the areas immediately adjacent to the survey is low (less than 2 hours per square km per month). Given the short duration of the proposed survey (10 – 20 days) the vessel engines will only marginally increase the level of overall vessel activity and vessel engine noise within and adjacent to the proposed survey area; consequently, it can be concluded that this survey aspect will not result in likely significant effects to commercial fish species. As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out. noise generated by Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. survey geophysical Underwater noise does not pose a significant risk to fish equipment commercial fish species; an assessment to support this is provided in Section 2.4.1.2 below. As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out. 4 Atmospheric engine exhausts Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. Emissions emission Atmospheric emissions do not pose a significant risk to commercial fish species. The main source of atmospheric emissions during the survey will result from engine exhaust gases from the survey vessel. Given the offshore location of the survey, emissions will disperse rapidly under typical prevailing conditions to levels approaching background within a few tens of metres of their source; consequently, it can be concluded that this survey aspect will not result in likely significant effects to commercial fish species.

2 EMODnet vessel density mapping http://www.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/view-data.php

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 14 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out. 5 Discharges food waste, grey-, Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. black-, bilge- and Wastes and discharges will be in line with the International ballast-water and Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, treated drainage water MARPOL 73/78. Given the short duration of the survey, discharges associated with the survey are likely to be small in volume and will rapidly disperse in the marine environment; consequently, it can be concluded that this survey aspect will not result in likely significant effects to commercial fish species. As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out. 6 Solid or waste that cannot be Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. Liquid Waste discharged at sea All wastes generated on board will be handled in line with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL 73/78 which prohibits the dumping of ’garbage’ at sea. Wastes will be brought back to shore for disposal in accordance with local legislation and guidelines at a licensed facility; consequently, it can be concluded that this survey aspect will not result in likely significant effects to commercial fish species. As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out. Survey Unplanned Impact Mechanism Is it possible to screen out likely significant effects to Aspect Events Annex II migratory fish species? 7 Accidental spills arising from Yes - likely significant effects can be screened out. Spills of accidental events or Given the low probability for unplanned events/ spills, it can Hydrocarbons mechanical failure be concluded that this survey aspect will not result in likely significant effects to commercial fish species. As there are no likely significant effects, in combination effects are screened out.

2.4.1.2 Underwater Noise Emissions The Pre-survey Fisheries Assessment describes the shellfish, demersal and pelagic fisheries likely to be encountered in the vicinity of the proposed survey GWA based on vessel monitoring recorded by the Fisheries Monitoring Centre and landings data recorded by the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority. These fisheries and species targeted by the fisheries are listed in Table 2.5 below.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 15 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Table 2.5: Fisheries active in the proposed survey

Commercial Fish Species Commercial Fishery Shellfisheries Brown crab, Spider crab Pot fishery Demersal Fishery Cod, Haddock, Hake, Ling, Megrim, Monk, Bottom trawlers Pollack, Whiting Gillnetters Long-liners Tangle netters Seiners Pelagic Fishery Blue Whiting, Mackerel, Horse Mackerel, Mid water trawls Herring, Boarfish

As described in Section 3.7 of the Screening for EIA and ERA report, effects of underwater noise to fish include potential physical auditory damage and behavioural change. Section 3.7 of the referenced report presents the previously submitted assessment of potential impact to fish species with specific reference to protected Annex II migratory fish species. The conclusions reached in the assessments with respect to auditory damage and behavioural change impacts in protected Annex II migratory fish species are equally applicable to commercial fish species i.e. significant physical and behavioural effects to fish species from underwater noise will not occur. The conclusions are summarised below. Table 1.2 in the Pre-Survey Fisheries Assessment, presents fish species whose spawning and nursery areas may be present in the vicinity of the Edge survey. Fish eggs and invertebrate larvae are considered part of the plankton (meroplankton) as they are relatively immotile, and their movements depend on transport by prevailing currents and tidal water mass movement. Invertebrate plankton species which have a gas filled flotation aid (such as cephalopods) are more likely to respond to underwater noise. Studies, including those of Kostyuchenko (19713) have shown that a 1.4x104 kPa (142.7 kg/cm2) noise level discharged by an airgun caused damage to fish eggs within a range of five metres. However, it has also been stated that the wake from passing ship propellers and bow waves will cause a similar if not greater volumetric effect to that of noise disturbance (Swan et al., 19944). Studies on the effects of noise on larval fish and invertebrate populations indicate that any effect is very small when compared to total population sizes, mortality rates or events such as storms, cyclones or natural shifts in oceanographic patterns (ibid). It must also be considered that the survey vessel is moving through the survey area at a speed of 3.5 to 5 knots. Any removal of plankton from an area due to noise

3 Kostyuchenko L. P. (1971). Effects of Elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea. Hydrobiological Journal. 9(5):45-48.

4 Swan, J. M., Neff, J. M. and Young, P. C. (1994). Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia. 3- 122 pp.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 16 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

disturbance (a maximum of five to ten metres from source) will be brief with any organisms removed quickly replaced due to their often rapid generational turnover times. The assessments of potential physical auditory impacts to fish conclude that noise levels will not exceed the threshold for injury in fish; consequently, significant physical effects to commercial fish species from underwater noise will not occur. With respect to potential behavioural changes, it is concluded that effects are likely to be temporary and therefore will not result in significant effects on migratory fish species. Some studies suggest that seismic air gun activity can result in changes in fish behaviour (e.g. Skalski et al. 19925) while other studies have shown that several species of fish display virtually no response to the air gun emissions other than transient startle response and that these response did not change the pattern of movement of the fish (Wardle et al. 20016). Other studies have reported reduced catch and abundance rates in the vicinity of seismic surveys (Dalen and Knutsen 19877; Løkkeborg 19918; Engås et al. 19969; Slotte et al. 200410). It is noted, however, that the effects are temporary with the reported effects documented to last five days or less after exposure. Avoidance behavioural effects may occur as a result of the proposed survey, however, given the short duration and small spatial scale of the proposed survey any impacts will be temporary and therefore will not result in significant effects on fish species. Therefore, it can also be concluded that there will be no likely significant effects to the spawning activities of migratory fish transiting the survey area.

2.4.1.3 EIA Screening Conclusion The information presented provides the further information and assessment of commercial fish species. The information and assessment presented confirm the findings of the EIA Screening (presented in the EIA Screening and ERA report), that is: the proposed survey will not have significant effects on the environment.

5 Skalski J., Pearson W., Malme C. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes sp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49, 1357–65. 6 Wardle C., Carter T., Urquhart G. 2001. Effects of seismic air guns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research 21, 1005–27.

7 Dalen, J., and Knutsen, G.M. 1987. Scaring effects on fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations. In Progress in underwater acoustics. Edited by H.M. Merklinger. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 93–102 8 Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of a geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. ICES C.M. B: 40. 9 Engås, A. and Løkkeborg, S. 2002. Effects of seismic shooting and vessel-generated noise on fish behaviour and catch rates. Bioacoustics 12, 313–315. 10 Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J., One, E. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fish. Res. 67: 143–150.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 17 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.5 Query 5 EAU Query …The applicant is required to take into account all the Natura 2000 sites that have qualifying interests potentially affected by the Edge Survey and additional sites should be included;

CNOOC Response Table 2.6 through Table 2.9 list all the Natura 2000 sites that are potentially affected by the Edge survey and are considered in the assessments provided. Information requested in Query 5 is presented in the assessment of potential impact to QIs of SACs and SCIs of SPAs in Section 2.4 of the Addendum to Edge 2D HR Seismic Survey and Site Survey – Screening for Appropriate Assessment Report11; the assessment presented confirms the conclusions of the EIA Screening and ERA report that is: the proposed survey will not have significant effects on the environment.

Table 2.6: SACs designated for Annex II marine mammal species and assessed for potential impacts

Qualifying Feature SAC (code) Phocoena phocoena Blasket Islands SAC (002172) (Harbour porpoise) Roaringwater Bay and Islands SAC (000101) Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC (003000) Tursiops truncatus Lower River Shannon SAC (002165) (Common Bottlenose Dolphin) West Connacht Coast SAC (002998)

Halichoerus grypus Blasket Islands SAC (002172) (Grey seal) Duvillaun Islands SAC (000495) Horn Head and Rinclevan SAC (000147) Inishbofin and Inishshark SAC (000278) Inishkea Islands SAC (000507) Lambay Island SAC (000204) Roaringwater Bay and Islands SAC (000101) Saltee Islands SAC (000707) Slieve Tooey/Tormore Island/ Loughros Beg Bay SAC (000190) Slyne Head Islands SAC (000328)

11 Document reference: MGE0741RP0008 - CNOOC - Edge Survey - Response to AA RFIs and Clarification.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 18 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Qualifying Feature SAC (code) Phoca vitulina Ballysadare Bay SAC (000622) (Harbour seal) Clew Bay Complex SAC (001482) Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC (000627) Donegal Bay (Murvagh) SAC (000133) Galway Bay Complex SAC (000268) Glengarriff Harbour and Woodland SAC (000090) Kenmare River SAC (002158) Kilkieran Bay and Islands SAC (002111) Killala Bay/Moy Estuary SAC (000458) Lambay Island SAC (000204) Rutland Island and Sound SAC (002283) Slaney River Valley SAC (000781) West of Ardara/Maas Road SAC (000197)

Table 2.7: SACs designated for Annex II migratory fish species and assessed for potential impacts

• River • Twaite shad • Sea lamprey • Atlantic lamprey SAC (Alosa fallax (Petromyzon salmon (Lampetra fallax) marinus) (Salmo salar) fluviatilis) Blackwater River ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (Cork/Waterford) SAC Blackwater River (Kerry) SAC ✓ Castlemaine Harbour SAC ✓ ✓ ✓ Cloghernagore Bog and ✓ Glenveagh National Park SAC Connemara Bog Complex SAC ✓ Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay ✓ ✓ (Sligo Bay) SAC Glenamoy Bog Complex SAC ✓ Killala Bay/Moy Estuary SAC ✓ Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy's Reeks and ✓ ✓ ✓ Caragh River Catchment SAC Leannan River SAC ✓ Lough Corrib SAC ✓ ✓ Lough Eske and Ardnamona ✓ Wood SAC Lough Gill SAC ✓ ✓ ✓ Lough Melvin SAC ✓

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 19 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

• River • Twaite shad • Sea lamprey • Atlantic lamprey SAC (Alosa fallax (Petromyzon salmon (Lampetra fallax) marinus) (Salmo salar) fluviatilis) Lower River Shannon SAC ✓ ✓ ✓ Lower River Suir SAC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Maumturk Mountains SAC ✓ Mweelrea/Sheeffry/Erriff ✓ Complex SAC Newport River SAC ✓ Owenduff/Nephin Complex ✓ SAC River Barrow and River Nore ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SAC River Boyne and River ✓ ✓ Blackwater SAC River Finn SAC ✓ River Moy SAC ✓ ✓ Slaney River Valley SAC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The Twelve Bens/Garraun ✓ Complex SAC Unshin River SAC ✓ West of Ardara/Maas Road ✓ SAC

Table 2.8: SACs designated for Annex I reef habitat and assessed for potential impacts

SAC • QI

Belgica Mound Province SAC (Site code: 002327) Hovland Mound Province SAC ) (Site code: 002328)

South-West Porcupine Bank SAC (Site code: 002329) Reefs North-West Porcupine Bank SAC (Site code: 002330) Porcupine Bank Canyon SAC (Site code: 003001) South East Rockall Bank SAC (Site code: 003002)

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 20 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Table 2.9: SPAs assessed for potential impacts

SPA Ailsa Craig SPA; Inishmore SPA; Aughris Head SPA; Iveragh Peninsula SPA; Beara Peninsula SPA; Kerry Head SPA; Bills Rocks SPA; Loop Head SPA; Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven SPA; Lough Mask SPA; Blasket Islands SPA; Mingulay and Berneray SPA; Cape Wrath SPA; North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA; Carrowmore Lake SPA; Puffin Island SPA; Clare Island SPA; Rathlin SPA; Cliffs of Moher SPA; Saltee Islands SPA; Cruagh Island SPA; Shiant Isles SPA; Deenish Island and Scariff Island SPA; Skelligs SPA; Dingle Peninsula SPA; St Kilda SPA; Duvillaun Islands SPA; Stags of Broadhaven SPA; Flannen Isles SPA; The Bull and The Cow Rocks SPA; Galley Head to Duneen Point SPA; West Donegal Coast SPA.Inishkea Islands SPA Handa SPA; Duvillaun Islands SPA High Island, Inishshark and Davillaun SPA; Mullet Peninsula SPA Illanmaster SPA; Inishglora and Inishkeeragh SPA Inishbofin, Inishdooey and Inishbeg SPA; Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA Inishglora and Inishkeeragh SPA;

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 21 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.6 Query 6

EAU Query …Further information on some mitigation process should be provided. In particular, there is an omission as to duration of pre-start monitoring for geophysical survey in waters >200 m. It is also not clear on whether the pre-shoot search period is re-started in event of a sighting, i.e. full 30/60 mins has to be complete after last sighting in mitigation zone. The statement about sightings during pre-shoot search is also applicable to site surveys and should be explicitly stated;

CNOOC Response As outlined in Section 3.11 of the EIA Screening and ERA report, the proposed survey will adhere to all relevant measures detailed in DAHG Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters. CNOOC confirms that as per the DAHG guidance the following measures will be implemented for the Edge Survey: … Where operations occur in waters greater than 200m depth (i.e., >200m), pre-start-up monitoring shall be conducted at least 60 minutes before the activity is due to commence. Sound-producing activity shall not commence until at least 60 minutes have elapsed with no marine mammals detected within the Monitored Zone by the MMO. …In waters up to 200m deep, the MMO shall conduct pre-start-up constant effort monitoring at least 30 minutes before the sound-producing activity is due to commence. Sound-producing activity shall not commence until at least 30 minutes have elapsed with no marine mammals detected within the Monitored Zone by the MMO. To confirm, the pre-start search period of 60 minutes in water depths greater than 200 m and 30 minutes in waters up to 200 m in depth will be re-started in the event of a sighting.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 22 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.7 Query 7

EAU Query …It should be specified which equipment will be soft-started;

CNOOC Response As outlined in Section 3.11 of the EIA Screening and ERA report CNOOC is committed to fully complying with DAHG Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters during the execution of the proposed Edge Survey. In this regard, soft-start procedures will be used for the seismic 2D-HR survey activities. As the other geophysical survey equipment is being employed in open water, and not in within bays, inlets or estuaries or within 1,500m of the entrance of enclosed bays/inlets/estuaries, no additional soft start is proposed to be employed. Details of the sound producing equipment proposed for the survey are presented in Table 3.4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Screening and Environmental Risk Assessment report. Table 2.10 details where soft-start (ramp-up) procedures for the survey equipment is to be employed.

Table 2.10: Equipment Soft-start Procedures

Equipment Description Soft Start Procedure Vessel Mounted /Towed

Equipment This equipment will be started in accordance with the ramp up procedure outlined in Section 4.3.4(i) of DAHG 2014 which states: In commencing a seismic survey operation, the following Ramp-up Procedure (i.e., “soft-start”) must be used, including during any testing of seismic sound sources, where the output peak sound pressure level from any source exceeds 170 dB re: 1μPa @1m: Seismic Source 4x40 cu. in. Airgun array (a) Seismic energy output shall commence from a lower energy start-up (i.e., starting with a single seismic device/airgun which is the smallest in the array and gradually adding others; In the case of sparkers/ boomers, starting with the lowest electric discharge possible) and thereafter be allowed to gradually build up to the necessary maximum output over a period of 40 minutes.

MBES R2Sonic 2040 SBES Furno FE700 Side Scan Sonar Edgetech 4200 As per DAHG 2014 guidance no specific soft-start Sub-bottom Profiler Massa 3x3 array procedures are required. USBL (topside) Sonardyne Ranger 2

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 23 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

Equipment Description Soft Start Procedure AUV Mounted Equipment MBES Kongsberg EM2040 As per DAHG 2014 guidance no specific soft-start SBP DW106 procedures are required. SSS Edgetech Full Spectrum Positioning Equipment USBL (seabed) Sonardyne Ranger 2 As per DAHG 2014 guidance no specific soft-start procedures are required.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 24 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.8 Query 8

EAU Query …More information is required on when PAM will be used during the survey. This monitoring effort is typically undertaken by dedicated PAM Operators. A minimum number of personnel to achieve required mitigation should be included;

CNOOC Response The key mitigation to prevent disturbance of marine mammals from the seismic survey will be overseen by the trained and competent MMO on duty as required in DAHG Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters (DAHG, 2014). A minimum of two trained and competent MMOs will be onboard during the survey. Mitigation measures detailed in the DAHG Guidance are summarised in Section 3.11 of the EIA Screening and ERA report. Pre-start visual monitoring will be undertaken by the MMO. In addition, Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) will be undertaken to provide additional means of detection and estimating distance to cetaceans particularly during the required pre-start visual monitoring periods. It is currently planned that two trained PAM operators will be onboard the vessel during the anticipated survey operations to ensure that the role is performed effectively during the survey.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 25 RESPONSE TO RFI AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.9 Query 9

EAU Query …In the Pre-Survey Fishery Assessment there are a number of ‘recommendations’ made which read like mitigation commitments, however the language used is not affirmative. It should be clarified if these are mitigation commitments or not.

CNOOC Response CNOOC confirms that the recommendations set out in Table 2.23 below represent commitments made by CNOOC.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 26

Table 2.11: CNOOC survey commitments to address recommendations detailed in the Pre-survey Fishery Assessment

From Section 5 of the Pre-survey Fisheries Response to RFI and clarifications Assessment Recommendation Details of commitment CNOOC Details on implementation of recommendation Number commitment (Yes/ No)

1 Dissemination of information Yes As outlined in the Pre-survey Fisheries Assessment, in preparation for the Edge to fishery stakeholders should Survey, CNOOC, through Sinbad Offshore Support Ltd (Sinbad) initiated commence as early as consultations with the following fishery stakeholders in April 2019; possible. Effective lines of • Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation; communication should also • Irish South & West Fish Producers Organisation; be maintained during the • Irish South & East Fish Producers Organisation; survey operations. • Irish Fish Producers Organisation; • Anglo North Irish Fish Producers Organisation; • National Inshore Fisheries Forum; • Bord Iascaigh Mhara; • Marine Institute; • North Sea Regional Advisory Council; • North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council; and • Pelagic Regional Advisory Council. As part of the consultations a one-page fact sheet describing the proposed activities was distributed by email. Information provided in the fact sheet included details of the survey area location, type of survey, timing and duration, bathymetry and WGS84 coordinates of the proposed survey area. All organisations contacted were invited to comment, and the fact sheet included contact details for any enquiries. In advance of the survey final detail of the survey will be provided to above listed consultees.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 27

In addition to the communications measures to be implemented for the survey (as detailed under Recommendation 2 below) CNOOC confirms that prior to and during the survey relevant survey operational updates will be provided to the above stakeholders via email and phone. 2 It is recommended that the Yes CNOOC commit to the following: communications strategy • Details of the vessel (vessel name, call sign etc.) and survey equipment will described in Section 3.3 be communicated through a Marine Notice published on the Department of should be implemented Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTAS) website before the survey (www.dttas.ie/maritime/maritimesafetydirectorate/marinenotices/marine- commences, with emphasis notices). on notifying EU fishers. • During survey operations Radio Navigation Warnings will be broadcast daily. • Multi-lingual notices (French and Spanish) to EU fish producer organisations and fishery stakeholders will be published well in advance of survey commencement. • In advance of the survey, notices will be placed in the following fishing journals/ online portals; The Marine Times, The Irish Skipper, Kingfisher Fortnightly Bulletin. • As detailed under Recommendation 1, CNOOC (via Sinbad) have consulted the following international fishery stakeholders: - North Sea Regional Advisory Council; - North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council; and - Pelagic Regional Advisory Council. • Daily updates of planned survey activities will be provided to fishing vessels operating in the survey area via VHF radio. • During operations the survey vessel will to issue regular Sécurité messages over VHF radio. 3 It is recommended that all Yes As detailed in Section 3.2.1 of the EIA Screening and ERA report, CNOOC persons involved with this commit to the following measures to maintain good relations with other sea users: survey should be mindful that • Early notification of the proposed survey to other sea users in the region fishing vessels are also ahead of the survey via notices placed in fishing journals and online portals. operating under licence and Survey Fact Sheets will be emailed to local fishing groups known to work in

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 28

have equal status and access the area, followed up by contact to ascertain if there are any queries or rights. As such it is imperative concerns. that respectful relations are • Commencement notices will be distributed to all fishers fishing in that area, developed and maintained for including multi-lingual notices. the duration of the proposed • Fishermen will be requested to give ‘wide berth’ to the survey vessel during survey. These good relations operations in accordance with international navigational rules are also important to the • The survey will meet national and international regulations for vessel success of other oil & gas navigation and the regulations defined by the IMO and the Convention on the industry exploration in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs) future. for avoiding collisions at sea. • The survey vessel will maintain communication with other sea users to provide accurate information on the position of the survey vessel, towed equipment and ROV/AUV. • Approaching vessels will be contacted by the survey vessel via VHF radio to warn them of the presence of the survey vessel and equipment positions and to request possible alterations to course. • The survey vessel will have early warning radar (radar system used primarily for the long-range detection of its targets) and communication systems on board to identify and communicate, as early as possible, with other vessels that may be approaching the survey vessel. • Fisheries consultations and a Pre-survey Fisheries Assessment have been undertaken. Fishery organisations and fishery protection agencies have been consulted and made aware of the proposed survey. • A FLO will be on board the survey vessel at all times and will communicate details of survey activities to fishers and other sea users active in the area throughout the duration of survey operations. 4 It is recommended that a Yes CNOOC confirm that if required a Spanish and/ or French speaking designated Spanish and person ashore will be available to the survey. French speaking person ashore, with a working knowledge of both the fishing industry and offshore

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 29

operations should be available onshore in the event that liaison with foreign fishing vessel owners is required.

5 It is recommended that Yes CNOOC confirm that coordinates shared with the fishing industry have coordinates to be shared with been and will continue to be reported in WGS84 Lat-long format. the fishing industry are always shown in WGS84 Lat- long format. 6 It is recommended that Yes During survey operations Radio Navigation Warnings will be broadcast daily. regular Sécurité messages are broadcast by the survey vessel.

7 It is recommended that the Yes CNOOC confirm that the survey will meet national and international regulations for survey vessel should be vessel navigation and the regulations defined by the IMO and the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs). particularly mindful of Rule 18 of the IMO Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs) which covers “Responsibilities between vessels”.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 30 RESPONSE TO RFI ON SCREENING FOR EIA REPORT

3 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REGARDING POTENTIAL IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS Section 3.10 and Section 4 of the EIA Screening and ERA reported submitted as part of the application has been update and is superseded by the below paragraphs and table. The list of projects proposed for 2019 and 2020 considered with respect to potential in combination effects with the Edge Survey operations is presented in Section 3.10 Table 3.8, and Section 4 Table 4.1 of the EIA Screening and ERA report. The list of projects considered was, in part, based on publicly available information of oil and gas surveys published on the DCCAE website at the time of submission of the Edge Survey application to the PAD (10 May 2019). Additional details of oil and gas surveys that informed the assessment of in-combination effects were provided to CNOOC either directly by operators as part of the communications regarding the coordination of vessel operations and survey activities or through the Irish Offshore Operators Association which provides a forum for the discussion and exchange of information with respect to operations planned by the oil and gas operators active in the Irish offshore. The assessment of potential in-combination impacts also considered the Western European Shelf Pelagic Acoustic Survey (WEPAS) proposed by the Marine Institute. Since the submission of the Edge Survey application, details of survey activity proposed by Europa at the Inishkea prospect in the Slyne Basin and, at the Edgeworth prospect and the Kiely East prospect in the Porcupine Basin have been published on the DCCAE website while an application previously submitted by ENI Ireland BV has been withdrawn and the Marine Institute acoustic fisheries survey has been completed. In addition, NEXEN/ CNOOC have completed exploratory drilling operations at the Iolar prospect in the Porcupine Basin while Exola DAC have completed their site survey operations at the Barryroe field. In addition, PSE Kinsale Energy have submitted an application for approval for the decommissioning of certain facilities of the Kinsale Head gas fields. CNOOC intend to carry out the Edge survey during 2020. Table 3.1 below provides a summary of up to date information of projects proposed for 2020. CNOOC confirm that the application reports, and the assessments presented therein, have been prepared and undertaken with the view that the survey operations may be undertaken in 2019 and/ or 2020. CNOOC confirm that the information and conclusions presented in the reports are applicable if the operations are undertaken in 2020. It should be noted that the only source of impact from the proposed survey that has the potential to result in significant effects is underwater noise generated by geophysical survey and positioning equipment. The receptors of concern are Annex II marine mammal species. The assessment of in-combination effects considers activities proposed by other planned operations that may act in-combination with underwater noise generated by the Edge Survey to result in likely significant effects. The potential effects associated with the above oil and gas operations are the same as those effects described above for the Edge Survey. To minimise and/ or eliminate potential effects of noise emissions from the Edge Survey on marine mammals the Edge Survey will implement mitigation measures detailed in DAHG (2014). In summary, sound-producing survey activity shall not commence until protective measures (including monitoring measures and ramp-up procedures) have been successfully completed. In addition, CNOOC will maintain consultations with other operators to ensure that in the unlikely event of a requirement of concurrent survey a separation distance of 100km will be maintained thereby eliminating potential in-combination noise effects. Details of mitigation measures proposed are presented in Section 3.11 of

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 31 RESPONSE TO RFI ON SCREENING FOR EIA REPORT

the EIA Screening and ERA report. Following implementation of mitigation measures the EIA Screening concludes that the proposed survey will not have significant effects on the environment. It should be noted that all other geophysical surveys that may be operating offshore, including those listed in Table 3.1, will also be required to implement the mitigation measures outlined above; consequently, there will be no likely significant effect of survey noise emissions on the environment, either individually or in combination with other surveys.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 32 RESPONSE TO RFI ON SCREENING FOR EIA REPORT

Table 3.1: Other offshore activities and potential for in-combination effect with the proposed Edge Survey

Operator Location Activity Description Potential In-combination effects? Vermillion Corrib Gasfield Vermillion have applied to Yes Slyne Basin DCCEA to undertake a site Geophysical equipment proposed survey. The survey for the Vermillion survey include programme will involve: MBES, SBP, SSS, sound velocity probes. Noise generated by Subsea inspection and • geophysical equipment proposed for maintenance and the Vermillion survey may act in- infrastructure renewal combination with the Edge Survey to survey programme of the result in likely significant effect to subsea facilities using marine mammal Qualifying ROV and vessel mounted Features. CNOOC will maintain equipment. communication with other operators to regarding the timing of acoustic • Repair programme to the surveys and to ensure that the Corrib Central Manifold P3 DCCAE requirement for not wellhead, which will conducting surveys concurrently require the opening of the within 100 km; consequently, there wellhead protection cover. will be no potential in-combination No use of acoustic survey noise effects. equipment is planned during the repair programme at P3 Europa Slyne/ Erris Basin Planned site survey operations over Yes the Inishkea prospect. The Inishkea Geophysical equipment proposed survey area is located over 39 km for the Europa site surveys include from the Edge Survey line plan area. MBES, SBP, SSS. Noise generated

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 33 RESPONSE TO RFI ON SCREENING FOR EIA REPORT

Operator Location Activity Description Potential In-combination effects? Porcupine Basin Planned site survey operations over by geophysical equipment proposed the Edgeworth and Kiely East for the Europa site survey at the prospects. The prospects are Inishkea prospect may act in- located over 330 km to the south of combination with the Edge Survey to the Edge Survey GWA. result in likely significant effect to marine mammal Qualifying Features. CNOOC will maintain a 100 km separation distance from concurrent acoustic survey activity thereby eliminating potential in-combination noise effects. Exola North Celtic Sea Completed Exola survey comprised No seabed debris clearance, The survey was completed in environmental baseline and habitat September 2019. No potential for in assessment site survey over the combination effects. area of the Barryroe field in the North Celtic Sea Basin HAVFRUE Slyne Basin and surrounding Construction of the HAVFRUE No continental shelf Telecommunications cable system by As there are no geophysical TE SubCom off the Mayo coast to the operations proposed; consequently, south of the proposed Edge Survey there will be no potential in GWA. Undertake cable laying combination noise effects are operations may be undertaken in predicted. 2020. PSE Kinsale Energy North Celtic Sea Decommissioning of Kinsale Head No and Seven Head Facilities The decommissioning activity is specifically the plugging and located over 450 km from the Edge abandoning of development wells; survey; no likely significant in the removal of two platform topsides combination noise effects are structures; and the removal of a predicted. number of subsea facilities.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 34 RESPONSE TO RFI ON SCREENING FOR EIA REPORT

Operator Location Activity Description Potential In-combination effects? North Celtic Sea Decommissioning of certain facilities within the Kinsale Head Petroleum Lease area specifically removal of the Kinsale Alpha and Kinsale Bravo platform sub-structures (jackets) and all associated works.

MGE0741RP0007 | Response to RFI | F01 | 21 October 2019 rpsgroup.com Page 35