commercial fisheries

Context

Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador fishing activity and location vary throughout the year and timing can be year-round or during well-defined seasons, depending on the fishery. Portions of exploration licences 1157 and 1158, the project area, and the Project’s local and regional assessment areas are located outside Canada’s exclusive economic zone. As such, there are Canadian domestic (inside and outside the exclusive economic zone) and international fisheries (outside the exclusive economic zone) occurring in the project area.

Average annual harvest overlapping with the Poject's regional assessment between 2013 and 2017

131 740 tonnes by the domestic fishery

58 144 tonnes by the international fishery

Indigenous community involvement in commercial fisheries

Five Indigenous groups in Newfoundland and Labrador hold communal commercial fishing licences for a variety of species that overlap with the project area, including groundfish, shrimp, and tuna. Most Indigenous groups located in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island also hold communal commercial licences within the project area, including licences for tuna and Swordfish. The domestic landings and harvest information presented above for the Project’s regional assessment area includes communal commercial fishing.

STRENGHTS

To add a new question go to app settings and press "Manage Questions" button.
WEAKNESSES

Yes! To add a picture follow these simple steps: Enter App Settings Click the "Manage Questions" button Click on the question you would like to attach a picture to When editing your answer, click on the picture icon and then add an image from your library

EIS Decision

Taking into account the implementation of the mitigation measures, the Agency is of the view that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on commercial fisheries.

Adverse effects would be:

low in magnitude
localized to immediate vicinity of the project activity
only occur for the duration of that the MODU is present

Predicted Effects

The Agency considered the Proponent’s analysis, expert advice from federal authorities and comments from Indigenous groups and the public, and identified the following key interactions and resulting potential effects on commercial fisheries:

safety exclusion zones around project components could cause temporary loss of access to established fishing grounds, with a resulting decrease in value (economic or otherwise) of these fishing activities; and

project vessels, equipment, emissions or discharges could cause damage to fishing gear, vessels, or equipment.

The Proponent identified additional potential effects on commercial fisheries, including potential changes in the quality or marketability of commercial fish species due to project related discharges, but noted that implementation of mitigation measures, such as adherence to all guidelines related to marine discharges, would mitigate any potential effects.

The Proponent also noted that government or industry fisheries research activities could be affected, but stated that these involve similar activities to commercial fishing.

In addition, the Proponent indicated the potential for indirect effects on commercial fisheries resulting from effects on fish and fish habitat, such as changes in the abundance, distribution or availability of fish species on established fishing grounds. The Agency has determined that adverse effects on fish and fish habitat are not likely to be significant.

Mitigations

STRENGHTS

To add a new question go to app settings and press "Manage Questions" button.
WEAKNESSES

Yes! To add a picture follow these simple steps: Enter App Settings Click the "Manage Questions" button Click on the question you would like to attach a picture to When editing your answer, click on the picture icon and then add an image from your library

In consultation with Indigenous groups and commercial fishers

Develop and implement a fisheries communication plan

To address communications prior to and during drilling, testing and abandonment of each well, the plan should include:

a description of planned project activities and the anticipated movement of the MODU;
information on safety exclusions zones and suspended and abandoned wellheads;
information on vessels travelling between Newfoundland and Labrador and exploration licences (e.g., number per week, general route);
procedures to notify fishers of planned drilling activity and the anticipated movement of the MODU a minimum of two months prior to the start of drilling each well;
regular updates to provide specific information on plans for project activities and an opportunity for feedback and further exchange of information on specific aspects of interest;
procedures for determining the need for a Fisheries Liaison Officer and/or fisheries guide vessels during MODU movement and the use of a Fisheries Liaison Officer during geophysical programs;
procedures to notify Indigenous groups and commercial fishers in the event of a spill and communicate the results of monitoring of its potential adverse effects on the environment and human health; and
procedures to engage in two-way communication with Indigenous groups and commercial fisheries during a tier 2 or tier 3 spill*.

*Tier 2 and tier 3 responses are defined in the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers’ document Tiered Preparedness and Response (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, 2015).

Cirtique

Critique

The Agency's GIS Decision-Support Tool consolidates available data regarding domestic and international harvest within the exploration licenses and project area boundaries; this tool will be reviewed and updated as new information becomes available, and can be used to inform the required project-specific mitigation and monitoring and programs.

The EIS requires the Agency to engage in a follow-up program which ensures the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed and to verify the accuracy of predictions of effects on commercial fisheries.

The EIS requires the agency to thoroughly engage and share information with other groups that are affected by the project ensuring ongoing communication with the NAFO Secretariat, using established information exchange mechanisms that are in place with DFO, and regarding planned project activities (including timely communication of drilling locations, safety exclusion zones and suspended or abandoned wellheads).

STRENGTHS

The well abandonment plan is not a solution for commercial fisheries and affected indigenous groups as the issue of long-term viability can be raised. Even if its location is indicated, an abandoned wellhead on the seafloor in a manner that could interfere with fishing activity is potentially prohibiting fishing on its location. The Agency should entirely commit to avoid such an outcome and proceed to removal of wellheads in all circumstances.

There is insufficient inclusion of indigenous group in the development of the proposed compensation programs for damaged or lost fishing gear as well as in the Fisheries Communication Plan. Indigenous groups should be able to participate to the development of these plans and be engaged throughout the life of the project.

The weaknesses evidenced for the Fish and Fish habitat section, such as the ability of the EIS to accurately determine adverse impact, the decision to dismiss restrictions of drilling activities during parts of the year, the scarce documentation and lack of baseline information on migratory fishes... etc, will definitely have indirect impacts on fishing activities. The quality or marketability, the abundance, the distribution or availability of commercial fish species may be affected due to the incurred disturbances.

No solution or compensation is provided for the temporarily lost or restricted access to fishing grounds. Fishing grounds are the main requirements for fishing activities. The EIS fails to offer any financial or equivalent compensation for the cost that will potentially be incurred by fisheries. Furthermore, restricting fishing activity directly impacts the well-being and rights of Indigenous peoples nearby. The EIS and the Agency seem to have ignored the precautionary principle that should be respected when Indigenous peoples are involved.