A Framework for Environmental Risk Assessment and Decision-Making for Tidal Energy Development in Canada

Transcription

1 A Framework for Environmental Risk Assessment and Decision-Making for Tidal Energy Development in Canada FINAL REPORT August 2012 Prepared by Lisa Isaacman 1,2, Graham R. Daborn 1,2,3 and Anna M. Redden 1,2,3 1 Fundy Energy Research Network 2 Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research 3 Acadia Tidal Energy Institute for the Nova Scotia Department of Energy / Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia & Fisheries and Oceans Canada Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research (ACER) Publication No. 106 Acadia University Wolfville, NS, Canada

2 Preferred citation for this report: Isaacman, L., G.R. Daborn and A.M. Redden A Framework for Environmental Risk Assessment and Decision-Making for Tidal Energy Development in Canada. Report to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia. Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research (ACER) Publication No. 106, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada. 44 pp. ii

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In-stream tidal energy initiatives are rapidly developing in Nova Scotia, but there remains a high degree of uncertainty regarding the nature and extent (in space and time) of environmental implications of energy harvesting activities. This report outlines a science-based environmental risk assessment and decision-making framework for the developing in-stream tidal energy industry. It lays out a set of practical criteria and related risk indictors for consideration when planning and reviewing projects. This guidance document offers an approach that would help facilitate a consistent, objective and efficient environmental review, regulatory and follow-up process for the tidal energy industry in Canada. The framework and guidance offered can also be used to inform tidal energy proponents of the minimum information that should be included in initial project descriptions or registration documents, and of the priorities for baseline studies and monitoring. In addition, the framework can help identify evaluation measures or trigger points for adaptive management actions of approved/ongoing projects such as: modification of project or mitigation measures; ceasing operations and/or removal of devices; or further detailed or formalized environmental assessment. Section 1 provides some background on the in-stream tidal energy sector in Canada and Nova Scotia and the need for the development of an environmental risk assessment and decision-making framework that specifically addresses the unique aspects presented by this type of development. The current federal and provincial regulatory processes that relate to the developing tidal energy industry are briefly summarized in the Appendices. Section 2 describes the guiding principles underlying the risk assessment and decision-making framework. These principles include: Appropriate consideration of ecosystem-scale and cumulative effects; Acknowledging natural changes; Use of precautionary and adaptive management approaches to deal with uncertainty; Early initiation of baseline studies; Consideration of site-specific and project-specific characteristics; Social values and concerns; and First Nations engagement. Section 3 presents a regulatory decision-making framework and provides guidance for project proposals. The process involves seven main steps: 1. Define the scope of the review; 2. Evaluate the project site characteristics; 3. Evaluate the environmental risk of the project proposal based on a set of standard defined criteria and indicators; 4. Identify risks of interference with other human uses of the ecosystem (e.g. fisheries, recreation); 5. Categorize the overall risk of the proposed project and make a management decision; 6. Define supplementary mitigation measures to reduce the overall risk of the project, where applicable; and iii

4 7. For an approved project, prepare an environmental monitoring program that incorporates adaptive management principles. Given that it is not possible to define universally applicable quantitative threshold values, the environmental risk assessment is based on a set of standard defined criteria and indicators that: Are relevant, flexible and can be consistently applied to projects of any type, size or location; Address directly or indirectly the major environmental concerns related to the operation of in-stream tidal devices; Relate to specific and characterizable attributes of a development project and the environment; and Are based on current scientific literature and expert judgment. The report concludes with a set of recommendations, including the need for the development of protocols for environmental monitoring, data collection and dissemination, and stakeholder engagement. A focus on case study scenarios that address environmental risk assessment and monitoring needs for a range of site types / conditions and tidal energy development levels (demonstration to commercial arrays) is an important next step. iv

5 CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act COMFIT Community Feed-in Tariff ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment EMF Electromagnetic Field FIT Feed-in Tariff FORCE Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy HADD Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction HCC High Conservation Concern IUCN International Conservation Union MRE Marine Renewable Energy OEER Offshore Energy Environmental Research Association. Now called Offshore Energy Research Association (OERA) of Nova Scotia PoE Pathways of Effects SARA Species at Risk Act SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment TISEC Tidal In-stream Energy Conversion v

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... iii Abbreviations & Acronyms... v Table of Contents... vi 1.0. Introduction Canada s Marine Renewable Energy Opportunity Nova Scotia Marine Renewable Energy Strategy (2012) Uncertain Environmental Risks of TISEC Developments Aims of the Decision-Making Framework and Guidance Report Guiding Pathways and Principles for In-Stream Tidal Energy Environmental Risk Assessment and Decision-Making Pathways of Effects Key Guiding Principles Ecosystem-scale and Cumulative Effects Acknowledging Natural Changes Using a Precautionary and Adaptive Management Approach to Deal with Uncertainty Early Initiation of Baseline Studies Consideration of Site-Specific and Project-Specific Characteristics Social Values and Concerns First Nations Engagement Environmental Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision-Making Framework Step 1: Define Scope of the Review Stressors Size of the Project Ecosystem Components Spatial Scale Cumulative Effects Timescale Staged Developments Step 2: Evaluating the Project Site Characteristics Site Scale Relationships Presence of Species and/or Habitats of High Conservation Concern Step 3: Evaluation of Environmental Risk Criteria vi

7 Criterion 1: Extent of Habitat Alteration due to the Presence of Physical Infrastructure Criterion 2: Effect on Water Movement and Sediment Dynamics Criterion 3: Timing of Short-term Projects Criterion 4: Physical Obstacle to Marine Organisms Criterion 5: Noise, Vibrations and Turbulence Effects on Marine Organisms due to Turbine Operation Criterion 6: Effects of Other Signals Emitted by Project Infrastructure Step 4: Identifying Risks of Interference with Other Human Uses Step 5: Categorizing Risk Step 6: Supplementary Mitigation Step 7: Preparing a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program Concluding Statements and Recommendations References Recommended Resources APPENDIX A: Federal Regulatory Context A1. Federal Environmental Assessment Process A2. Current DFO Risk Management Framework A3. Species at Risk Act (SARA) APPENDIX B: Nova Scotia Regulatory Context B1. Nova Scotia Environmental Assessment Process B2. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Bay of Fundy Tidal Energy B3. Nova Scotia Renewable Electricity Plan B4. Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy (FORCE) B5. FIT & COMFIT B6. Marine Renewable Energy Legislation for Nova Scotia vii

8 1.0. INTRODUCTION 1.1. CANADA S MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY OPPORTUNITY Canada has significant potential for extracting marine renewable energy (MRE) from coastal environments, and appears intent on doing so in order to diminish reliance on fossil fuels, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Interest in MRE development, particularly in relation to installation of tidal in-stream energy conversion (TISEC) technologies, has been growing rapidly. Extractable tidal energy is abundant in numerous, but localized areas of Canada s Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic coasts, some of which represent substantial energy resources (Figure 1.0) in close proximity to areas of significant energy demand (Cornett 2006; EPRI 2006). Currently, the Bay of Fundy on the Atlantic coast is considered one of the most promising areas for tidal energy development. Figure 1.0. Potential Tidal Current Resource Sites in Canada, based on Mean Potential Power (Cornett 2006). Canada is competing internationally in this promising field; in order to capitalize on economic opportunities, it is essential that technical or environmental uncertainties do not prevent progress in assessing the acceptability and durability of nascent MRE technologies. A clear and coherent regulatory landscape will enable this potential new energy sector to evolve in a responsible 1

9 manner. Management of Canadian marine environments involves a number of federal and provincial agencies, each of which has specific regulatory responsibilities. All MRE projects have the potential to interact with fish, fish habitat, fisheries, and other marine users and for this reason Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has a direct interest in any MRE development. Provinces also have a regulatory stake in MRE, in terms of allocation of submerged crown lands, economic development, energy and environmental management. Nova Scotia is currently focused on the opportunities for in-stream tidal energy development in the Bay of Fundy. The province is developing policies and legislation specifically addressing marine renewable energy, and regulatory agencies are in the process of designing the best approach to assess and manage environmental risks. Initial steps have included the following: a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Bay of Fundy area (completed); a SEA for coastal Cape Breton and the Bras D Or lakes region (initiated in spring 2012); a test facility for commercial scale devices in Minas Passage (FORCE) together with an Environmental Assessment (EA); background research and environmental monitoring projects for Minas Passage and other high priority sites in the Bay of Fundy; a public consultation process to advise on legislative and regulatory options available to the provincial government (the Fournier Report); and a programme of Feed-In Tariffs (COMFIT and FIT) aimed at supporting both small and large scale tidal energy developments in the province NOVA SCOTIA MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY STRATEGY (2012) In 2010, a public consultation process was commissioned by the Nova Scotia government for use in developing its recently released Marine Renewable Energy Strategy. The process culminated in a report entitled Marine Renewable Energy Legislation: A Consultative Process (Fournier 2011). The Strategy forms part of the Nova Scotia Cleaner Energy Framework, and describes broad policy and economic and legal conditions for the development of marine renewable energy to help meet the province s 2020 renewable energy target of 40% of the province s electricity demand. The Strategy rests upon three plans: A long term, integrated Research Plan based upon partnerships that are involved in coordinated, multi-disciplinary research to address existing knowledge gaps. The document identifies numerous non-government organizations currently engaged in research on tidal energy, including FORCE, the Fundy Energy Research Network, the Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia, and several Nova Scotia universities. Coordination will be encouraged through the formation of a Tidal Energy Research Forum. A Development Plan to encourage development of tidal energy extraction that is environmentally sustainable, cost-effective, and maximizes benefits to Nova Scotia. This will be achieved through active partnerships involving FORCE, technology developers, power companies and investors. The plan will address both large scale and small scale energy development projects by providing incentives (e.g. FIT and COMFIT), and envisages the creation of a tidal energy industry in Nova Scotia. A Regulatory Plan to ensure that development proceeds with appropriate licensing, environmental protection, community benefits and provincial revenue. It proposes to create two new types of licenses for TISEC projects: 1. a Technology Development License 2

10 permitting testing and demonstration phases of development, and 2. a Power Development License for projects aimed at large scale, commercial power production. A third license will be developed for Tidal Range (i.e. tidal barrage or lagoon-based) projects if needed. The Regulatory process will also incorporate engagement of all major stakeholders through a Tidal Energy Stakeholder Forum. Timelines in the MRE Strategy document suggest that development of arrays of tidal devices should be expected between 2014 and UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF TISEC DEVELOPMENTS TISEC technologies are diverse and continue to evolve, with most still at the testing phase. As a result, there is currently insufficient information to assess the environmental risks of TISEC developments, largely because: few full size devices have been deployed in natural environments for prolonged periods of time; environmental effects are likely to be technology-, scale-, and site-specific; the most favoured locations for deployment exhibit challenging physical conditions consequently data collection and effects monitoring are difficult and sometimes limited by the availability of suitable monitoring and mooring technologies; there have been insufficient monitoring results to confirm predictions of environmental assessments; and many of the sites with high MRE potential are insufficiently studied for the environmental implications to be assessed with confidence. Because of these varied uncertainties, development of the tidal energy sector in Canada should proceed using an adaptive management approach, by both federal and provincial levels of government AIMS OF THE DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND GUIDANCE REPORT This report presents guidance to developers and regulators on the development of best practices in environmental risk assessment and decision-making in relation to in-stream tidal energy development proposals and projects. It applies to all development scales and sites and uses an adaptive management approach. The framework proposed here aims to inform appropriate regulatory and approval decisions and to assist industry in the planning of their projects, such as helping to refine location, selection of technologies, environmental assessment, mitigation and monitoring requirements. It is intended that this framework be used to assist the development of a Statement of Best Practice for the management of in-stream tidal energy development proposals and projects, and serve as guidance for regulatory and licensing authorities to ensure the tidal energy industry in Nova Scotia (and elsewhere in Canada) develops in an environmentally safe and sustainable manner. 3

11 2.0. GUIDING PATHWAYS AND PRINCIPLES FOR IN-STREAM TIDAL ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND DECISION-MAKING Both regulators and developers currently lack sufficient knowledge or experience to be able to assert, with an appropriate degree of confidence, whether a project is likely to cause adverse environmental effects. Moreover, they are currently lacking practical and consistent guidelines upon which to base project planning and environmental review. To facilitate a consistent, objective and efficient environmental review, and regulatory and follow-up process for the in-stream tidal energy industry, a science-based environmental risk assessment and decision-making guidance document has been developed to address the unique aspects presented by this type of development. It serves as: 1. A guidance tool for regulators and developers in the assessment of environmental risk for in-stream tidal energy development proposals and projects; and 2. A procedure upon which regulators can base their regulatory decision-making for project proposal reviews and approvals. The evaluation criteria included in the guidance framework can also be used to inform regulators and proponents of the minimum information (type and scale) that should be included in initial project descriptions or registration documents and priorities for baseline studies and monitoring. As well, these criteria can help identify evaluation measures or trigger points for adaptive management actions of approved/ongoing projects, such as: modification of project or mitigation measures; ceasing operations and/or removal of devices; or further detailed or formalized environmental assessment. The framework and guidance provided in this report supports the review and adaptive management of in-stream tidal energy proposals, including sector-specific assessment criteria, based on the best available scientific knowledge, expert advice and best practices for environmental risk and impact assessment PATHWAYS OF EFFECTS In 2011, DFO obtained funding support under Natural Resources Canada s Clean Energy Fund for Supporting an Efficient Regulatory Framework for Ocean Renewable and Clean Energy Initiatives. The ultimate aim of the project was to develop a strategic research plan to ensure that marine renewable energy developments are effectively reviewed and located in such a manner as to minimize adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts. As part of this overall objective, a series of Pathways of Effects (PoE) logic models were developed for the major forms of marine renewable energy: in-stream tidal, in-river hydrokinetic, wave and offshore wind (Isaacman and Daborn 2011). 4

12 PoEs are conceptual representations of predicted relationships between human activities, their associated pressures or stressors and the environmental effects they may have on specific ecological components or receptors. The design of the PoE models followed the international Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impact-Responses (DPSIR) framework adopted by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, and originally developed by the United Nations Environment Program. The PoE linkages were based on a review of strategic environmental assessments, expert panel reports, environmental assessments, monitoring reports, scientific literature and the expert judgment of the consultants and the working group members. Figure 2 illustrates the basic structure for the PoE logic model. It consists of five main components: 1. Activity phases and sub-activities; 2. Stressors/pressures; 3. Effects on the environment, including: a. effects on ecosystem components; b. effects on the habitat/ecosystem, with potential indirect effects on ecosystem components; 4. Ecosystem components/receptors; and 5. Valued ecosystem goods & services. Separate PoE logic models were developed for the three main MRE Activity Phases: (a) Site Investigations; (b) Construction, Maintenance and Decommissioning; and (c) Operations. The pathways of effects logic model shown in Figure 2 identifies the following six Stressors for the operational phase of installed tidal power technologies: 1. Changes in current energy; 2. Effects of artificial structures; 3. Physical interactions with infrastructure; 4. Noise, vibration & light emitted from devices; 5. Emitted electro-magnetic fields; and 6. Release of contaminants. Ecosystem component categories, often referred to as Receptors, may be affected by tidal energy developments, through one or more of the stressors listed above. The identified receptors are: Fish; Marine mammals; Marine plants and invertebrates, including shellfish, crustaceans and planktonic organisms; and Marine birds. These receptor categories include all life stages (e.g. eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat, juvenile and adult stages), as well as the habitats upon which the species depend. It was recognized that the magnitude of the interactions (if any) will vary with the specific design concept and the sensitivity of the ecosystem components (receptors) found at any given location. 5

13 The models also highlight the valued ecosystem goods & services or the socio-cultural and economic interests and values that are linked to and rely upon the ecosystem receptors and which are the priority of Canadian environmental policy and regulations. Residual environmental effects (after mitigation) may occur where the above stressors and the receptors intersect. For the operational phase of the PoEs the following effects are common to each form of MRE development: Direct Effects on ecosystem components: Lethal / sub-lethal & physiological effects associated with marine organisms passing near or through TISEC devices and arrays; Burying or transport of eggs, larvae, benthos & in-fauna; Changes in behaviour, communication and/or navigation (e.g. habitat avoidance / exclusion / attraction, change in movement patterns, predator recognition and avoidance, etc.); Establishment of fouling assemblages, including alien species; Changes in health, survival and/or reproductive success; Changes in sediment erosion, transport and deposition patterns; and Changes in hydrodynamic characteristics and patterns. Indirect Effects (effects on habitat/ecosystem) from: Changes in coastal / shoreline or benthic habitat; Changes in ambient light & water quality; Changes in pelagic habitat; and Changes in plankton & macrophyte productivity. Draft and final PoE logic models were examined in detail by science experts and DFO managers at two workshops held in 2011 and The outcome of the workshops was a consensus that the PoE models adequately describe the important stressor-effect linkages involved in MRE development, and provide a basis for establishing priority concerns that could frame requirements for environmental assessments and research (including monitoring) as the MRE sector evolves. The models are intended to inform scientific research needs in support of effective and efficient regulation and governance of the MRE industry in Canada. 6

14 7 Figure 2: PoE Model for the Operations Phase Stressors in the Marine Renewable Energy Sector (Isaacman and Daborn 2011).

15 2.2. KEY GUIDING PRINCIPLES ECOSYSTEM-SCALE AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A fundamental principle of environmental assessment and regulatory decision-making processes should be to ensure that development activities do not go forward if there is a risk of significant negative change to a critical operational characteristic of the ecosystem 1. Regulators and developers must acknowledge a stewardship responsibility to preserve those dynamic features that are critical to the ecosystem s role in a larger coastal context. This is illustrated by the Bay of Fundy: an ecosystem that is of global significance, particularly given the large number of species that migrate between the bay and the whole of the North Atlantic, North, Central and South America, and Europe (Jacques Whitford 2008). The term cumulative effects usually refers to the additive or multiplicatory effects of more than one development taking place within the same ecosystem, or affecting the same receptor (e.g. migratory species) that may move between ecosystems and be subjected to more than one development. It is highly probable that successful deployment of devices will stimulate further tidal developments within the same energy field. Cumulative effects have always been difficult to forecast. Most oceanographic relationships are non-linear, so that modification of one parameter (e.g. current velocity) may result in a magnified change in related parameters (e.g. turbulence, water column mixing, etc.) producing system-wide changes that may seem out of proportion to the original perturbation. To this end, integrated regionally-based ocean management plans like strategic environmental assessments and marine spatial plans would provide a clear description of the environmental and social context in which in-stream tidal energy developments would be developed, including a set of strategic objectives ACKNOWLEDGING NATURAL CHANGES A complicating factor that affects risk assessment and the selection of mitigation measures and monitoring programs arises because all tidal ecosystems are subject to changes that are natural. Some changes, such as tidal rhythms, are cyclical, varying over predictable periods ranging from weeks to years. Others are non-cyclical, resulting in progressive, unidirectional changes in coastal morphology that may exert considerable influence on critical ecosystem processes. Examples include sea level rise, sediment and nutrient inputs into the estuary, shoreline and bottom erosion, climate change, etc. Over the prolonged time expected for marine renewable energy installations (i.e. decades), such natural changes have the potential to affect the interactions between energy extraction devices and the coastal environment. It is important, therefore, that such natural changes are recognized in the 1 In this connection, it should be noted that the Western Australian government recently amended environmental assessment requirements in respect of a proposal for tidal power development to include: a description of the biophysical interactions that characterize the ecosystem.., and an assessment of: impacts on biophysical processes currently operating within the ecosystem. [Source: Guidelines for the content of a draft environmental impact statement on the Derby Tidal Power Project, Western Australia, EPBC ref. No. 2010/5544]. 8

16 earliest phases of the risk assessment process, because they may be associated with variations in ecological phenomena (e.g. population characteristics, movement patterns, productivity, etc.) that are not attributable to the development itself. Ultimately, recognizing the probable effects of such natural changes is essential for designing monitoring programs that are capable of detecting and differentiating the environmental effects due to tidal energy development USING A PRECAUTIONARY AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO DEAL WITH UNCERTAINTY At the present time, the tidal energy initiative is built around a large number of alternative technologies, each of which has some unique characteristics. Few commercial scale devices have been deployed for long periods in natural environments; consequently, their durability and operational characteristics remain largely unknown, and since very few deployments have had extensive monitoring, their environmental effects remain a matter of conjecture. Furthermore, it is well known that coastal ecosystems undergo significant changes over time, some cyclical (e.g. seasonal, annual or multi-year), and others progressive (e.g. continuing system changes associated with sea level rise, shoreline erosion, subsidence or human modifications such as causeways). In the face of this variability and changing environments, identifying and quantifying the effects of marine energy extraction or the direct effects of the devices on organisms is extremely difficult. Given these circumstances, the precautionary approach 2 needs to be applied to protect the environment against significant and/or irreversible damage. This entails a risk assessment and decision-making process that errs on the side of caution in the face of lack of full scientific certainty. Notwithstanding recognition and adoption of the precautionary approach, inability to provide a complete assessment of the project and its environmental effects in the preliminary review or assessment of the proposal would not necessarily preclude the possibility of the project moving forward. Resolving gaps in scientific knowledge will require practical real-world experience which cannot be achieved without putting devices in the water at various scales and locations. Adaptive management 3 is the preferred approach to dealing with proposals of tidal energy development where there is insufficient experience with the technologies, a lack of knowledge about the ecosystem for which the development is proposed, or both. In fact, the novelty and continued need for refinement of the technology makes in-stream tidal energy development an ideal candidate for a staged and adaptive development approach. Except for short-term demonstration projects, most large scale tidal developments will consist of arrays of devices that could be installed over time with some units coming on stream long before the full development is completed. This iterative staged growth feature facilitates application of an adaptive management approach. The ultimate scale of a permitted project may be determined over time based on 2 Also known as the precautionary principle. We use this term to mean Where there is a lack of full scientific certainty, conclusions or decisions should err on the conservative or cautious side (i.e., assume that an effect is more rather than less adverse) (Hegmann et al. 1999). Please note this term has many similar, but differing definitions. 3 A planned and systematic process for continuously improving environmental management practices by learning about their outcomes (CEAA 2009). Adaptive management provides flexibility to identify and implement new mitigation measures or to modify existing ones during the life of a project. 9

17 monitoring and interpretation of the results, conducted as follow up to confirm the predictions of the environmental assessments. As projects expand to full commercial scale potential, there will be a need for continuing reassessment of the implications of the development. Cumulative effects associated with increasing numbers of installed TISEC devices, or the scale of the individual projects, in close proximity or in the same ecosystem, represent one element that requires continuous reassessment. In general, deployments will favour high velocity locations and follow up must recognize the non-linear relationships with important environmental parameters such as turbulence, sediment transport and deposition, noise transmission, etc. There is also abundant evidence (e.g. from causeway construction) that small, possibly incremental changes to critical ecosystem processes may not be evident for a long time after completion of the array, although such changes may well impact critical aspects of the environment (e.g. habitat), or progressively interact with other established resource uses. These additional elements of uncertainty highlight the need for reassessment, of any established commercial-scale development, at intervals of time over the life of the project. Adaptive management requires continual oversight and environmental monitoring and the ability to make modifications to projects as new information is acquired. An adaptive management plan should be a requirement for project approvals, with procedures that enable rapid responses when and where an effect is detected EARLY INITIATION OF BASELINE STUDIES A common feature of sites suitable for in-stream tidal energy developments is the paucity of environmental data and related information. Such sites are generally high current velocity locations that have not been studied for other marine resource uses (except transportation). Critical environmental and socio-economic information may therefore not be available. Environmental information relevant to assessing the risks associated with in-stream tidal energy developments takes a long period of time to acquire, and therefore early initiation of such studies is crucial. Complex ecosystems like the Bay of Fundy have been the focus of multiple studies by government and academia for more than a century. Significant natural variability has been identified but the drivers and many of the linkages remain unknown. Given the above, it is not fair or appropriate to task individual developers with resolving issues as complex as ecosystem function. The challenge is identifying the appropriate parameters to assess operation-induced change. This circumstance needs to be addressed by a broad, collaborative approach utilizing the resources of developers, academic institutions and public service agencies CONSIDERATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC AND PROJECT-SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS Multiple qualitative and numerical evaluation criteria and indicators of risk, adjustable to particular project designs and sites, are required. Justification of regulatory decisions is made easier when the indicator threshold(s) for approval or rejection, or the selection of the degree of environmental assessment, can be expressed in quantitative terms. The current regulatory thresholds for tidal energy projects for deciding whether 10

18 a given proposal should undergo an environmental assessment are based on total energy production capacity. For example, under the CEAA 2012 regulations (as of August 2012), only tidal energy generation stations of 5 MW or more or an expansion of such a station with an increase in production capacity of more than 35% require submission of a project description to determine if a federal environmental assessment is required 4. Projects of 2 MW or more are required to undergo a Class 1 environmental assessment under the Nova Scotia Environment Act. However, regulators, scientists and developers recognize that these values are essentially arbitrary and that thresholds based on scientifically justifiable criteria are needed to ensure appropriate and environmentally sound regulatory decisions are made and actions are taken. Better understanding of the real environmental effects of tidal energy extraction, derived from experimental deployment of devices and monitoring of their effects, should enable a clearer rationale for selection of indicator threshold values. However, because of the rapid development of this field, the highly variable nature of the environment and technologies, the limited knowledge of ecosystems, and the complex scale relationships (e.g. device/array scale vs. site scale), it may not be scientifically justifiable to select any one meaningful and durable universally applicable threshold for decision-making. For example, thresholds based on energy production, or size of the project, are what are typically used for other types of energy projects. However, these criteria considered in isolation from the physical and biological characteristics of the proposed site are inadequate, by themselves, to reflect the environmental risk or impact of a project. For example, the impact of a 2MW array in an open high energy site, without sensitive habitats or species, may be low, whereas the same 2MW array may have a significant impact in a semi-enclosed or lower energy site or area with sensitive species or habitats SOCIAL VALUES AND CONCERNS Tidal energy development is likely to take place in an environment that is already extensively used for other purposes, such as fishing, aquaculture, fossil fuel exploration and extraction, conservation, transportation, tourism and recreation. Displacement of any of these resource uses to accommodate MRE development may engender difficulty or even hardship at the local community level. It is therefore critical that one of the values enshrined in or underlying any environmental assessment process be that of maintaining or ensuring community sustainability, with the focus on those communities in close proximity to the site of MRE development FIRST NATIONS ENGAGEMENT 4 This threshold does not automatically trigger an environmental assessment. 5 The Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Bay of Fundy (OEER 2008) clearly indicated that, while Nova Scotians are generally supportive of the testing of MRE devices in the hope that they will enable the Province to address its energy and carbon output problems, respondents were adamant that the benefits of MRE should flow in the first instance to the affected or proximal communities and province rather than be realized only by those living far away. Export of energy and earning of revenue through exports are not precluded thereby, but there is a desire to see that local needs are met first. 11

19 All coastal environments in Canada have been important to First Nations communities for as long as the country has been inhabited. Many sites suitable for in-stream tidal energy development may still be associated with important resources for First Nations communities, and may also be subjects of continuing discussions with provincial and federal governments regarding jurisdiction. In Nova Scotia there is an obligation to consider First Nations interests in developments, and to consult. In addition, First Nations communities often possess unique environmental information that should be utilized in assessing both the potential and risks of TISEC developments. Proponents should follow the procedures outlined in the Proponent s Guide: Engagement with the Mi kmaq of Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia Office of Aboriginal Affairs 2009). 12

20 3.0. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND REGULATORY DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK Regulators and proponents currently lack practical and consistent guidelines upon which to base in-stream tidal energy project planning and assessment. The following section provides recommended guidelines for science-based risk assessment and decision-making of in-stream tidal energy projects. The guidelines take the form of a framework or process for identifying the overall risk of a project and the best appropriate management decisions based on a set of defined criteria. As illustrated in the MRE Pathways of Effects models (Figure 2, p7), MRE projects introduce seven major stressors on the environment which have the potential to cause dozens of individual and interconnected effects (stressor-effect linkages). The assessment of each individual stressor-effect linkage is not practical on a project by project basis, especially given the high level of uncertainty in terms of probability, magnitude and significance. Moreover, with the current high level of uncertainty and site-specific variability of the environmental effects of in-stream tidal energy, it is not possible to define universally applicable (to any project at any site), scientifically-justified quantitative threshold values (e.g. size, number of devices or energy production capacity) on which to judge whether a project is likely to cause adverse environmental effects. The risk assessment framework is designed to overcome these challenges using a set of standard defined criteria and indicators (Table 3a) that: Are relevant, flexible and can be consistently applied to projects of any type, size or location; Address directly or indirectly the major environmental concerns related to the operation of in-stream tidal devices; Relate to specific and characterizable attributes of a development project and the environment; and Are based on current scientific literature, including the DFO Pathways of Effects, and expert judgment (see Recommended Resources). The proposed regulatory decision-making process uses the criteria and indicators above, and involves the following seven steps (Figure 3a): 1. Define the scope of the review. 2. Evaluate the project site characteristics. 3. Evaluate the environmental risk of the project proposal based on a set of standard defined criteria and indicators (as in Table 3a). 4. Identify risks of interference with other human uses of the ecosystem (e.g. fisheries, recreation). 5. Categorize the overall risk of the proposed project and make a management decision. 6. Propose supplementary mitigation measures to reduce the overall risk of the project, where applicable. 13

21 7. Prepare an environmental monitoring and adaptive management program for an approved project. Table 3a. Environmental Risk Assessment Criteria and Indicators Criteria 1. Extent of habitat alteration due to the presence of physical infrastructure 2. Effect on water movement and sediment dynamics 3. Timing of short term projects (for projects that will be in place for less than one year) 4. Physical obstacle to marine organisms 5. Noise, vibrations and turbulence effects on marine organisms due to turbine operation 6. Effects of other signals emitted by project infrastructure Indicators Physical presence of infrastructure on benthic habitat (seabed) Physical presence throughout the water column Physical presence on the surface Amount of kinetic energy expected to be extracted by the project compared to the total available kinetic energy in the system (percentage) Physical configuration of the site in which the development is to be located (site-scale relationship) System characterized by seasonal or spatial fluctuations in natural flow patterns that may be affected by a regulation or disruption of current flow Other MRE developments, in operation or planned, in the system (cumulative effects) Timing of project activities in relation to known spawning, nursery, migratory or other critical time periods Capability of marine organisms to detect and actively avoid the infrastructure Proportion of the specific pathway occupied by the project Presence and suitability of other natural pathways available to the population to move between habitats Presence of other developments in the area that may also present obstacles to movement of marine organisms (cumulative effects) The size of the project (physical size of devices, number of turbines) Characteristics of ambient conditions Presence of other anthropogenic signals Presence of species known to be sensitive Ability of organisms to evade affected area The extent of the power cabling and lights Characteristics of ambient conditions Presence of other anthropogenic signals Presence of species known to be sensitive Ability of organisms to evade the affected area 14

22 Figure 3a. Proposed Environmental Risk Review and Decision-Making Framework. 15

23 3.1. STEP 1: DEFINE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW STRESSORS The criteria in this framework are focused on the risks related to the presence and operation of a tidal energy development. In reviewing proposals, regulators are faced with novel and/or poorly understood factors that cannot always be adequately addressed using current metrics or procedures. Standard assessment criteria generally applicable to marine site investigation, construction, maintenance and decommissioning activities, as well as the potential releases of chemical contaminants (e.g. antifoulants, lubricants), should be adequate to deal with such aspects of tidal development proposals SIZE OF THE PROJECT Scientists and regulators have generally considered small-scale, short-term deployments (e.g. single device prototype or pilot trials) to present a fairly low environmental risk that could be addressed by application of standard mitigation measures, especially given the option to cease operations if a problem becomes detectable. However, at least until more knowledge and experience are gained on the interactions of moderate to large-scale devices or multi-device arrays with the environment, any demonstration or commercial scale deployment should undergo, at minimum, a preliminary review and risk assessment, following the framework prescribed below ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS While a thorough examination of every ecosystem component may not be warranted, a proper risk assessment must recognize the complexity of the interconnections among and between species and the physical environments. Following on the MRE Pathways of Effects models (Isaacman and Daborn 2011; see Figure 2), the framework adopts a broad view of the ecosystem components and effects that should be considered in the risk assessment and decision-making process. While federal and provincial regulators may be primarily concerned with certain species or habitats of social or economic importance (such as commercially valuable fish species, marine mammals or species at risk), legislated review and permitting processes (e.g. under Fisheries Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and provincial environmental assessment acts) recognize the need to consider the effects on the whole biological community as well as the physical habitats on which they depend. As identified in the Pathways of Effects models, the four main ecosystem component categories that may be affected by tidal energy developments are: Fish; Marine mammals; 16

24 Marine plants and invertebrates, including shellfish, crustaceans and planktonic organisms; and Marine birds. These categories include all life stages (e.g. eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat, juvenile and adult stages), as well as the habitats upon which the species depend. We define habitat broadly as the benthic, pelagic, shoreline and/or surface areas, and the physical, chemical and biological conditions, on which individual species depend, directly or indirectly, including: Spawning, nursery, rearing or food supply areas; Migration routes; Refuges from predation (e.g. seaweed beds, marshes, etc.); and Biological community and food-web structure and interactions SPATIAL SCALE A key aspect of the environmental review of a tidal project is defining the geographic scope of the affected area. Due to the nature of in-stream tidal energy, the scope of the affected area may extend well beyond the area of direct physical occupation of infrastructure. While information may be insufficient to define accurately the entire extent of affected area, a conservative and scientifically justifiable approximation must be considered when assessing each of the criteria. Definitions While the terms footprint, near-field and far-field are widely referred to in MRE environmental assessment processes, to date, these terms remain undefined and are thus ambiguous. In some cases, authors of reports have assigned values (for distance, area) but with no scientific justification. For example, near-field has sometimes been used to refer to the footprint, set as some arbitrary distance (e.g. up to 10m around the turbine or some multiple of blade length or turbine diameter) or left completely undefined. Far-field is often left to refer to an unbounded area outside the near-field. Given the importance of spatial scale delineation for defining environmental assessment and monitoring requirements and to maintain consistency among projects, scientifically well-justified spatial boundary definitions are required. Given the number of factors that need to be considered (including differences among environmental effect types and site characteristics), this will require a consensus process among experts in environmental monitoring in high flow environments. We recommend this as a discussion topic for a future workshop. In the absence of agreed upon definitions, we suggest using the terms localized and system-scale in place of near-field and far-field, respectively, when describing the spatial area related to environmental effects. 17

25 Footprint is most often loosely deemed to be the area physically occupied or covered by some structure(s). For most marine activities, especially tidal power, this definition is of little scientific utility in terms of environmental effects. Devices with a large gravity base obviously may have a large surface that overlies the substrate, essentially smothering the benthic habitat and fauna; other devices, however, may be supported on pilings inserted into the substrate, or tethered by cables, and thus have a minor direct contact with the bottom; yet others may be suspended from floating structures restrained by cables and anchors. Arrays of turbines, however, collectively modify habitat processes, and have direct effects on flow characteristics that extend well beyond the minimal footprint of each device. For these reasons, we opt to avoid its use as a separate category in these guidelines, in favour of including the effects of the footprint together with those of the localized area. For practical purposes, localized effects can be considered as those occurring in the immediate space occupied by the development outward to a distance of up to 20x the diameter of the turbine or array (which is the approximate distance of the wake effect observed with the OpenHydro turbine in the FORCE site in 2009) (i.e. the direct zone of influence). System-scale effects can be seen as those extending beyond the localized area and well beyond the direct zone of influence. System-scale effects can be regional extending up to tens or hundreds of kilometers or more depending on the site and scale of the project, and the indicators being measured CUMULATIVE EFFECTS All proposals should be evaluated in the context of other established or projected human activities in the affected area. For example, while a given turbine or array may be expected to result in only a minor reduction in tidal energy or affect only a small fraction of habitat in the system, many activities (tidal or other) acting in concert (cumulatively or synergistically) may result in major changes to the tidal ecosystem TIMESCALE Effects may change, intensify or only become detectable over a period of time. Thus, impacts should be assessed over the entire predicted life of the project STAGED DEVELOPMENTS Although proposals for single or small-scale devices or demonstration projects may not exhibit a high risk or trigger environmental assessment requirements, proponents and regulators should keep in mind any intentions for expansion (scaling-up) of the project, as larger, longer-term projects will present different environmental risks in a given area. By considering projected scaleups in the review of early phase proposals, regulators and proponents can be better prepared to address potential future environmental concerns, including preparation of adaptive management strategies and initiation of data collection and monitoring programs. This would permit a streamlined and progressive environmental assessment process in the event that an expansion is pursued. 18

26 3.2. STEP 2: EVALUATING THE PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS A basic prerequisite to making scientifically sound and well informed decisions is the availability of information of sufficient detail and quality on the nature of the project proposal and the physical and biological environment at the site. Therefore, all project proposals must start with a detailed project description and baseline site assessment / characterization. The scope of the baseline survey requirements should be aligned with the anticipated scale of the project and its associated effects. Where information is unavailable or high uncertainty exists in a given criterion, risk level decisions must err on the side of the precautionary approach SITE SCALE RELATIONSHIPS Assessing the implications of TISEC developments requires recognition of the important interrelationship between the scale of the development and the size and characteristics of the site itself. TISEC developments require high flow locations. Strong current flows, sufficient for renewable energy extraction, are found in three different situations: through the narrow entrance of a coastal basin, through multiple passages between landforms, and in certain coastal areas offshore (Figure 3b). Figure 3b. Types of Tidal Energy Sites The environmental effects of energy extraction in these three situations differ significantly, as discussed below. A. Single narrow passage The confined entrance to a basin or bay represents the only passage through which water and migrating animals can pass. TISEC devices will resist and divert flow into and out of the basin, resulting in increasing elevation differences (and hence faster flows up to a point cf. Garrett and Cummins 2008) on either side of the passage, until increasing friction begins to limit flows and therefore decrease kinetic energy. As the scale of development increases 19