Mackenzie Gas Project Environmental Assessment Review Written Submission

Transcription

1 Mackenzie Gas Project Environmental Assessment Review Written Submission Joint Review Panel Topic Specific Hearing Theme 3: Biological Environment Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats Topic 7: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Migratory Birds including Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary (November 15-16, 2006)

2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT CANADA S ROLE Mandate Regional and National Obligations International Obligations ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GOALS THE CONTEXT Mackenzie Delta Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Birds Species at Risk Past Development MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARIES Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Management Objectives Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Management Approach IMPACTS ON MIGRATORY BIRDS Physical Footprint Production Facilities Gathering Pipelines Airstrips Subsidence due to Gas Extraction Sumps Auditory Footprint Production Facilities Airstrips and Aircraft Disturbance Predators Mackenzie Delta and Mackenzie Valley Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Tall Structures Mackenzie Delta and Mackenzie Valley, including KIBS Cumulative Impacts Mackenzie Delta Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Induced Development Mackenzie Delta Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Conclusions Summary of Recommendations and Positions Appendix I. Detailed information on the migratory bird resources of the Mackenzie Delta

3 Appendix II. Detailed information on the migratory bird resources of the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Appendix III. Predicted impact of the Mackenzie Gas Project on breeding waterfowl in Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Appendix IV: Sound Levels of Familiar Noise Sources Notes and References

4 List of Figures Figure 1. The Mackenzie Delta Key Habitat Site and Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary...12 Figure 2: Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary with the proposed MGP pipeline and facilities. 13 Figure 3. Currently proposed gathering line route across Fish Island...18 Figure 4. The Proponent s predicted area influenced by subsidence around the Niglintgak gas field Figure 5. The Proponent s predicted area of subsidence around the Taglu gas field. Contour lines indicate the amount the land is expected to subside Figure 6. Area that could be flooded within KIBS after 30 years of subsidence at Niglintgak gas field as calculated by nrcan Figure 7. Area that could be flooded within KIBS after 30 years of subsidence at Taglu gas field...27 Figure 8. The zones of influence around the proposed airstrip at Taglu Figure 9. Zone of influence associated with the Camp Farewell airstrip and proposed Taglu airstrip in relation to important nesting areas and fall staging areas for geese and swans in KIBS...40 Figure 10: Graphical depiction of the cumulative physical and auditory footprint of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project on the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary based on the EIS-proposed project without mitigations suggested by Environment Canada...45 Figure 11: Graphical depiction of the cumulative physical and auditory footprint of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project on the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary based on the mitigations suggested by Environment Canada Figure 12: Graphical depiction of the cumulative physical and auditory footprint of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project and induced development on the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary assuming design as per EC mitigations...51 Appendix I. Figure 1. Most important areas in the Mackenzie Delta for diving ducks and dabbling ducks during the breeding season and fall migration Appendix I. Figure 2. Most important areas in the Mackenzie Delta for geese and swans during the breeding season and fall migration

5 List of Tables Table 1. The projected habitat impacts associated with MGP Appendix I. Table 1. Estimated numbers of geese and swans in the outer Mackenzie Delta, June, Appendix I. Table 2. Average numbers of ducks present in the Mackenzie River Delta, Appendix I. Table 3. Maximum numbers of autumn staging geese and swans observed in the Mackenzie River Delta, and Appendix I. Table 4. Shorebird densities in the outer Mackenzie Delta compared to other Arctic locations Appendix I. Table 5. Shorebird population sizes in the Mackenzie Delta Appendix I. Table 6. Estimated minimum numbers of waterbirds present in the outer Mackenzie Delta, Appendix I. Table 7. Population sizes of the four most common songbird species in the Mackenzie Delta Appendix II. Table 1. Average numbers of common species of waterfowl and other aquatic birds found within Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Appendix II. Table 2. Shorebird densities at KIBS as a whole, Taglu, Niglintgak, and Fish Island Appendix III. Table 1. Predicted number of waterfowl and other aquatic birds impacted during the operational stage of the Mackenzie Gas Project within Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary assuming a 1-km Zone of Influence around project facilities

6 1. INTRODUCTION The Joint Review Panel (JRP) is mandated to identify, evaluate, and report on the potential impacts of the Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP) on physical, biological and human environments. This includes a consideration of the potential impacts of MGP on migratory birds and their habitat, including the impacts within the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary (KIBS). This submission focuses on activities associated with the three anchor fields and the potential impacts to migratory birds within the Mackenzie Delta, including KIBS. This submission is intended to: 1. Describe Environment Canada s (EC) role with regard to the conservation of migratory birds and their associated habitats; 2. Describe the ecological values of the Mackenzie Delta and KIBS; 3. Describe EC s management objectives and policies with regard to KIBS; 4. Discuss the potential impacts of MGP on migratory birds within the Mackenzie Delta, including KIBS; 5. Describe the extent of cumulative effects associated with the proposed developments within KIBS; and 6. Present EC s positions and recommendations. Throughout this document, three terms are used to explain Environment Canada s perspective on particular issues. View: Where Environment Canada s view is specified, it represents EC s opinion, based on the available evidence that EC either agrees or disagrees with the assessment and conclusions in the EIS. Position: The term position is used in statements where EC has regulatory authority and is identifying our stance on an issue pending the final recommendations of the JRP to the Government of Canada and approval of Cabinet. Recommendation: The term recommends refers to areas outside EC s area of direct regulatory authority, and are provided for the JRP to consider in its recommendations. Further discussion of the importance of protected areas is presented in EC s submission on Conservation Areas and Measures (JRP Topic 8). Further discussion on cumulative effects outside of KIBS will be presented in EC s submission on Cumulative Effects (JRP Topic 15). 5

7 2. ENVIRONMENT CANADA S ROLE 2.1 Mandate EC is the lead agency for protection of the environment in the national interest. Pursuant to the Migratory Birds Convention, Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, Migratory Birds Regulations, and Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations, EC is responsible for conserving and managing migratory birds and protecting their habitat. The Migratory Birds Convention Act prohibits the disturbance or destruction of a nest or egg of a migratory bird or to be in possession of a live migratory bird, carcass, skin, nest or egg of a migratory bird, except under the authority of a permit. The Act also prohibits the deposit of substances harmful to migratory birds into areas frequented by migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations provide for the establishment and management of Migratory Bird Sanctuaries. Every person who applies for a permit shall, if requested by the Minister, furnish such information in respect of the purpose of which the permit is requested as the Minister may require. Every permit shall be subject to such conditions as, in the opinion of the Minister, are necessary to protect migratory birds or eggs, nests or habitat of migratory birds within a migratory bird sanctuary. Pursuant to the Species at Risk Act, EC is responsible for the protection and recovery of migratory birds, as defined in the Migratory Bird Convention Act, 1994, and all species at risk that occur on lands under the administration of the Minister of Environment (e.g. KIBS). Further discussion of the importance of the Species at Risk Act was tabled in EC s submission to the JRP. 1 A more detailed description of EC s mandate as it relates to the MGP is on the public registry. 2 Wildlife, and in particular highly mobile migratory birds, must be managed at multiple scales. Local and regional conservation issues and initiatives must also be considered within an international and national context. 2.2 Regional and National Obligations EC regional conservation programs are undertaken within the context of Land Claim Agreements which provide for the co-management of natural resources within each respective settlement area. EC national programs and initiatives reflect Canada s international obligations to manage natural resources of common conservation concern. The establishment of protected areas is a key component of EC s national migratory bird program. 6

8 2.3 International Obligations The Migratory Birds Convention provides the framework for the cooperative management of migratory birds shared with the United States (USA). Canada is a signatory to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The Plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, nongovernmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals from Canada, USA, and Mexico. Two specific NAWMP initiatives 3 - the Arctic Goose Joint Venture and the Sea Duck Joint Venture - are of particular importance in advancing conservation of northern waterfowl. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GOALS EC s analysis is based on the principle that MGP, if approved, should be planned, built, operated and decommissioned in a manner that ensures the highest level of environmental quality so that the well-being of Canadians is enhanced and the natural environment is conserved. The development of the hydrocarbon reserves within KIBS must be undertaken in a way that will ensure the long-term effectiveness of the Sanctuary. EC has adopted a precautionary approach which limits the maximum cumulative long-term physical impact on habitat to one percent (6.23 km 2 ) of the total Sanctuary area. This onepercent threshold may be amended in the future on the basis of new science and other information. With regard to KIBS and MGP, EC is of the view that: cumulative long-term physical impacts to habitat from all past, present and future exploration and development should be avoided or minimized so that they do not exceed one percent of the Sanctuary. if impacts exceed the one-percent threshold, mitigation measures will include habitat offsets (i.e. protecting additional habitat) outside the Sanctuary. ecological integrity of the Sanctuary must be maintained throughout the lifetime of the Project and beyond by ensuring that: o o o all MGP activities use best practices that ensure that bird populations and their key habitats are sustained; exploration and development activities prevent pollution and minimize temporary and long-term disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat; existing population levels and the productivity of migratory birds and species at risk within the Sanctuary are not reduced as a result of exploration and development activities. 7

9 4. THE CONTEXT For the purpose of organization of this submission, EC has included any discussion and recommendations pertaining to the Parsons Lake gas field within the relevant Mackenzie Delta section. 4.1 Mackenzie Delta The Mackenzie Delta (14,250 km 2, Figure 1) is the most important key migratory bird terrestrial habitat site 4 in northern Canada and one of the most important breeding, moulting, and staging areas for waterfowl in North America More than 1% of the national population of at least 20 different species are present in the Delta at one time or another. 8 Waterfowl, other waterbirds (e.g. loons, gulls, and cranes), shorebirds, and songbirds are present in large numbers during the staging and breeding seasons. Waterfowl from this area winter from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts and use all four major waterfowl flyways. 12 The waterfowl resource is shared by numerous jurisdictions and resource users in Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico. When describing the biological resources of the Mackenzie Delta, it is useful to consider separately the inner or wooded part of the delta, and the treeless outer delta. The inner delta is heavily used by a diverse assemblage of ducks, waterbirds, songbirds, and two species of shorebirds. The outer delta, particularly the delta edge, is of special significance to birds. It is the most important staging and breeding area for geese and swans, and supports the largest numbers and greatest diversity of shorebirds. The Delta is of particular significance to nesting and moulting Greater White-fronted Geese and Tundra Swans during the breeding season and summer (Appendix I: Table 1). Smaller but continentally significant numbers of Black Brant and Canada Geese are present as well. 13 A diverse assemblage of ducks with Arctic, boreal, and more southern affinities occurs in the Mackenzie Delta each summer. Annual surveys indicate that on average about 300,000 ducks were present in the Mackenzie Delta each June from (Appendix I: Table 2). The delta is especially important to waterfowl during periods of drought in nesting areas further south. Over 750,000 waterfowl are present during some summers when ducks over fly traditional breeding grounds in the prairies and parklands From , an average of over 1% of the continental population of at least four kinds of ducks occurred in the Mackenzie Delta (American Wigeon, Canvasback, scaup, and scoters). In addition, over 1% of the continental population of eight other species of ducks has occurred in the Mackenzie Delta in some years. 16 Parts of the outer Mackenzie Delta most heavily used by waterfowl during the breeding season are depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of Appendix I. From late August to early October, the islands of the outer Mackenzie Delta are important staging grounds for several species of geese Lesser Snow Geese migrate from Banks Island to the mainland and across the Mackenzie Delta to the North Slope of Yukon and Alaska. In mid-september, Snow Geese return from the North Slope to the Mackenzie Delta before heading southward along the Mackenzie Valley. In years when the Yukon and Alaskan North Slope was snow-covered, about 10% of the Canadian breeding population staged for extended periods in the Delta (Appendix I: 8

10 Table 3). Given the turnover of migrating geese moving through the area, it is probable that most of the Western Arctic Population of Lesser Snow Geese uses the Mackenzie Delta at one time or another. The most important areas used by fall staging Snow Geese are near Shallow Bay and northern Olivier and Ellice islands (Appendix I: Figure 2). The outer edge of the delta is heavily used by staging Greater White-fronted Geese, Canada Geese, and Black Brant (Appendix I: Table 3). Peak fall counts have recorded as much as 5% of the Mid-continent Population of Greater White-fronted Geese, more than 5% of the Short-grass Prairie Population of Canada Geese, and 20% of the entire Canadian population of Black Brant. Given the turnover of geese migrating through the area, the actual proportion of the populations using the Delta is probably much higher. The primary staging area used by these dark geese is in the Ellice Island to Shingle Point area (Appendix I: Figure 2). Up to 10% of the Eastern Population of Tundra Swans is present in the Delta during fall. Swans concentrate around Mallik Bay, Swan Channel, the outer portion of the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary, and near Shallow Bay. The Swan Channel area supports the densest concentration of nesting swans in the Delta (Appendix I: Figure 2). 25 Waterfowl are harvested heavily by local residents for subsistence purposes 26 and, throughout their migratory range, are highly valued for cultural, aesthetic, and intrinsic reasons as well as for harvest Inuvialuit and Gwich in hunters have taken an annual average of about 6,000 waterfowl in recent years, mostly during spring migration. 29 On a continental basis, the largest populations emanating from the region are harvested at annual rates of 10% or more 30 31, meaning that over 100,000 waterfowl from the region are harvested each year in North America. 32 Some of the waterfowl populations from the Western Arctic are declining (e.g., Black Brant), being harvested near the maximum sustainable level (Greater White-fronted Goose, Canada Goose), or exist only as relatively small continental populations (Tundra Swan, Black Brant) There are international conservation concerns about populations of Lesser Scaup, Northern Pintails, Long-tailed Ducks, and Surf and Whitewinged Scoters, all of which have declined markedly over the past two decades. 35 Shorebird densities in the Mackenzie Delta are among the highest recorded anywhere in North America (Appendix 1: Table 4). Eleven species of shorebirds breed regularly in the outer Mackenzie Delta and another two species (Least Sandpiper and Dunlin) occur infrequently (Appendix I: Table 5). The outer delta supports large numbers of shorebirds because of the large area of wet tundra (e.g., low center polygons, wet sedge lowland) that it contains. The inner part of the delta hosts species usually associated with the boreal forest (e.g. Lesser Yellowlegs, Spotted Sandpiper). Based on surveys in 2005 and 2006, EC estimated approximately 130,000 shorebirds were present in the outer Mackenzie Delta. This figure is similar to earlier estimates of approximately 120,000 breeding shorebirds. 36 One percent or more of the estimated North American population of six species utilize the outer Delta (Appendix I: Table 5). The middle Delta contains more than half of the entire estimated North American population of Whimbrel (Appendix I: Table 5). 9

11 Significant numbers of shorebirds migrate through the Delta in fall but the extent of use is not known. 37 The fall population is composed of breeders from further north and resident breeders. As these birds are present at different times and for different durations, it is difficult to measure the magnitude of shorebird use in the fall. Shorebird migration is characterized by numerous small flocks (tens to hundreds of individuals) 36 rather than the large flocks seen on migration further south. The Mackenzie Delta hosts a variety of waterbirds including gulls, terns, grebes, cranes, and loons. Arctic Terns are the most abundant species of waterbird present but a number of other species are numerous as well (Appendix I: Table 6). Aerial surveys conducted between 1991 and 2004 suggest that greater than 1% of the Canadian populations of Sandhill Cranes, Glaucous Gulls, Red-throated Loons, and Pacific Loons occurs within the Mackenzie Delta. 38 Sixty-seven species of landbirds occur throughout the Mackenzie Delta, based on range maps, current records in the EC Bird Checklist Survey Database, and ground surveys in 2005 and On the inner delta, species using shrubby habitats such as Yellow Warbler, White-crowned Sparrow, and American Robin are common. In the outer delta, Savannah Sparrow, Lapland Longspur, redpolls and American Tree Sparrow are the most common species and occur in high densities (Appendix I: Table 7). 4.2 Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary (KIBS) was created to protect migratory birds and their habitats in a portion of the Mackenzie Delta. It covers 623 km 2 of the outer Mackenzie Delta and was established by Order-in-Council (P.C. 1961/1617) in The Sanctuary provides legal protection for approximately five percent of the Mackenzie Delta Key Habitat Site and, to date, represents the only designated protected area within the Mackenzie Delta (Figure 1 and 2) Birds Over 90 species of birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, other aquatic birds, and songbirds, have been recorded in the Sanctuary. Migratory birds are present in the Sanctuary from early May until at least mid-october during some years. 45 The distribution and abundance of these birds are best documented for the breeding season and fall migration period. The average numbers of common species of waterfowl and aquatic birds occurring within KIBS during the breeding season are indicated in Appendix II (Table 1). The densities of Greater White-fronted Geese, Northern Pintail, Tundra Swans, Arctic Terns, Sandhill Cranes, and loons are particularly high compared to other key habitat sites elsewhere in the Canadian Arctic. The small islands south of Kendall Island support a colony of Lesser Snow Geese. Since 1960, the number of geese present has ranged from nearly zero to The actual number of geese nesting is dependent on spring weather conditions, flooding, and the presence of grizzly bears (which in some years destroy many nests) as well as the actual size of the overall goose population From , the number of nesting geese averaged 1120 birds and the total number of geese associated with the colony (including non-breeders) has averaged about

12 Maximum numbers of Snow Geese, 5100 Greater White-fronted Geese, 3700 Canada Geese, 3700 Brant, and 3100 Tundra Swans were estimated to be present during fall migration in September of Given the turnover of birds migrating through the area, the actual number of individuals using the area is likely much larger. In 2005 and 2006, eight shorebird species nested at or near the proposed Niglintgak and Taglu production areas. Hudsonian Godwits and Long-billed Dowitchers, two shorebird species with very limited breeding distributions in Canada, nest in and around the Sanctuary. KIBS hosts more than 1% of the breeding population of Hudsonian Godwit and Whimbrel (Appendix I: Table 5). Densities of several species of shorebirds at Taglu, Niglintgak, and on nearby Fish Island were very high in 2005 and 2006 (Appendix II: Table 2). The majority of species at Taglu and Fish Island were present in markedly higher densities than in the mid-1980s Species at Risk Twenty-one mammal species, including three species assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as being of special concern (grizzly bear, polar bear and wolverine) have been recorded in the Sanctuary. Short-eared Owls, a species listed under SARA (Special Concern, Schedule 3), have been recorded at various locations throughout the outer and middle Delta, including KIBS. Eskimo Curlew frequented the area in the past 49. The waters just north of the Sanctuary have been designated as Beluga Management Zone 1A by the Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC) and as a candidate Marine Protected Area under the Oceans Act. Beluga Whales use those waters for calving Past Development More than 1500 km of seismic surveys were undertaken and 20 exploration wells were drilled in KIBS 50 between 1960 and Camp Farewell, Shell s staging and storage facility, was established in the winter of It was operated on a full time basis until 1978 and has been used periodically from 1978 to present. 51 Ten Significant Discovery Licences (SDLs) have been issued within KIBS to date. 52 Of the SDLs for which well data are available, 40% are associated with gas and 10% are associated with oil and gas

13 Figure 1. The Mackenzie Delta Key Habitat Site and Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary 12

14 Figure 2: Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary with the proposed MGP pipeline and facilities. 13

15 5. MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARIES Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (MBSs) are established under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (Bird Sanctuary Regulations) to provide long term protection to migratory birds, their nests, eggs and habitat. Management practices focus on preventing disturbance to migratory birds, with a special emphasis on rare and endangered species, and maintaining the ecological integrity of their habitats. Other land uses are acceptable provided they are compatible with the conservation of migratory birds, and activities are conducted in accordance with appropriate permits. All proposed activities are considered on a case-by-case basis. EC s permitting decisions are guided by the following considerations: Compliance with EC laws, regulations, and policies. The purpose of the protected area, as reflected in the relevant legislation and management plan. The proposed activity will not be considered in isolation. The cumulative environmental effects of past, current and future activities within and, where appropriate, adjacent to the protected area will be carefully considered. A precautionary approach will be applied. This approach recognizes that decisions and actions on conservation measures can and will be taken in the absence of scientific certainty. The level of risk at a specific site will be determined with the best available information and appropriate conservation actions will be taken in a proactive manner. The proposed activity will not compromise wildlife and habitat objectives for which the Protected Area was established. The proposed activity must reflect current best practices with regard to avoiding negative environmental impacts in both space and time. When avoiding potential adverse effects is not possible, other mitigation measures will be considered and applied to alleviate potential adverse effects on the conservation of wildlife and their habitats. The environmental assessment of the proposed activity will be informed by the best available information. Such other matters that the Minister deems to be consistent with the objectives of the Protected Area. 5.1 Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Management Objectives EC management objectives 54 for the Sanctuary are to: Manage and conserve migratory bird populations and their natural habitats in a manner consistent with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations; 14

16 Manage the Sanctuary according to sound ecological principles; and Encourage public awareness and appreciation for the natural environment of the Sanctuary. 5.2 Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Management Approach A number of overarching EC management approaches are presented in the KIBS management plan. 55 EC acknowledges that industry has a right, but not an unfettered right, of access to their resources which underlie KIBS. Accordingly, EC has adopted a precautionary approach which limits the maximum cumulative long-term physical impact on habitat to one percent (6.23 km 2 ) of the total Sanctuary area. EC will utilize the following approach to the management of cumulative impacts within the Sanctuary: All activities within the Sanctuary shall be undertaken in a manner that will avoid or minimize the temporary and long term physical impacts on habitat of those activities. Permanent, cumulative long-term physical impacts on habitat greater than one percent (6.23 km 2 ) of the Sanctuary will be mitigated through habitat offsets. Subsidence-induced flooding is considered to be a long-term physical impact on habitat. EC will consider issuing a permit if the anticipated long term physical impact on habitat of a proposed activity is in accordance with the one-percent threshold. Any long term physical impacts to habitat, in excess of the one-percent limit, must be mitigated through compensatory habitat offsets. EC will consider issuing a permit where the anticipated temporary impact of a proposed activity, when added to the latest cumulative long term impact account, exceeds the one percent limit. EC may amend its management approach on the basis of new information, including new science, consistent with its management goals. 6. IMPACTS ON MIGRATORY BIRDS All of the Mackenzie Delta is important to migratory birds and it has been identified as a Key Habitat Site. 56 However, only KIBS provides special protection for these resources. This section examines the major impacts of the MGP on migratory birds and their habitats in the Mackenzie Delta region, particularly focusing on KIBS. 15

17 6.1 Physical Footprint Habitat provides the water, food, and shelter needed by migratory birds for survival and reproduction. 57 This section considers the impact to migratory birds and their habitat of the physical footprint of the proposed production facilities, gathering pipelines, airstrips, and subsidence due to hydrocarbon extraction. It also articulates EC s view on the use of sumps within KIBS Production Facilities Mackenzie Delta The proposed Parsons Lake production facility would be located at the base of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula and approximately 40 km east of the Mackenzie Delta Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site. The facility would consist of two pads; a north pad with nine to 19 production wells, two disposal wells and a gas conditioning facility (GCF), and a south pad with three to seven production wells. A 14 km above-ground flow line would connect both pads. The GCF would include permanent living quarters, an airstrip and all-weather access road, helipad, a borrow site with an all-weather access road, and winter ice roads. The estimated area of long-term disturbance would be approximately 52 ha. 58 The north pad would be developed initially, and the south pad would be developed approximately seven years later. An airstrip (1700 x 60 m) that can accommodate Boeing 737 and C-130 Hercules aircraft is proposed. The proposed Parsons Lake production facility is outside of the Mackenzie Delta Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site. The physical footprint of the facility, particularly the north pad, is in an area of relatively lower numbers and diversity of migratory birds compared to the nearby Delta. It is EC s view that the proposed plan for the Parsons Lake production facility is consistent with the EC goal of minimizing habitat impacts Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary The proposed Niglintgak production facility includes six to 12 production wells, located on three production pads, which will be joined by approximately 10 km of 10- inch elevated flow lines to a barge-based GCF. The barge-based GCF will be located in an excavated site on the east side of Kumak Channel out of the main channel flow and associated ice forces. Approximately 50,000 cubic meters 59 of soil must be removed to position the GCF. The Proponent has indicated construction would occur during winter, including most dredging and shoreline soil removal. 60 However, some final dredging would occur in summer. The Proponent has estimated that the permanent physical footprint of the Niglintgak development, including the production pads, pipeline and GCF, will be 0.10 km Drilling fluids from the production wells will be transported to waste management facilities outside the Northwest Territories. The existing Camp Farewell and its airstrip will be used as a staging area and a construction camp. An ice airstrip will be constructed near the production facility in the winter. 16

18 It is EC s view that the proposed plan for the Niglintgak production facility is consistent with the EC goal of minimizing habitat impacts within KIBS. The proposed Taglu production facility includes production wells on a single well pad, a GCF, flow lines, one or two disposal wells and supporting infrastructure. The Proponent proposes year-round construction of the facility. It is anticipated that approximately 400,000 cubic metres of gravel would be deposited on site. 62 Proposed construction during the first summer would include establishing a gravel base for the entire production facility, driving piles for the facility modules and the barge landing site, and placement of the large facility modules. Year-round drilling would commence as soon as possible and would be concurrent with construction. The disposal well and five to seven production wells would be drilled over an 18 month period. Remaining wells would be drilled within 10 years of start-up. The permanent footprint of the facility, minus the proposed airstrip, will be approximately 25 ha (calculated from the Proponent s plot plan, May 2006). The Proponent proposes that the facility would be supported by an adjacent airstrip. It is EC s view that (excluding the airstrip), the proposed plan for the Taglu production facility is consistent with the EC goal of minimizing habitat impacts within KIBS Gathering Pipelines The MGP gathering system consists of 190 km of pipelines from the three anchor fields (Niglintgak, Taglu, and Parsons Lake) to the proposed gas processing facility near Inuvik. Approximately 9% (16.2 km) of the gathering system pipeline is proposed to occur in KIBS Mackenzie Delta Approximately 3.3 km of the gathering line would cross Fish Island (Figure 3) and traverse terrain similar to that described for the KIBS gathering lines (i.e. ice-rich soils and wet sedge vegetation). This area contains important migratory habitat and high densities of birds (Appendix II: Table 2), particularly shorebirds and geese. The Proponent has stated 63 that a priority in pipeline routing was avoiding sensitive environmental and cultural areas. Fish Island is a sensitive environmental area that should be avoided. EC recommends that the Fish Island portion of the Taglu lateral pipeline be rerouted to avoid the sensitive bird habitat on Fish Island. 17

19 Figure 3. Currently proposed gathering line route across Fish Island Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary The proposed project includes 16.2 km of lateral pipelines within KIBS. The Niglintgak lateral consists of a 14.7 km, 16-inch chilled pipeline from the Niglintgak production facility to the Taglu production facility and is entirely within KIBS. The Taglu lateral is a 26-inch chilled pipeline running southward from the Taglu facility; 1.5 km is within KIBS. 64 In addition, there will be approximately 10 km of elevated flow lines from the Niglintgak well pads to the Niglintgak gas conditioning facility. The proposed pipelines pass mostly through wet sedge lowlands which provide important habitat for geese and shorebirds. Ground conditions along the proposed pipeline route are ice-rich. The soil ranges from 30-70% ice with occurrences of solid 18

20 ice wedges. 65 Most of the KIBS pipeline route is subject to annual spring flooding and periodic storm surges. EC has several concerns related to a buried pipeline: The projected habitat loss for a buried line would be 3.32 ha whereas the habitat loss for an elevated line would be 0.12 ha. It is not clear how successful habitat remediation will be or if original habitat conditions can be attained. Past research suggests that some areas could take longer than 30 years to return to pre-existing conditions. If settling occurs along the trench, settlement could lead to ponding in the trench and result in further melting in the trench line. In light of these concerns, EC evaluated the costs and benefits of elevating the lateral pipeline within KIBS. A buried pipeline will entail greater habitat loss than an elevated pipeline. However, the greater loss of habitat must be balanced against the increased disturbance arising from more frequent inspections. In addition to the quarterly aerial inspections, an elevated pipeline would require ground inspections after spring break-up and late summer to check for ice damage, insulation damage, and movement of vertical supports. 69 EC concerns about the long-term integrity of the work area within the ROW will be addressed through the regulatory phase. It is EC s view that the lateral pipelines within KIBS may be buried as proposed Airstrips Three airstrips are associated with the proposed MGP. Airstrips cause direct loss of habitat and impact migratory birds indirectly through visual and auditory disturbance. This section focuses on the physical loss of habitat. The effects of aircraft and noise disturbance are discussed in Section Mackenzie Delta Requirements for an airstrip near Parsons Lake were outlined in the Parsons Lake Development Plan and supplemental information submitted to the NEB The relative merits of five different locations for the airstrip were evaluated on the basis of safety, technical considerations, environmental concerns, community input, and economic viability The preferred location for the airstrip is on the east side of Parsons Lake. The proposed gravel airstrip would be 1700 x 60 m in dimension (10.2 ha), and EC estimates that additional associated facilities would possibly cover an additional 1-2 ha. The airstrip would be linked to the north pad of Parsons Lake facilities by a 10 km allweather road. This airstrip would accommodate Boeing 737 and Hercules C130 aircraft during the four-year construction and drilling period. The south pad, if constructed as planned, six years into the Parsons Lake development, would be connected to the airstrip via a 15 km all-weather road that parallels the flow line. 19

21 The overall area impacted by the airstrip and associated facility would be ha. The local terrain is rolling or hilly and the land impacted would be upland tundra of moderate importance to migratory birds. EC recommends that the proposed Parsons Lake airstrip be subject to seasonal constraints on the number of flights to limit disturbance to migrating birds (see Section ) Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Camp Farewell was constructed in 1970 as a staging area for petroleum exploration within and around KIBS. It is situated on a 12.4 ha land lease. Immediately north of this site is an additional land lease for a gravel airstrip (610 x 30 m or 1.8 ha) capable of handling Twin Otter aircraft. The Proponent has indicated that during April September the Camp Farewell airstrip would be used approximately once per week during the four year construction period at Niglintgak. 74 It would be used considerably less during the winter months when there would be direct access to Niglintgak via ice road and ice airstrip. If so, the amount of traffic at the Camp Farewell airstrip would not increase greatly over the current rate of use. It is EC s position that the proposed use of the Camp Farewell airstrip is acceptable subject to there being no aircraft flights (excepting emergencies) during the spring (10-31 May) and fall staging periods (25 August September 30). A gravel airstrip is proposed for Taglu although there was no impact analysis of the proposed strip included in the EIS. The airstrip would be used for moving materials and workers during the construction and drilling phases and, to a lesser extent, during ongoing operations. The airstrip would be approximately 1060 m long and 68 m wide (including runway surface and shoulders). A 0.5 km access road would connect the production facility to the airstrip. The airstrip and access road would result in the permanent loss of 8.7 ha of habitat within the Sanctuary. The JRP requested an undertaking 75 from the Proponent to identify the alternative airstrip sites that were considered and the reasons for their rejection. The Proponent has indicated 76 that, in their opinion, an alternative airstrip outside KIBS is not feasible. However, a detailed comparison of the advantages and disadvantages and their respective environmental implications of all airstrip alternatives has not been provided to the JRP. The break-up (mid-may) and freeze-up (mid-october to December) periods are the only times when air access to and from the facility is absolutely required, since the Taglu site can be accessed by ice road during winter and by boat during summer. It is EC s position that an airstrip located outside of the Sanctuary (and in less valuable migratory bird habitat) is feasible and would reduce the impact of the Taglu development on the Sanctuary. Access to the Taglu facility during the shoulder seasons could be by helicopter. An airstrip within KIBS would add unnecessarily to the physical footprint of MGP and would disturb migratory birds over a large zone of influence (see Section ). 20

22 It is EC s position that the proposed Taglu airstrip should not be located within KIBS. Any site selected outside KIBS should be in an area with low densities of migratory birds Subsidence due to Gas Extraction Subsidence occurs when the land surface settles in response to extraction of hydrocarbons from an underground reservoir. The degree of extraction-induced subsidence depends primarily on the nature of the overlying geology, geological characteristics of the reservoir, and the reduction in gas pressure that occurs as the reservoir is depleted. Models that take into the account the potential range of values for these parameters can be used to predict the size, depth, and shape of the resulting subsidence bowl after gas extraction has been completed. In low-lying lands of the Mackenzie Delta, subsidence could lead to flooding of wildlife habitat, including loss of important migratory bird habitat within KIBS. Subsidence over gas fields and its potential impact on lowland habitat was inadequately considered in the EIS. 77 Subsequent information was provided by the Proponent in response to a number of information requests pertaining to gas fields at Niglintgak (responses to IRs and supporting documents filed with the JRP ), Taglu (responses to IRs and supporting documents filed with the JRP ) and Parsons Lake. 93 A recent review by technical advisors to the Joint Review Panel 94, documents filed by interveners 95 and discussions at JRP hearings 96 indicate that there is uncertainty regarding the spatial and temporal extent of subsidence. The uncertainties relating to predicting flooding after subsidence estimates are determined include water levels during times critical to breeding birds and the availability of accurate topographic data (LiDAR) covering the full spatial extent of the subsidence bowls. Even if subsidence is significantly less than currently predicted by the Proponent, the estimated area of KIBS permanently flooded may be more than currently predicted once accurate water levels and topographic data are secured to finalize analyses. The EIS provided no estimates of the area of habitat impacted by subsidence-induced flooding in KIBS or other parts of the Mackenzie Delta. Therefore, EC s understanding of potential impacts is based primarily on the detailed analysis undertaken by NRCan for the gas fields at Niglintgak and Taglu which were subsequently followed up by the Proponent 99, EC, and advisors to the JRP 100. Based on a review of this information, it is expected that one of the main contributions to the long term cumulative habitat impact within KIBS will be from subsidence-induced flooding Mackenzie Delta Subsidence caused by gas extraction at the Parsons Lake gas field is predicted to be only a few centimetres. 101 In light of this small amount of subsidence and the relatively high relief of the local terrain, very little land would be flooded there. It is EC s view that the predicted extent of subsidence for the Parsons Lake gas field is not a concern with regard to migratory birds. 21

23 Given the predicted depth, size, and shape of the predicted subsidence bowl at Niglintgak (Figure 4), it initially seemed unlikely that subsidence at this field would have much impact outside KIBS. Detailed topographic data are not available for the area outside KIBS, however, and the report by the JRP s advisors suggested that the amount of subsidence could be much greater than originally thought. 102 The subsidence bowl at Taglu (Figure 5) overlaps with low-lying lands of high importance to migratory birds outside of KIBS at Fish Island. It is possible that habitat on the island could be impacted by subsidence-induced flooding, but additional water level data are required to verify this. Further consideration of the impacts of subsidence outside KIBS is included in the discussion below Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary The predicted extent of the subsidence bowl at the Niglintgak gas field as modeled by the Proponent is depicted in Figure 4. The maximum predicted subsidence is estimated to be 0.45 m and the area in the subsidence bowl (measured out to -0.1 m contour in Figure 4) is about 3307 ha of which 2160 ha (65%) would occur within KIBS. Much of the subsidence at Niglintgak is predicted to occur under existing water (beneath the Middle Channel of the Mackenzie River); the area of terrestrial habitat in the subsidence bowl within KIBS is projected to be 747 ha. The southern part of Niglintgak Island and nearby low-lying areas will be most susceptible to subsidence-induced flooding. A minimum estimate of the amount of habitat lost to subsidence is the amount of land that will become permanently submerged after gas extraction has been completed (see Section ). NRCan concluded that by the end of the project, ha of land could be flooded at Niglintgak in late July and August (Figure 6). 103 That estimate was based on an assumed water level of 0.2 m. The maximum predicted subsidence at the Taglu gas field was estimated by the Proponent to be 0.38 m (Figure 5). While the 0.38 m contour covers less than 10 ha, the extent of the entire subsidence bowl is about 6602 ha of which 4755 ha (72%) would occur within KIBS. 104 The amount of terrestrial habitat in KIBS within the subsidence bowl would be 3429 ha. 22

24 Figure 4. The Proponent s predicted area influenced by subsidence around the Niglintgak gas field. Contour lines indicate the amount that the land surface is expected to settle (from Proponent response to IR JRP )

25 Figure 5. The Proponent s predicted area of subsidence around the Taglu gas field. Contour lines indicate the amount the land is expected to subside (from Figure JRP NRCan )

26 In the EIS and initial round of IRs it was predicted that subsidence near Taglu would cause Big Lake to expand southward, and thus flood adjacent lowland habitat. However, in a subsequent response to an IR 111, the Proponent altered its original prediction and stated the expectation that the southern shoreline of Big Lake might advance southward, as a result of extraction-induced subsidence at Taglu, has diminished since the initial assessment reported in the EIS and concluded as a result, the amount of area that would be flooded at the southern shoreline of Big Lake, after maximum subsidence, is not expected to be different than the current condition. An NRCan analysis predicted that a minimum of 232 ha of land near Big Lake could be submerged as a result of hydrocarbon-induced subsidence (Figure 7). 112 A similar analysis later carried out by the Proponent estimated 275 ha of land could be inundated. 113 The natural expansion of Big Lake has been measured in an analysis of air photos taken over a 54 year period ( ). 114 The long term, natural rate of increase in the size of Big Lake averaged 3 ha per year or 0.23% per annum. Therefore, Big Lake could be expected to expand at a similar rate over the life of the project (3 ha/yr over 30 years = 90 ha). Thus, for the purpose of impact accounting, the natural increase in the size of Big Lake would not be treated as an impact from extraction-induced subsidence. Taking into account the NRCan and Proponent estimates of subsidence-induced flooding at Big Lake ( ha) and Big Lake expansion due to natural causes (90 ha) it is reasonable to assume that a minimum of 185 ha of terrestrial habitat would be lost due to subsidence at Taglu. 25

27 Figure 6. Area that could be flooded (yellow) within KIBS after 30 years of subsidence at Niglintgak gas field as calculated by NRCan. Estimated flooding was determined from the Proponent s subsidence modeling and assumes a water level of 0.2 m. 26

28 Figure 7. Area that could be flooded (yellow area) within KIBS after 30 years of subsidence at Taglu gas field. Estimated flooding was determined from the Proponent s modeling and assumes a water level of 0.4 meters at Big Lake. The extent of topographic data (LiDAR) is indicated by the green lines. Additional areas could be permanently flooded, but could not be measured due to lack of topographic data. 27

29 Other Ecological Effects of Subsidence on Habitat The predicted impacts at the Niglintgak and Taglu fields described above are minimum values that reflect the total amount of habitat that would be permanently unavailable to nesting birds. Simply measuring the amount of permanently inundated habitat in this way underestimates the total impact of subsidence on migratory birds. Estimating other impacts of land subsidence on wildlife habitat are complicated by the subtle effects that flooding may have on plant communities and habitat suitability. Since much of the outer Mackenzie Delta is less than 1 m above sea level, subsidence could further reduce available migratory bird habitat through increased temporary flooding from both the Mackenzie River during spring break-up and from Beaufort Sea storms at any time during the breeding season. Increased flooding would have an impact on both waterfowl and shorebirds. Even in circumstances where flooding did not cause permanent change or loss of habitat, increased frequency or intensity of flooding can cause widespread nest failure or reduce the length of time that habitat is available, thus making it unusable. For example, flooding that persists into June would render an area unfit for nesting 115, and flooding later in June, after nests have been initiated, could cause extensive nest destruction. Both types of flooding have been observed in the Mackenzie Delta. 116 The possible effects of subsidence on the type of vegetation (i.e. migratory bird habitat) present in the outer Mackenzie Delta was addressed, in only a cursory manner, in the EIS and in response to related IR requests The Proponent states that vegetation in the outer delta is adapted to flooding and predicts only slight changes in vegetation from land subsidence. The Proponent has concluded that if more frequent flooding occurred, it would not have a large effect on vegetation: Increased frequency and duration of flooding, and associated sedimentation, might result in natural shifts in species distribution, toward vegetation types adapted to these changed site conditions, i.e., more water tolerant delta sedge-cotton-grass might expand over delta shrub and low-centred polygons. These changes might or might not be distinguishable from natural changes. The potential impact of these changes is rated of low magnitude and is not significant. 120 However, there are a number of flood-adapted community types in the outer Mackenzie Delta ranging from tall shrub communities to poorly vegetated, muddy, and low lying areas near sea level. The occurrence of these communities is highly influenced by the frequency and duration of flooding 121 and, therefore, contradicts the Proponent s conclusion that flooding will have little effect on vegetation and therefore migratory bird habitat. In fact, general descriptions of plant communities presented in the EIS 122 suggest that modest differences in environmental conditions can greatly influence the type of vegetation present at a given site in the tundra of the Mackenzie Delta. It is EC s position that a directed study and monitoring program is needed to determine the full ecological impact of subsidence on migratory birds and their habitat at Niglintgak and Taglu. 28

30 Uncertainty in Subsidence-induced Flooding Predictions The estimates concerning the subsidence-induced flooding for both Niglintgak and Taglu gas fields have been discussed in section EC requires that there be mitigation for permanent, long-term physical impacts that exceed one percent of the area of KIBS. Furthermore, EC will be taking a precautionary approach to establishing, through and inclusive process, the appropriate compensatory habitat offset areas based on an expert determination of the uncertainty. In this regard, it is necessary to consider how such factors as water level, topography, and natural variability can affect the predictions of subsidence-induced flooding. The following factors reflect the uncertainty around subsidence-induced flooding: Water levels used to calculate the ha flooding estimate for Niglintgak used 0.2m water levels from August. Based on the estimated late June water level of 0.3 m, NRCan provided an estimate that 100 ha of terrestrial habitat could be flooded at Niglintgak. 123 With a detailed analysis, EC demonstrated this estimate could be as high as 186 ha using water levels of 0.3 m. NRCan also estimated that approximately 500 ha of land could be flooded if, as hypothesized by technical advisors to the JRP, subsidence at Niglintgak was underestimated by 50%. This estimate was subsequently quantified by EC to be 633 ha using water levels of 0.3 m. Flooding estimates at Taglu range from ha under the subsidence estimates of the Proponent (accounting for natural expansion of Big Lake). If the upper estimate of subsidence in the FracFlow report is reached, EC has calculated that an area of 890 ha north of Kuluarpak and Harry Channels could be flooded. This estimate is conservative (low) and limited by the existing LiDAR coverage. The elevation of certain lands lying on the southern shore of Big Lake was not measured as part of the topographic surveys that have been used to estimate subsidence impacts by NRCan or the Proponent. Based on the known elevation of a high water or swash line that crosses this area 124, this unsurveyed area appears to be equally low lying as some of the areas that were predicted to be impacted by subsidence. Clearly, the full extent of subsidence-induced flooding cannot be determined until more extensive topographical data are available for the Niglintgak and Taglu areas. The projected extent of flooding is also constrained by the lack of adequate waterlevel data for the month of June (migratory bird breeding season). Data were collected for Big Lake in summer 2006 but have not yet been analyzed. Current estimates of subsidence-induced flooding contain uncertainty from both the projected spatial (vertical and horizontal) and temporal gas field subsidence and the uncertainty associated with projections of subsidence-induced flooding. This uncertainty must be addressed in a manner that reflects a precautionary approach and respects the long term conservation objectives of KIBS. Reducing the uncertainty specifically associated with subsidence-induced flooding will require: 29

31 Adequate quality and coverage of topographical data for the full extent of the subsidence bowls at Niglintgak and Taglu. Accurate water-level data to determine the potential extent of flooding during the migratory bird breeding season. It is EC s view that appropriate experts must be assembled to provide a reasoned estimate of the predicted subsidence-induced flooding. A precautionary approach to mitigating these impacts will be developed with this estimate. It is EC s position that a directed study and monitoring program is required to reduce the uncertainty in the subsidence predictions as production progresses Mitigating Habitat Impacts EC s approach to managing KIBS is to avoid, minimize, or compensate for habitat impacts attributable to human activities. If avoidance (the preferred option) is not possible, impacts will be minimized to the extent possible. This means that the best available technologies and practices should be applied wherever possible. Where it is not possible to minimize impacts on migratory bird habitats, compensatory habitat offsets are the most appropriate option. Habitat offsets are a reasonable and responsible approach to mitigating the predicted long-term physical impacts, in excess of the one-percent threshold, which is attributable to MGP and induced development. There is no practical technological approach to mitigate gas field subsidence under the current circumstances 125. As a result, compensation for habitat impacts must be undertaken. This will involve a three-step process: The determination, through expert consensus, of the projected extent of subsidence-induced flooding and the limits of uncertainty relating to that determination. The selection of habitats which could be used to offset the habitat impacts within KIBS. Setting aside appropriate areas to be managed as habitat offsets. Habitat offsets would be expected to meet the following criteria: do not currently have protective status meet or exceed the ecological values of the habitat being impacted within KIBS must be managed in accordance with the approaches used to manage KIBS 30

32 Consistent with the precautionary approach, compensation for subsidence impacts should reflect the uncertainty associated with the projected subsidence-induced flooding. The determination of the appropriate habitat offsets areas, including replacement ratios, must consider regional economic, social and ecological values. It is EC s position that: 1. Habitat compensation ( habitat offsets ) is an internationally accepted mitigation approach when avoidance and minimization are not viable options; 2. Providing habitat outside of KIBS as compensation for predicted habitat losses within KIBS is a reasonable and responsible approach to addressing habitat impacts; 3. Consistent with the precautionary approach, habitat offsets must reflect the uncertainty around the predicted extent of subsidence-induced flooding; 4. Areas to be set aside as habitat offsets will be managed in accordance with the management approach for KIBS; 5. The identification of areas as habitat offsets must include the Inuvialuit, industry, environmental non-government organizations and governments; and, 6. The habitat offsets must be established before gas begins to flow from the MGP Sumps Sumps are excavations adjacent to drilling rigs in which drilling fluids and cuttings are deposited, and then covered by the excavated overburden. The fluids are allowed to freeze in the sump before covering, and it is assumed that they will remain frozen within the surrounding permafrost. Over 20 exploratory wells have been drilled in KIBS. At least 70% of the sumps show some ponding, which indicates the thawing of ice-rich materials in the cap, or thawing of the frozen drilling fluids deeper in the sump. In such instances, drilling wastes may no longer be contained by permafrost, as was originally intended. It is also apparent that a halo effect exists around some sumps. This is typically an area of m radius around the sump where the vegetation is different from the surrounding natural vegetation farther away. The cause of this effect is unclear, although is likely due to terrain disturbance or subsidence associated with the construction of the sump. Regardless, the footprint associated with most sumps is approximately eight times larger than the actual area dug into the permafrost. Sumps result in permanently modified habitat (at least 0.5 ha per sump). As a sump cap is usually comprised of mineral soils elevated above the surrounding terrain, vegetation on the sump cap will differ from the adjacent tundra. 31

33 Mackenzie Delta Shell Canada has recently indicated to the National Energy Board that drilling wastes from Niglintgak will be transported and disposed of at authorized sites outside the NWT Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary Development plans for Taglu and Niglintgak do not include the construction of inground sumps, which is consistent with EC s position. It is EC s position that in-ground sumps will not be permitted within KIBS. 6.2 Auditory Footprint This section considers the potential impact of noise on migratory birds. Noise will originate from three sources: production facilities, airstrips, and aircraft overflights. The best available science indicates that there are demonstrable effects of noise on birds, though studying and understanding these effects is rather difficult. Not all species or general groups of birds respond in the same manner or to the same intensity of sound. Some studies have shown little or no effect of noise on some birds. Conversely, one of the best and most recent studies 126 found effects on the density, reproduction, and behaviour of a wide range of forest songbirds. No studies of comparable quality have been undertaken in the tundra environment. However, the biological basis for a response is unlikely to differ between the two environments. The recently completed Habib study 126 demonstrated the effects of continuous noise from compressor stations on birds. Songbird density was reduced in noisy areas (averaging 51 db, Dr. E. Bayne, supervisor, pers. comm.) by 38%; more young birds attempted to breed in the forest near the compressor stations (a sign of lower habitat quality); and fewer males of at least one species (Ovenbird) were able to find mates. Further, some species such as Swainson s Thrush appeared to alter their songs to compensate for the noisy environment. Effects at similar noise levels (42-52 dba) produced by busy highways were correlated with lower densities of birds, lower reproductive output, and younger males in the habitat closest to the road. The similar nature of the response of European birds to highway noise and the response of North American birds to compressor noise suggests a common, widespread biological basis for responses. Songbirds have also been observed to change the pitch of their songs to adjust to urban noise levels (42-63 db). 130 The demographic consequences of this behavioural change are unknown. There are a number of other relevant examples reported in the technical literature, particularly with relation to waterfowl On the Alaskan North Slope, noise levels averaging dba (and ranging up to 109 dba at source) caused Greater Whitefronted Geese to shift their nesting distribution more than 1 km from the source. Numbers of nesting geese also declined throughout the construction period. 133 A gas compressor station caused pre-nesting Canada Geese, nesting Spectacled Eiders, and brood-rearing Tundra Swans and Red-throated Loons to shift further away from the station. 134 Lower rates of nest attentiveness by White-fronted Geese have also been observed for birds nesting close to sources of simulated compressor noise

34 Summer and fall are critical periods for Arctic nesting waterfowl. Excessive disturbance during this time of year affects the birds ability to complete moulting or to acquire adequate body reserves for migration Increased disturbance during spring has clearly been shown to increase Snow Geese movements, which reduces body condition and ultimately lowers the reproductive success of the geese. 139 Flying waterfowl also respond to noise. For example, during fall staging on the North Slope, Lesser Snow Geese avoided sites producing simulated compressor noise by minimum distances of 0.8 and 2.5 km in two different studies Individual geese altered their direction of flight (in one of the studies 61% changed flight direction by more than 90 degrees) and flocks would not land near decoys when compressor noise was present. 142 The sound level produced in the two studies was approximately 50 dba at 1000 feet (305 m) which was a slightly lower noise level than would have been required by the EUB Directive 038 standard. 143 Disturbance of birds by aircraft, including both auditory and visual, has been widely observed. Typical ranges of noises produced by small single or twin engine aircraft passing overhead at 300 m are dba. Small helicopters flying at 400 m elevation would produce similar noise levels (68-78 dba) at ground level. 144 This translates into a noise production of dba at source for small, fixed wing aircraft and helicopters respectively. Snow Geese staging on the North Slope during fall flushed when the aircraft was 6-8 km distant -- a distance where sound exposure levels would have been 30 dba according to sound exposure level models (Federal Aviation Administration, Integrated Noise Model v4.11) for small, fixed wing aircraft. 145 A second study in the same geographic region documented average flushing distances of 2.5 km from small or medium sized fixed wing aircraft. 146 An additional experimental attempt to haze staging Snow Geese on the North Slope indicated that all the geese could be driven from a 125 km 2 area after only 15 minutes of hazing with a small fixed-winged aircraft. Studies in Alaska indicated Greater White-fronted Goose nest density was reduced within 1.5 km of an airstrip at the Alpine oilfield development. This distance corresponded to a noise level of 85 dba produced by the noisiest aircraft (four engine piston) using the airstrip. The greater sound production from the largest aircraft types (Federal Aviation Administration, Integrated Noise Model v4.11) proposed for use in MGP (B737, C130) suggests that the disturbance distance would be greater. The 30 dba sound level associated with disturbance of staging flocks of geese occurs at >8 km from a B737 at takeoff and landing. The 85 dba level found to have displaced nesting Greater White-fronted Geese in Alaska occurred at 3 km during takeoff and 1 km during landing for C130 and DC6 type aircraft. There is good evidence to indicate that noise negatively affects a wide variety of birds. Negative effects of noise are species dependent as well as being dependent on the lifehistory stage of the birds (nesting vs. staging). The best available evidence indicates that noise levels of ~50 dba may negatively affect a wide range of species Production Facilities The Proponent provided the following information in its EIS and supplementary information, from IRs, and relevant JRP hearings preceding this submission. 33

35 All activities that are normally covered under noise guidelines will meet AEUB Guide 38 standards for remote areas. This means noise will not exceed 40 dba L eq (average A-weighted sound level) at 1.5 km under the terms and conditions of the guide. This standard was developed for remote areas (though pristine areas may require better standards in Guide 38), and (in general) the standards were developed with humans as the noise receptors. Construction activities and other sources of intermittent noises are not covered under Guide 38. All noise generated from drilling, well test-flaring, and operations of the three anchor field facilities will not exceed ~40 dba at 1.5 km in any season. Proponent documents summarizing the impact of noise on wildlife 147 indicate various responses of birds to noise including avoidance, decreases in reproductive success, and habituation. Information obtained via IR EC 3.02 indicates that results for noise modeling at the Taglu gas conditioning facility (GCF) includes mitigation measures to produce the results presented in the EIS. Upgraded mufflers, at least, were included. Note: EUB Guide 38 and EUB ID 99-8 have been supplanted by EUB Directive Appendix IV contains noise levels of common items for reference. Sound follows a logarithmic function, so an apparently small increase in dba can mean a large increase in noise Mackenzie Delta and Mackenzie Valley The technical information presented for noise effects on birds (Section 6.2) and on noise modeling and mitigation (Section ) is equally valid for all areas impacted by the proposed MGP. The recent study on the impact of compressor station noise on boreal forest songbirds (Habib reference discussed in section 6.2) indicates that noise of ~50 dba and greater negatively affects a large variety of birds. In terms of potential mitigation, the lowest technically feasible noise level that was achieved at a large compressor station on the TransCanada Pipeline (station TCP 127) was 33 dba at 100m 149. This is approximately 24 dba at 300m, considerably more stringent than the standard proposed for facilities in KIBS (50 dba at 300m). EC advocates a best practical technology approach given that the example above of most technically feasible noise reductions were for sensitive residential areas. Additionally, the effort and technology required to meet a 50 dba at 300 m target is less for compressor stations than gas conditioning facilities, given the compressor station s inherently different size, lower number of, and different types of noise sources. EC recommends that the same noise standard that EC requires for KIBS (see Section ) be required as a best management practice for appropriate MGP production and transmission facilities throughout the project area. 34

36 Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary EC commissioned an assessment of the noise footprint of the Taglu gas conditioning facility. 150 The purpose was to understand what a best practices approach (using best practical technology) could do to minimize the noise footprint of the facility, and to consider whether such an approach could be extended to other facilities such as Niglintgak. An assessment of the engineering information provided by the Proponent 151, revealed the following: With additional mitigation, noise could be reduced from what was proposed in the EIS. The EC analysis indicated that 50 dba at 300m was achievable with standard noise mitigation techniques (equivalent to 40 dba at ~900 m). It may be technically feasible to achieve lower levels with additional, more complex engineering solutions. EIS noise models/predictions are dependent on a set of assumptions that are subject to professional opinion. EC believes that certain assumptions used in the model in the EIS are inappropriate, and therefore the predicted results may not accurately represent the noise output of the completed facility. Measurements made directly on the noise model output EIS figure for the Taglu facility 152, indicate noise targets that are usually assumed to be measured from the centre of the facility or edge of an equipment envelope are not met until approximately 2.3 km distant from the facility. Special mufflers and low-noise fan blades discussed in the EC noise analysis would be effective at reducing noise from both the Niglintgak and Parsons Lake facilities. Noise reduction at the Inuvik facility and compressor stations along the pipeline is also possible based on examples of best practice noise reduction from southern Canada, such as compressor stations for the TransCanada Pipeline. Levels as low as 33 dba at 100 m 153 (TCP station 127) were technically feasible and achieved. EC and the Proponent met on May 30, 2006 to discuss the differences between the EIS noise predictions and the EC analysis. A summary of the meeting was filed on the public registry. 154 After that meeting, IORVL provided EC with the data file for the noise modeling software used to produce the EIS analysis for the Taglu facility. EC was then able to compare, in detail, the Proponent s EIS model compared to that prepared for J- EC-00067, and to more fully understand the differing projections summarized in the EC-IORVL meeting notes. Of note: The second EC analysis 155 indicates that the noise model in the EIS for the Taglu facility has some technical errors (e.g. the distance for considering lateral diffraction was too small). The report explains where EC believes professional judgment decisions could be improved in modeling the noise from the facility. Specifically, EC believes the ground absorption factor used in the EIS is too high (i.e. more sound will be reflected from the ground given that it is saturated) and that the single largest noise source in the facility (the aerial coolers) was incorrectly modeled. 35

37 EUB Directive 038 does not state explicitly where the 1.5 km distance (at which 40 dba Leq would be measured) is actually measured from: the noise source, the centroid of noise sources, the edge of the perimeter of noise sources (equipment envelope), or a lease boundary (that can be some distance from any equipment). IORVL apparently used the most liberal interpretation for their Taglu facility. In their model, noise targets were not met unless measurements were made from an assumed lease boundary rather than from the facility centre, the noise sources directly or an equipment envelope. 156 The Taglu facility, as proposed, would be audible from ~5.5 km away considering the Proponent-measured ambient sound levels in KIBS of ~30 dba. It is EC s position that continuous noise emissions, as measured under the terms and conditions of EUB Directive 038, shall not exceed 50 dba L eq at 300 metres (40 dba at 900 m) from the edge of the facility equipment envelope for the period when birds are present in KIBS (10 May to 30 September) Airstrips and Aircraft Disturbance The effects of aircraft disturbance on migratory birds was not specifically addressed in the EIS although it was stated by the Proponent that mitigation measures proposed for flight paths and flight heights, such as a minimum flight altitude of 1,000 m and horizontal distance of 1.5 km from concentrations of migratory birds, will reduce the effects on birds. 157 Nonetheless, the Proponent provided a review of the effects of aircraft and noise on birds in two responses to IRs 158, additional reports filed with the JRP 159 and the report on habitat suitability modeling 160, which identified a significant zone of influence around project airstrips and helipads. The Proponent indicated that nesting habitat for Greater White-fronted Geese in a zone extending up to 2 km around airstrips could be rendered as non-effective during the construction period. Habitat models were not developed by the Proponent for summer or staging periods (also critical periods during the annual cycle of migratory birds). In IR JRP EC 2.18, the Proponent stated staging birds will undoubtedly be displaced, as a result of aircraft activity near the production leases (including KIBS) during project construction and operations. The Proponent qualified that statement by reporting (inaccurately) that the production leases are not within the high-use fall staging areas for geese and swans. Elsewhere, in IR JRP EC 2.18, it was acknowledged that the number of flights per day could influence bird use of the production area. In addition, it was indicated that delineating flight paths that avoid critical staging areas will reduce impacts of aircraft disturbance on migrating geese. In 1997, the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (NWT) concluded a flight altitude of 650 m was appropriate to minimize disturbance to birds under normal conditions, and that a minimum flight altitude of 1100 m should be adhered to in areas where birds were known to concentrate (sanctuaries, colonies, and moulting areas). The Inuvialuit Environmental Impact Screening Committee (EISC) has adopted these flight height criteria. 161 In addition, based on studies undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s , EC has established the following criteria pertaining to horizontal aircraft flight distances 36

38 from bird concentrations: (1) avoidance of concentrations of migratory birds by a distance of 1.5 km during the breeding and moulting seasons; and (2) avoidance of concentrations of migratory birds by a distance of 3 km during the spring and fall staging periods. The criteria are included in all relevant Migratory Bird Sanctuary permits as conditions and recommendations to the EISC. EC recommends that: a) aircraft should maintain a minimum flight altitude of 650 m (2100 feet) under normal flying conditions, and a minimum flight altitude of 1100 m in areas where birds are known to concentrate (sanctuaries, colonies, and moulting areas); b) aircraft should maintain a minimum horizontal distance of 1.5 km from concentrations of migratory birds during the breeding and moulting seasons; and c) aircraft should maintain a minimum horizontal distance of 3 km from concentrations of migratory birds during the spring and fall staging periods Mackenzie Delta The Proponent is planning to construct a 1700 x 60 m gravel airstrip at Parsons Lake that would support Boeing 737 jets and Hercules C130 transports as well as Twin Otter aircraft and Bell 212 helicopters. The aircraft flights would support construction or drilling activities at the north pad for 4 years and the south pad 3-5 years after the project begins. At peak activity, there would be an estimated 375 personnel on-site. The Proponent has indicated there would be approximately three aircraft flights per day during peak activity and, on average, about 1.5 flights per day during the remainder of the construction and operations period. 168 The estimated number of daily flights (about per day) is proportionately low compared to the Alpine facility in Alaska which had higher personnel on site (500 people) and required eight fixed-wing plus nine helicopter flights daily. A broad migration path stretching between the southern Mackenzie Delta and western Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula is heavily used by Snow Geese and Greater White-fronted Geese during spring migration. A review of data from regional harvest studies 169 revealed that nearly a quarter of the regional harvest of waterfowl is derived from this migration corridor. As summarized above, geese are apt to take flight very long distances away from aircraft such as the jets, cargo planes, and helicopters that will be used to access the Parsons Lake facilities. Experimental studies with much smaller aircraft have shown that all migrating geese could be driven from a 125 km 2 area with only 15 minutes of hazing with a small fix-winged aircraft, and that the geese do not return to the area soon thereafter Thus, frequent flights to and from Parsons Lake could cause significant disturbance and reduce use of the area by migrating geese. During spring, this could adversely impact waterfowl harvest by hunters from Tuktoyaktuk and Inuvik. 37

39 EC recommends that aircraft traffic associated with the Parsons Lake airstrip should not exceed a weekly average of 1.5 flights per day during the spring goose migration (10-31 May), excepting emergencies Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary The initial construction and drilling period for the Taglu production field is estimated to be 48 months. During that time, the number of personnel on site would range from 155 to When fully operational, the site would require only five personnel for the first seven years, after which it would be monitored remotely. The proposed Taglu airstrip, therefore, would only be used intensively for the first four years of the project, and periodically after that (except for possible drilling campaigns starting several years after the beginning of production). The Proponent has indicated that there would be two fixed wing (e.g., Dash 7, Dash 8, or Twin Otter) flights per day during the first four years 173 and two flights per week subsequently 174. Considering the number of personnel 175 ( ) on site during construction 176, it is EC s opinion that the Proponent s estimate of flight frequency may be underestimated. For comparison, the Alpine development in the Colville River Delta, Alaska had a 500 person camp at peak construction which, like the proposed Taglu development, was accessible by winter road. During the peak construction period, the Alpine airstrip averaged eight fixed wing aircraft flights per day, ranging from small, single engine aircraft to large multi-engine aircraft (C130, DC6). In addition, the site averaged nine helicopter flights per day. Based on a review of the literature in (Section 6.2) EC has recommended a minimum lateral flight distance of 1.5 km during the nesting, brood-rearing, and moulting (flightless) periods for geese. Take off and approach criteria for a Dash 8 (the maximum size of aircraft proposed for the airstrip) specify that flights typically pass through 650 m altitude at approximately 8 km from the end of the airstrip during takeoff and landing 177 (assuming good flying conditions, unlimited visibility, and an average pay load). The zone of influence (ZOI) represented by a 1.5 km wide strip on either side of the airstrip and takeoff/landing lines is 58 km 2 (Figure 8). The proposed northwest-southeast orientation of the airstrip places over half (58%) of this area (33.8 km 2 ) within KIBS. Most of the area within KIBS (88%; 29.7 km 2 ) is a high use nesting area for geese and swans (Figure 9). Considering EC s opinion that 50 dba may affect a wide range of species (Section 6.2), the Dash 8 produces approximately 60 dba at take-off and 30 dba at landing at 1.5 km. 38

40 Figure 8. The zones of influence around the proposed airstrip at Taglu. Fall staging geese, in particular, are very sensitive to aircraft noise. Flocks will flush when aircraft are 3-6 km away (i.e., >30 dba) All staging waterfowl within a ZOI represented by a 3 km strip on either side or end of the airstrip would be flushed (caused to fly up) by approaching and departing aircraft. The estimated ZOI during fall staging would be 131 km 2. Of this, 57% (75 km 2 ) is within the Sanctuary, and 34% of the area within KIBS (26 km 2 ) is high use staging habitat for geese and swans (Figure 9). It is likely that fall staging geese would be disturbed by fixed wing aircraft movement (arrival and departure) at the Taglu airstrip at least two to three times per day during the construction phase when the maximum number of personnel is on site. It is EC s position that the proposed Taglu airstrip should be situated outside KIBS. Any site selected outside KIBS should be in an area with low densities of migratory birds. The Camp Farewell airstrip can handle Twin Otter aircraft. Assuming an eight km approach and departure lines off the ends of the airstrip for a Twin Otter, the ZOI during fall staging associated with a Twin Otter aircraft takeoff from Camp Farewell is 32 km 2 in KIBS (Figure 9, Table 1). The breeding season ZOI within KIBS is 16 km 2. The Proponent has indicated that the Camp Farewell airstrip would be used approximately once per week during April September in the four year construction and drilling period at Niglintgak. As construction and drilling will occur during the winter months, personnel and cargo can be transported via an ice airstrip at Niglintgak or a winter road to the site. 39

41 It is EC s position that the projected level of activity at the Camp Farewell strip is acceptable subject to no flights (excepting emergencies) during the spring (10-31 May) and fall (25 August to 30 September) migration periods. Figure 9. Zone of influence associated with the Camp Farewell airstrip and proposed Taglu airstrip in relation to important nesting areas (left) and fall staging areas (right) for geese and swans in KIBS. 6.3 Predators Predation of nests and young is a key factor limiting productivity of ground nesting birds throughout the prairies, boreal forest, and Arctic Although predation is a natural process influencing the population dynamics of waterfowl and shorebirds, increases in predator abundance induced by humans (through habitat alteration or provision of food in the form of garbage) can readily alter any existing balance between predators and nesting birds. In turn, this can lead to population declines and conservation problems. Predation is a major cause of nest failure and consequent population fluctuation in Arctic-nesting waterbirds and shorebirds Most information on development-induced increases in bird and nest predation comes from the Alaskan North Slope. Oil and gas facilities have provided predators with artificial nest sites and supplementary food in the form of garbage and handouts. 190 There is consensus that Common Raven populations have increased in development zones of the Alaskan North 40

42 Slope. Fox and Glaucous Gull populations have probably increased as well (depending on the effectiveness of municipal and site-based garbage control measures). 191 In its EIS 192, the Proponent acknowledges that increased predation of local bird populations could result from its activities. The EIS refers to the provision of extra food and the creation nests, dens and roosting sites as factors that can increase populations of predators. The Proponent further commits to an integrated waste management system in which food wastes will (likely) be incinerated regularly, and in which contact between wildlife and food wastes will be minimized. 193 However, the EIS makes no reference to reducing or eliminating predator roosting, nesting, and den sites. The Proponent acknowledges that increased predation on birds and nests may result from disturbance during construction and operations. However, there is no link made between project-induced increases in predator populations and consequent increases in predation rates from disturbance. In EC s opinion, these two factors together can cause a much larger effect on local bird populations than is currently assumed in the EIS. The Proponent did not explicitly assign a zone of influence for the effects of increased predators on habitat ratings near production facilities. However, from the EIS, one can infer that their assumed maximum assigned zone of influence ranges from km around a facility for White-fronted Geese and 0.75 to 1.0 km for Whimbrel. 194 EC disagrees with the Proponent s assumption, as both avian and terrestrial predators (foxes and grizzly bears) have large home ranges and will commute long distances to take advantage of clustered resources like goose colonies or sources of garbage. Direct evidence shows that ravens nesting at installations on the Alaskan North Slope substantially reduced nest success in a nesting goose colony over 40 km away. 197 Therefore, it is EC s opinion that the predicted zone of impact should be at least a 40 km radius around development nodes. It is EC s opinion that the Proponent underestimates the potential for increased predator impacts on migratory bird populations in MGP area, and particularly in tundra habitats. The Proponent does not discuss avian predator management specifically, but does make the following statements regarding waste management 198 : Landfills will be used for disposal of solid non-hazardous waste. Garbage, including food and petroleum wastes, will be stored so that wildlife is not attracted to or cannot get access to it. Secondary containment of waste, daily incineration and/or fencing may be used to prevent wildlife access to garbage. Wildlife monitor staff will be properly trained to recognize and avoid potential issues with garbage and wildlife. There is no indication that the Proponent has considered ways and means to construct buildings and facilities in a manner that would eliminate nesting, roosting, or den sites for avian or mammalian predators. Further, it is not clear what sort of training staff will receive with regard to preventing increases in predator populations through intentional 41

43 or inadvertent feeding of wildlife and provision of nest, den and roosting sites. It appears that worker orientation will be by means of a handbook that staff must read and sign prior to accessing the premises. 199 In EC s opinion, in-person communication is necessary to impress upon staff the importance of predator mitigation measures. The Proponents state that some waste may be disposed of through third party infrastructure such as municipal landfills. Increased human populations and activity in local communities resulting from the oil and gas developments will cause local landfills to receive more garbage. This creates the potential for increased avian predator populations near these communities, and consequent increased pressure on the avian nesting population. EC will address this further in its submissions on Environmental (Biophysical) Management Plans, Monitoring and Follow-up Programs and Cumulative Impacts Mackenzie Delta and Mackenzie Valley The information presented above on the effects of increased predator populations on birds applies equally outside of KIBS as within. EC recommends that the predator control measures that it requires for KIBS (see below) be applied to all MGP facilities Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary It is EC s position that the Proponent must undertake the following predator control measures within the KIBS: 1. All wildlife must be prevented from gaining access to solid and liquid waste and other wildlife attractants; 2. All structures must be designed to preclude nesting and roosting sites for avian predators or den sites for mammalian predators; and, 3. Orientation for all relevant project personnel should include best practices with regard to waste management and avoiding wildlife. 6.4 Tall Structures Flare stacks, staff quarters, gas conditioning facilities and other MGP structures that are tall relative to the surrounding landscape could cause bird mortality by direct strikes. In the tundra environment particularly, these structures stand out above the landscape, and are located near wetlands used by shorebirds, loons, ducks, and geese. Faster flying birds such as ducks and shorebirds, as well as birds with lower manoeuvrability such as loons, may collide with the structures during daily movements, particularly during inclement weather They may collide with the structure simply because they do not see them in time to avoid them. This is especially a problem with guy-wires for towers, and occurs most frequently on days when the wires are obscured by fog. 42

44 The Proponent is aware of the potential for bird collisions 202 and has proposed a number of guidelines to prevent bird mortality at its facilities. 203 However, it is EC s opinion that not all mitigative measures have been addressed. For example, bird mortality from collisions can be minimized by erecting tubular towers instead of latticed or guy-wired towers Mackenzie Delta and Mackenzie Valley, including KIBS Conditions on the Mackenzie Delta suggest bird collisions could occur if the situation is not mitigated. The Delta frequently experiences low cloud and fog during open-water season, and has large expanses of wetland habitat used by nesting birds. It is also a migration corridor and important staging area for several species of waterfowl. Although Parsons Lake and installations further south are less likely to experience low cloud and fog, this area has significant numbers of bird species that are particularly vulnerable to collision with tall structures and so the mortality risk also applies. EC recommends that the Proponent, in consultation with EC, adopts the best practices to minimize bird collisions with MGP facilities. 6.5 Cumulative Impacts Mackenzie Delta The Mackenzie Delta falls under a spectrum of regulatory agencies and interests including the Inuvialuit, territorial, and federal governments. A proactive approach is required to ensure effective integrated resource management which reflects the economic, environmental, and social goals of the region. The long-term management of KIBS should, in due course, be considered within a comprehensive planning approach for the Delta. Further details will be provided in EC s submission to the JRP on Cumulative Effects Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary The cumulative impact of the MGP on KIBS includes the direct loss of habitat, the loss of effective habitat and the impacts of predators and tall structures. The direct loss of habitat and the area impacted by noise is summarized in Table 1. The physical footprint is currently estimated to be ha (3.83 km 2 ), or 0.61% of the Sanctuary (see Table 1). This estimate would be reached in 30 years if subsidence occurred as projected by the Proponents and facilities and airstrips were built as proposed in the EIS. The auditory footprint covers a substantial portion of the Sanctuary. Noise from the facilities will be audible above ambient levels from ~4 km away for Niglintgak and 5.5 km away for Taglu as currently proposed in the EIS, which equates to approximately 43

45 20% of KIBS. Approximately 408 ha or 0.7% of KIBS will be subject to noise that exceeds 50 dba if EIS-proposed standards are used. EC performed a quantitative analysis of the impact of MGP within KIBS. EC s analysis concluded that the predicted number of waterfowl and other aquatic birds impacted within the ZOI of MGP facilities is substantially higher than the Proponent has estimated (refer to Appendix III for details of the analysis). The EC analyses were used as a guide in determining appropriate mitigation and management in KIBS. The ZOI associated with the proposed Taglu airstrip would include 5.4% of KIBS in the breeding season and 12% of KIBS during the fall staging period. EC is unable to quantify the potential impacts from predation or tall structures. The known impacts and potential collective influence of the proposed MGP is graphically depicted (to scale) in Figure 10 as follows: Historical disturbance is shown in black Facilities are shown in red The pipeline includes the 30 m ROW Subsidence is in black (EC/NRCAN determination before the report on subsidence 206 was completed by the JRP s special advisors). Noise >50 dba surrounds the facilities in dark grey circles. Noise above ambient levels is depicted by lighter grey circles around the facilities Two ZOIs are depicted around each airstrip. The darker grey oval represents the breeding season ZOI (1.5 km radius) while the lighter grey oval is the staging season ZOI (3.0 km radius). Periodic travel by aircraft along other flight lines, aerial inspections of the lateral lines, and other unanticipated flights will further disturb birds in KIBS. Clearly, a substantial portion of KIBS will be influenced, if not impacted, by the proposed MGP. EC s positions are in response to these cumulative impacts, and are intended to minimize physical habitat disturbance and reduce the ZOI from noise impacts. If all mitigation in this submission was implemented, the revised footprint of cumulative effects could appear as depicted in Figure 11. Ongoing monitoring will be required to quantify these potential impacts and to provide a basis for informed management decisions. 44

46 Figure 10: Graphical depiction of the cumulative physical and auditory footprint of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project on the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary based on the EIS-proposed project without mitigations suggested by Environment Canada. 45

47 Figure 11: Graphical depiction of the cumulative physical and auditory footprint of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project on the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary based on the mitigations suggested by Environment Canada. 46

48 Table 1. The projected habitat impacts (based on current information) associated with MGP is presented below. Notes are in brackets. Proposed MGP Development Proponent Scenario Physical Footprint (ha) Proponent Scenario Auditory Footprint (ha) EC Scenario Auditory Footprint 50 (ha) Niglintgak Production Facility (1) Niglintgak Subsidence (2) Niglintgak and Taglu Lateral Pipelines m right of way (3) Taglu Production Facility (4), not counting gravel apron Taglu Airstrip and Access Road (5), (Noise: 6,7) * 7476** 0* 0** Taglu Subsidence (8) Camp Farewell Airstrip (9) * 3400** 1634* 3400** Total MGP Physical Footprint Total MGP Noise Footprint * 11,284** 56.6* 56.6** Pre-MGP Footprint (10) Total Footprint Post MGP ha 5424* 56.6 ha 3.83 km % of KIBS 11,284** 54.2 km 2 * 113 km 2 ** 0.57 km 2 Notes: Numbers in this table are based on current information and are subject to revision pending receipt of better information. * Breeding season ** Fall staging season 1: For physical footprint, Proponent presentation to the JRP (J-IORVL-00453, 20 March, 2006) 2: Natural Resources Canada presentation to the JRP (J-NRCAN-00045, 21 March, 2006) 47

49 3: Although the Proponent has indicated that ice pads and snow pads will be used to prevent long-term impacts on the Right-of-Way, there is some uncertainty whether this approach will be completely effective. 30 m width assumed.14.7 km (Nig to Taglu lateral), 1.5 km (Taglu to KIBS boundary lateral). 4: For physical footprint, Proponent estimate 30 ha with airstrip; The apron refers to the extra area covered by the sloped sides of the gravel pad (i.e. the base is larger than the top). 5: For physical footprint, EC calculation from the Proponent plot plan (January 2006) 6: Dash 8 aircraft is at ~30 dba at 2.5 km during take-off. Cessna 185 is at similar levels ~7 km. 3.0 km was chosen as a conservative number based on the type of aircraft commonly using the Taglu airstrip. 7: See the Aircraft Disturbance section of this submission for explanation of aircraft ZOI. It assumes a 1.5 km radius for a ZOI in breeding season and 3.0 km for a ZOI during the staging period for waterfowl. Only ZOI within KIBS is calculated. 8: For physical footprint, the Proponent believes that there will be no flooded area due to subsidence. 9: For physical footprint, it is not clear if Shell plans to expand this airstrip slightly. 10: EC determination from 1-m resolution satellite imagery of the Sanctuary. 700 m radius assumed, > 50 dba. 900 m radius assumed, > 50 dba. 48

50 6.6 Induced Development Mackenzie Delta The potential effects of induced development on the Mackenzie Delta will be discussed in EC s submission to the JRP on Cumulative Effects Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary If the MGP is approved, it is reasonable to assume that licence holders of nearby Significant Discovery Licences (SDLs) will want to bring their resources to market. There are eight additional SDLs within KIBS and another three SDLs immediately adjacent to the Sanctuary. The projected physical impact associated with the development of these SDLs is based on the following: a single well pad per SDL a single, shortest-distance pipeline from the SDL to its nearest neighbouring SDL, eventually connecting with the closest GCF. information provided by Chevron regarding the Garry field EC has estimated that the physical habitat impacts resulting from these developments will be approximately 1.7 km 2 if there is a permanent loss of the habitat on the pipeline ROWs. The extent of subsidence associated with these SDLs is unknown to EC at this time. The known impacts and the collective potential influence of the proposed MGP and the potential impacts of induced development are depicted in Figure 12 as follows. Rectangular boxes are outlines of current Significant Discovery Licences. Historical disturbance is shown in black Facilities are shown in red The pipeline includes the 30 m right of way Subsidence is depicted in black (EC/NRCAN determination pre-fracflow report). Noise >50 dba surrounds the facilities in dark grey circles. Noise above ambient levels is depicted by lighter grey circles around the facilities 49

51 Two ZOIs are depicted around each airstrip. The darker grey oval represents the breeding season ZOI (1.5 km radius) while the lighter grey oval is the staging season ZOI (3.0 km radius). Chevron has indicated that they will require a GCF for their Garry field development EC has assumed that compression or a GCF will be required to produce the southern fields in KIBS and has added the noise ZOI for such a facility. Subsidence from development of the additional fields has not been estimated or depicted. 50

52 Figure 12: Graphical depiction of the cumulative physical and auditory footprint of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project and induced development on the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary assuming design as per EC mitigations. 51

53 7. CONCLUSIONS Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary is a part of one of the worlds great deltas. The Mackenzie Delta is important for wildlife, and particularly so for migratory birds. Migratory birds are abundant and distributed throughout the region from the time they arrive in the spring to the time they begin their migration southward for the winter. KIBS is unlike other areas in the Mackenzie Delta; as a federal Migratory Bird sanctuary, it is the only place specifically affording protection to migratory bird habitat. EC is managing the Sanctuary to conserve its long term integrity. EC recognizes that the Proponent has rights, but not unfettered rights, for operating within the Sanctuary. Regulation is directed at avoiding and minimizing permanent long term physical impacts that may arise from the MGP, induced development, and other activities. EC is taking an adaptive approach to managing cumulative effects within KIBS. EC will rely on new directed studies, monitoring, and evaluations to inform decision-making in an iterative fashion. Subsidence is considered to be the most significant threat to the integrity of the Sanctuary. With no technological fixes for subsidence, mitigation must include compensation, as habitat offsets, if the threshold is exceeded. Mitigation must be in place before gas flows from the Project, as is standard for all mitigation. There is considerable uncertainty concerning predicted subsidence, predictions of flooding from subsidence, and the pace of induced development. This necessitates that a precautionary approach be taken to achieve the conservation objectives for KIBS. This management approach includes applying a 1% threshold for cumulative physical habitat impacts and the use of habitat offsets to address impacts which exceed this threshold. The management of KIBS, in the context of minimizing cumulative effects, means having to consider the individual and synergistic effects of all the threats to migratory birds in all stages of the birds life cycles. This includes consideration of the MGP and potential induced development on various temporal and spatial scales. EC will vigorously pursue the adoption of best available technologies and the ongoing evaluation of performance by those operating within the Sanctuary. In the broader context, EC will contribute to sustainability through inclusive integrated resource planning and implementation processes for achieving conservation for the Delta. A summary of recommendations and positions included in this submission follows. 52

54 8. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND POSITIONS EC recommends that the Fish Island portion of the Taglu lateral pipeline be rerouted to avoid the sensitive bird habitat on Fish Island EC recommends that the proposed Parsons Lake airstrip be subject to seasonal constraints on the number of flights to limit disturbance to migrating birds (see Section )...20 It is EC s position that the proposed use of the Camp Farewell airstrip is acceptable subject to there being no aircraft flights (excepting emergencies) during the spring (10-31 May) and fall staging periods (25 August September 30)...20 It is EC s position that the proposed Taglu airstrip should not be located within KIBS. Any site selected outside KIBS should be in an area with low densities of migratory birds It is EC s position that a directed study and monitoring program is needed to determine the full ecological impact of subsidence on migratory birds and their habitat at Niglintgak and Taglu It is EC s position that a directed study and monitoring program is required to reduce the uncertainty in the subsidence predictions as production progresses It is EC s position that: 1. Habitat compensation ( habitat offsets ) is an internationally accepted mitigation approach when avoidance and minimization are not viable options; Providing habitat outside of KIBS as compensation for predicted habitat losses within KIBS is a reasonable and responsible approach to addressing habitat impacts; Consistent with the precautionary approach, habitat offsets must reflect the uncertainty around the predicted extent of subsidence-induced flooding; Areas to be set aside as habitat offsets will be managed in accordance with the management approach for KIBS; The identification of areas as habitat offsets must include the Inuvialuit, industry, environmental non-government organizations and governments; and, The habitat offsets must be established before gas begins to flow from the MGP It is EC s position that in-ground sumps will not be permitted within KIBS...32 EC recommends that the same noise standard that EC requires for KIBS (see Section ) be required as a best management practice for appropriate MGP production and transmission facilities throughout the project area It is EC s position that continuous noise emissions, as measured under the terms and conditions of EUB Directive 038, shall not exceed 50 dba L eq at 300 metres (40 dba at 900 m) from the edge of the facility equipment envelope for the period when birds are present in KIBS (10 May to 30 September)...36 EC recommends that: 53

55 a) aircraft should maintain a minimum flight altitude of 650 m (2100 feet) under normal flying conditions, and a minimum flight altitude of 1100 m in areas where birds are known to concentrate (sanctuaries, colonies, and moulting areas);...37 b) aircraft should maintain a minimum horizontal distance of 1.5 km from concentrations of migratory birds during the breeding and moulting seasons; and...37 c) aircraft should maintain a minimum horizontal distance of 3 km from concentrations of migratory birds during the spring and fall staging periods EC recommends that aircraft traffic associated with the Parsons Lake airstrip should not exceed a weekly average of 1.5 flights per day during the spring goose migration (10-31 May), excepting emergencies It is EC s position that the proposed Taglu airstrip should be situated outside KIBS. Any site selected outside KIBS should be in an area with low densities of migratory birds..39 It is EC s position that the projected level of activity at the Camp Farewell strip is acceptable subject to no flights (excepting emergencies) during the spring (10-31 May) and fall (25 August to 30 September) migration periods EC recommends that the predator control measures that it requires for KIBS (see below) be applied to all MGP facilities It is EC s position that the Proponent must undertake the following predator control measures within the KIBS: 1. All wildlife must be prevented from gaining access to solid and liquid waste and other wildlife attractants All structures must be designed to preclude nesting and roosting sites for avian predators or den sites for mammalian predators Orientation for all relevant project personnel should include best practices with regard to waste management and avoiding wildlife EC recommends that the Proponent, in consultation with EC, adopt the best practices to minimize bird collisions with MGP facilities

56 APPENDIX I. DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE MIGRATORY BIRD RESOURCES OF THE MACKENZIE DELTA. Appendix I. Figure 1. Most important areas in the Mackenzie Delta for diving ducks and dabbling ducks during the breeding season (left) and fall migration (right). Appendix I. Figure 2. Most important areas in the Mackenzie Delta for geese and swans during the breeding season (left) and fall migration (right). 55