- Email: [email protected]
Research demands of marine environmental impact assessments
Marine I'olh~tion Bulletin, Volume25, I-4, pp. 104-106, 1992.
0025-326X/92 $5.00+0.00 © 1992PergamonPressLtd
Printed in Great Britain.
Research Demands of Marine Environmental Impact Assessments G. E. BEANLANDS School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3E2
Since 1974 the Canadian government has required that any federally sponsored project which p•ses a significant environmental risk be subject to a full environmental impact assessment (EIA). Of the 38 projects so assessed to date, 13 have included substantial marine components. A review of the recommendations in these latter assessments places an increasing reliance on government departments to fill in the knowledge and data gaps as pre-conditions for the approval for these projects to proceed. A continuation of this trend will raise serious questions concerning the role and capacity of government scientists in the EIA process. If the Canadian experience is reflective of trends in other countries, it could have serious implications for government research programmes in the long term.
In 1974 the Canadian government adopted the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) under which all projects sponsored by federal departments or agencies are reviewed to determine their potential environmental effects. Under EARP, the level of review is determined by the significance of the environmental risk posed by the project. As of February, 1991, 38 projects had been reviewed by independent panels which make recommendations to government based on the results of public hearings. Thirteen of these projects had either a marine focus or involved substantial marine components. The panel reports for these marine projects were reviewed to determine the nature and extent of
demands being placed on government research institutions as a result of panel recommendations. An overview of such demands is important since the government is ready to pass the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). This act is expected to lead to a significant increase in the number of projects subjected to comprehensive environmental assessment. This paper presents some of the results of the marine projects review and raises questions concerning the capacity of government scientists to respond to EIA demands and the roles of government vs. private-sector researchers. A s s e s s m e n t s o f M a r i n e Projects
The 13 marine-related projects which have been reviewed by assessment panels can be categorized as follows: offshore oil and gas developments (6); industries potentially impacting coastal waters (3); port expansions (2), marine transportation projects (1), bridge-causeway (1). Six of the proposed projects were situated on the east coast, three on the west coast and four in the Arctic. The assessments were conducled during the period 1975-1990 (Table 1). Only five of the projects have been completed; another two are currently under development. Of the remainder, three have been postponed for economic reasons and three have been cancelled or postponed based on recommendations of the assessment panels. The recommendations contained in the panel reports for all 13 of the marine projects, regardless of their development status, provided the basis for this review.
TABLE 1
Projects with marine components reviewed by Assessment Panels under the environmental assessment and review process in Canada. Project 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Z 8. 9. 10.
11. 12. 13.
Nuclear reactor Offshore exploration Offshore exploration Port expansion Marine shipping Offshore hydrocarbon production Offshore hydrocarbon production Port expansion Nuclear reactor Offshore hydrocarbon production Offshore exploration Fuel transport Causeway/bridge
* All approvals with conditions.
104
Location New Brunswick Eastern Arctic Mid-Arctic Vancouver Arctic & East Coast Nova Scotia Western Arctic Quebec City New Brunswick Newfoundland British Columbia Vancouver East Coast
Date 1975 1978 1979 1979 1980 1983 1984 1984 1985 1985 1986 1989 1990
Approval status* Approved Approved Deferred Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not approved Not approved
Vo|ume 25/Numbers 1-4
There has been a noticeable increase over the years in the number of recommendations in these panel reports. In the 1970s most reports contained less than 15 recommendations; reports of projects reviewed since 1980 contained 40-85. This can be accounted for partly by the complexity of the projects under consideration, but it is also a reflection of the more comprehensive approach taken by assessment panels as the EARP process has matured. The panel reports for the 13 marine projects contained a total of 324 recommendations. Of these, 63 (19%) allocate to specific agencies of the federal government some degree of responsibility for research or data collection. Responding to these recommendations could lead to significant changes in the quantity and focus of marine research in Canada.
The Nature of Research Recommendations During the early years of the application of EARP, panel reports often encouraged proponents and government agencies to cooperate in data collection and monitoring, but did not provide guidance on the sharing of responsibilities (e.g. Environmental Assessment Panel--Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, 1975). Somewhat later, it was suggested that proponents should undertake studies required for environmental protection and contingency planning, and that government should focus on research required for ongoing resource management (e.g. Environmental Assessment Panel--Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling, 1978). To some extent, this basis for cooperation in EIA-generated research has persisted to the present day. There has been, however, a noticeable trend towards allocating a greater share of the responsibility for research to agencies of the federal government. Various types of study are recommended. First, baseline surveys are deemed to be required prior to the commencement of a project. Examples include: 1. studies of seal populations to provide a baseline for assessing the effects of ship passage in ice (Environmental Assessment Panel-Arctic Pilot Project, 1980), 2. research on selected bird species in order to establish a baseline for monitoring programmes (Environmental Assessment Panel--Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984), and 3. coastal surveys to provide baseline information on the distribution and behaviour of bird species (Environmental Assessment Panel-Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration, 1986). Recently, however, one panel acknowledged the inherent difficulty in determining natural variability in wild populations and called for baseline surveys to be more rigorously defined (Environmental Assessment Panel--Second Nuclear Reactor, Point Lepreau, 1985). The second type of study relates to acquiring a better understanding of the biology of species or the functioning of natural systems. This type of research has been recommended in a number of panel reports but was particularly evident for the Beaufort Sea development (Environmental Assessment Panel--
Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984). In this instance government scientists were called upon to undertake general studies (biology, distribution and migration) of bowhead, beluga and narwhale whales. In addition, it was recommended that they undertake basic research on two Arctic polynyas in order to minimize impacts from ship traffic and oil spills. Similarly, the panel report for a proposed port expansion recommended that government agencies study the utilization of nearshore areas by salmonids, herring and crabs, including food chains, migration patterns and habitats (Environmental Assessment Panel--Roberts Bank Port Expansion, 1979). The third type of study focuses on defining the impacts or determining the susceptibility of species. The following examples, drawn from various panel reports, indicate the range and complexity of the research that federal agencies have been recommended to undertake: l. studies of the effects of underwater noise on whales and seals; 2. the design of a programme to determine the fate of hydrocarbons, trace metals and hazardous substances released from industrial activities; 3. studies on the effects of ice breaking ships on seal behaviour and mortality; 4. studies of the sensitivity of fish species and their habitats to oil contamination; 5. research on the extent to which vocal communications used by marine mammals could be masked by ship-produced sounds; 6. further studies to define the characteristics of a thermal plume and its biological effects; 7. research on lethal and sublethal effects of crude oil on critical life stages of migrating salmonid species; and 8. more intensive research on the environmental effects of hazardous product spills and how impacted natural systems can be rejuvenated. Contingency planning is the focus for the fourth type of study. The objective is to decrease the probability of spills of hazardous materials and to lower the risk of environmental and economic damage resulting therefrom. It is usual for government agencies and proponents to share responsibility for contingency studies. Recommendations for the development of weather observation and prediction systems are common in panel reports for offshore petroleum projects (Environmental Assessment Panel--Lancaster Sound Drilling, 1979; Environmental Assessment Panel--Arctic Pilot Project, 1980; Environmental Assessment Panel-Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984; and Environmental Assessment Panel--Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration, 1986). Similarly, extensive research has been recommended on the dynamics of waves, currents and sea ice as major factors affecting the integrity of offshore structures (Environmental Assessment Panel--Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling, 1978; Environmental Assessment Panel--Arctic Pilot Project, 1980; Environmental Assessment Panel--Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984; Environmental Assessment Panel--Hibernia Development 105
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Project, 1985 and Environmental Assessment Panel-Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration, 1986). Recommended contingency planning often includes studies on oil spill detection, movement, degradation and clean-up (Environmental Assessment Panel-Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling, 1978; Environmental Assessment Panel--Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984; Environmental Assessment Panel--Port of Quebec Expansion Project, 1984; Environmental Assessment Panel-Hibernia Development Project, 1985; and Environmental Assessment Panel--Sea Island Fuel Barge Facility, 1989). Monitoring is the fifth type of study that assessment panels recommend, often suggesting that the responsibility be shared between government and the proponent. In addition to numerous references on the need for general, but often undefined, monitoring, a number of specific monitoring programmes have been recommended, including, for example: effects of ship transects on ice patterns, polar bears, beluga whales, effects of radioactivity on species, attraction of birds to rig lights, occurrence of tainted fish and oil slicks. In one instance, a panel recommended that government be prepared, in the event of a blowout, to "immediately initiate a major research and monitoring programme to gather information on the actual concentration of dispersed oil in the water column and the lethal and sublethal effects on important west coast species" (Environmental Assessment Panel--Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration, 1986).
Implications of Research Recommendations If the government's marine research establishments respond to all, or even a majority, of these recommendations, it will require a significant redirection of funds, equipment and expertise. The effect will be cumulative since involvement in activities such as environmental monitoring can continue to grow as the number of assessments increases. In this context, it would be helpful to know the cost, in financial and human resources, of running the long-term monitoring programmes resulting from the assessments for the Point Lepreau Nuclear Power Station and the expansion to Roberts Bank Superport. In addition, a number of panel reports have recommended that the government make major long-term commitments to marine research in support of environmental assessments for current and projected projects, particularly in Arctic regions. Finally, in situations where the general sensitivity of an area to development is unknown, it has been recommended that government agencies undertake regional environmental assessments, as opposed to the project-specific assessments that are normally the responsibility of proponents. The aggregate effect of these initiatives could pose significant challenges to those responsible for managing and conducting marine research in Canada. The only reason that these challenges have not yet been faced is
106
that most of the large offshore developments are currently delayed, waiting for improvements in the economic climate. Given that panel recommendations are essentially 'conditions for approval', and that the government will want the projects to proceed when the economic situation turns favourable, the pressures on research establishments could soon be considerable. This paper focuses on the situation in Canada. A comparative study was not conducted since EIA review procedures in other countries differ significantly from the requirements under EARP. In the USA, t0r example, federal agencies are responsible for conducting EIAs for offshore drilling leases. Reviews of the resulting reports are coordinated by the Environmental Protection Agency as opposed to an independent body. Under these arrangements it is less likely that federal research establishments will be given the added responsibility for future directed research. However, given that most marine development approvals are contingent upon further study, it seems reasonable to assume that the global research community will becorae more involved in some way or other.
Environmental Assessment Panel--Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station (1975). Environmental Assessment Panel Report to 1:he Minister of Environment. Government of Canada. May, 1975. Environmental Assessment Panel~-Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling (1978). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling--South Davis Strait Project. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. November, 1978. Environmental Assessment Panel--Lancaster Sound Drilling (1979). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for Lancaster Sound Drilling. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. February, 1979. Environmental Assessment Panel--Roberts Bank Port Expansion (1979). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Roberts Bank Port Expansion. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. March, 1979. Environmental Assessment Panel--Arctic Pilot Project (1980). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Arctic Pilot Project (Northern Component). Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. October, 1980. Environmental Assessment Panel--Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal (1984). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Beaufort Sea Production and Transportation Proposal. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. July, 1984. Environmental Assessment Panel--Port of Quebec Expansion Project (1984). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Port of Quebec Expansion Project. Report No. 26, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. September, 1984. Environmental Assessment Panel--Second Nuclear Reactor, Point Lepreau, New Brunswick (1985). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Second Nuclear Reactor, Point Lepreau, New Brunswick. Report No. 29. Published by the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of New Brunswick. May, 1985. Environmental Assessment Panel--Hibernia Development Project (1985). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for tile Hibernia Development Project. Published by the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. December, 1985. Environmental Assessment PanelIOffshore Hydrocarbon Exploration (1986). Report and Recommendations of the West Coast Offshore Exploration Environmental Assessment Panel. Published by the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of British Columbia. April, 1986. Environmental Assessment Panel--Sea Island Fuel Barge Facility. (1989). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Sea Island Fuel Barge Facility. Report No. 33. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. March, 1989.
0025-326X/92 $5.00+0.00 © 1992PergamonPressLtd
Printed in Great Britain.
Research Demands of Marine Environmental Impact Assessments G. E. BEANLANDS School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3E2
Since 1974 the Canadian government has required that any federally sponsored project which p•ses a significant environmental risk be subject to a full environmental impact assessment (EIA). Of the 38 projects so assessed to date, 13 have included substantial marine components. A review of the recommendations in these latter assessments places an increasing reliance on government departments to fill in the knowledge and data gaps as pre-conditions for the approval for these projects to proceed. A continuation of this trend will raise serious questions concerning the role and capacity of government scientists in the EIA process. If the Canadian experience is reflective of trends in other countries, it could have serious implications for government research programmes in the long term.
In 1974 the Canadian government adopted the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) under which all projects sponsored by federal departments or agencies are reviewed to determine their potential environmental effects. Under EARP, the level of review is determined by the significance of the environmental risk posed by the project. As of February, 1991, 38 projects had been reviewed by independent panels which make recommendations to government based on the results of public hearings. Thirteen of these projects had either a marine focus or involved substantial marine components. The panel reports for these marine projects were reviewed to determine the nature and extent of
demands being placed on government research institutions as a result of panel recommendations. An overview of such demands is important since the government is ready to pass the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). This act is expected to lead to a significant increase in the number of projects subjected to comprehensive environmental assessment. This paper presents some of the results of the marine projects review and raises questions concerning the capacity of government scientists to respond to EIA demands and the roles of government vs. private-sector researchers. A s s e s s m e n t s o f M a r i n e Projects
The 13 marine-related projects which have been reviewed by assessment panels can be categorized as follows: offshore oil and gas developments (6); industries potentially impacting coastal waters (3); port expansions (2), marine transportation projects (1), bridge-causeway (1). Six of the proposed projects were situated on the east coast, three on the west coast and four in the Arctic. The assessments were conducled during the period 1975-1990 (Table 1). Only five of the projects have been completed; another two are currently under development. Of the remainder, three have been postponed for economic reasons and three have been cancelled or postponed based on recommendations of the assessment panels. The recommendations contained in the panel reports for all 13 of the marine projects, regardless of their development status, provided the basis for this review.
TABLE 1
Projects with marine components reviewed by Assessment Panels under the environmental assessment and review process in Canada. Project 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Z 8. 9. 10.
11. 12. 13.
Nuclear reactor Offshore exploration Offshore exploration Port expansion Marine shipping Offshore hydrocarbon production Offshore hydrocarbon production Port expansion Nuclear reactor Offshore hydrocarbon production Offshore exploration Fuel transport Causeway/bridge
* All approvals with conditions.
104
Location New Brunswick Eastern Arctic Mid-Arctic Vancouver Arctic & East Coast Nova Scotia Western Arctic Quebec City New Brunswick Newfoundland British Columbia Vancouver East Coast
Date 1975 1978 1979 1979 1980 1983 1984 1984 1985 1985 1986 1989 1990
Approval status* Approved Approved Deferred Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not approved Not approved
Vo|ume 25/Numbers 1-4
There has been a noticeable increase over the years in the number of recommendations in these panel reports. In the 1970s most reports contained less than 15 recommendations; reports of projects reviewed since 1980 contained 40-85. This can be accounted for partly by the complexity of the projects under consideration, but it is also a reflection of the more comprehensive approach taken by assessment panels as the EARP process has matured. The panel reports for the 13 marine projects contained a total of 324 recommendations. Of these, 63 (19%) allocate to specific agencies of the federal government some degree of responsibility for research or data collection. Responding to these recommendations could lead to significant changes in the quantity and focus of marine research in Canada.
The Nature of Research Recommendations During the early years of the application of EARP, panel reports often encouraged proponents and government agencies to cooperate in data collection and monitoring, but did not provide guidance on the sharing of responsibilities (e.g. Environmental Assessment Panel--Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, 1975). Somewhat later, it was suggested that proponents should undertake studies required for environmental protection and contingency planning, and that government should focus on research required for ongoing resource management (e.g. Environmental Assessment Panel--Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling, 1978). To some extent, this basis for cooperation in EIA-generated research has persisted to the present day. There has been, however, a noticeable trend towards allocating a greater share of the responsibility for research to agencies of the federal government. Various types of study are recommended. First, baseline surveys are deemed to be required prior to the commencement of a project. Examples include: 1. studies of seal populations to provide a baseline for assessing the effects of ship passage in ice (Environmental Assessment Panel-Arctic Pilot Project, 1980), 2. research on selected bird species in order to establish a baseline for monitoring programmes (Environmental Assessment Panel--Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984), and 3. coastal surveys to provide baseline information on the distribution and behaviour of bird species (Environmental Assessment Panel-Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration, 1986). Recently, however, one panel acknowledged the inherent difficulty in determining natural variability in wild populations and called for baseline surveys to be more rigorously defined (Environmental Assessment Panel--Second Nuclear Reactor, Point Lepreau, 1985). The second type of study relates to acquiring a better understanding of the biology of species or the functioning of natural systems. This type of research has been recommended in a number of panel reports but was particularly evident for the Beaufort Sea development (Environmental Assessment Panel--
Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984). In this instance government scientists were called upon to undertake general studies (biology, distribution and migration) of bowhead, beluga and narwhale whales. In addition, it was recommended that they undertake basic research on two Arctic polynyas in order to minimize impacts from ship traffic and oil spills. Similarly, the panel report for a proposed port expansion recommended that government agencies study the utilization of nearshore areas by salmonids, herring and crabs, including food chains, migration patterns and habitats (Environmental Assessment Panel--Roberts Bank Port Expansion, 1979). The third type of study focuses on defining the impacts or determining the susceptibility of species. The following examples, drawn from various panel reports, indicate the range and complexity of the research that federal agencies have been recommended to undertake: l. studies of the effects of underwater noise on whales and seals; 2. the design of a programme to determine the fate of hydrocarbons, trace metals and hazardous substances released from industrial activities; 3. studies on the effects of ice breaking ships on seal behaviour and mortality; 4. studies of the sensitivity of fish species and their habitats to oil contamination; 5. research on the extent to which vocal communications used by marine mammals could be masked by ship-produced sounds; 6. further studies to define the characteristics of a thermal plume and its biological effects; 7. research on lethal and sublethal effects of crude oil on critical life stages of migrating salmonid species; and 8. more intensive research on the environmental effects of hazardous product spills and how impacted natural systems can be rejuvenated. Contingency planning is the focus for the fourth type of study. The objective is to decrease the probability of spills of hazardous materials and to lower the risk of environmental and economic damage resulting therefrom. It is usual for government agencies and proponents to share responsibility for contingency studies. Recommendations for the development of weather observation and prediction systems are common in panel reports for offshore petroleum projects (Environmental Assessment Panel--Lancaster Sound Drilling, 1979; Environmental Assessment Panel--Arctic Pilot Project, 1980; Environmental Assessment Panel-Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984; and Environmental Assessment Panel--Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration, 1986). Similarly, extensive research has been recommended on the dynamics of waves, currents and sea ice as major factors affecting the integrity of offshore structures (Environmental Assessment Panel--Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling, 1978; Environmental Assessment Panel--Arctic Pilot Project, 1980; Environmental Assessment Panel--Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984; Environmental Assessment Panel--Hibernia Development 105
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Project, 1985 and Environmental Assessment Panel-Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration, 1986). Recommended contingency planning often includes studies on oil spill detection, movement, degradation and clean-up (Environmental Assessment Panel-Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling, 1978; Environmental Assessment Panel--Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal, 1984; Environmental Assessment Panel--Port of Quebec Expansion Project, 1984; Environmental Assessment Panel-Hibernia Development Project, 1985; and Environmental Assessment Panel--Sea Island Fuel Barge Facility, 1989). Monitoring is the fifth type of study that assessment panels recommend, often suggesting that the responsibility be shared between government and the proponent. In addition to numerous references on the need for general, but often undefined, monitoring, a number of specific monitoring programmes have been recommended, including, for example: effects of ship transects on ice patterns, polar bears, beluga whales, effects of radioactivity on species, attraction of birds to rig lights, occurrence of tainted fish and oil slicks. In one instance, a panel recommended that government be prepared, in the event of a blowout, to "immediately initiate a major research and monitoring programme to gather information on the actual concentration of dispersed oil in the water column and the lethal and sublethal effects on important west coast species" (Environmental Assessment Panel--Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration, 1986).
Implications of Research Recommendations If the government's marine research establishments respond to all, or even a majority, of these recommendations, it will require a significant redirection of funds, equipment and expertise. The effect will be cumulative since involvement in activities such as environmental monitoring can continue to grow as the number of assessments increases. In this context, it would be helpful to know the cost, in financial and human resources, of running the long-term monitoring programmes resulting from the assessments for the Point Lepreau Nuclear Power Station and the expansion to Roberts Bank Superport. In addition, a number of panel reports have recommended that the government make major long-term commitments to marine research in support of environmental assessments for current and projected projects, particularly in Arctic regions. Finally, in situations where the general sensitivity of an area to development is unknown, it has been recommended that government agencies undertake regional environmental assessments, as opposed to the project-specific assessments that are normally the responsibility of proponents. The aggregate effect of these initiatives could pose significant challenges to those responsible for managing and conducting marine research in Canada. The only reason that these challenges have not yet been faced is
106
that most of the large offshore developments are currently delayed, waiting for improvements in the economic climate. Given that panel recommendations are essentially 'conditions for approval', and that the government will want the projects to proceed when the economic situation turns favourable, the pressures on research establishments could soon be considerable. This paper focuses on the situation in Canada. A comparative study was not conducted since EIA review procedures in other countries differ significantly from the requirements under EARP. In the USA, t0r example, federal agencies are responsible for conducting EIAs for offshore drilling leases. Reviews of the resulting reports are coordinated by the Environmental Protection Agency as opposed to an independent body. Under these arrangements it is less likely that federal research establishments will be given the added responsibility for future directed research. However, given that most marine development approvals are contingent upon further study, it seems reasonable to assume that the global research community will becorae more involved in some way or other.
Environmental Assessment Panel--Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station (1975). Environmental Assessment Panel Report to 1:he Minister of Environment. Government of Canada. May, 1975. Environmental Assessment Panel~-Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling (1978). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling--South Davis Strait Project. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. November, 1978. Environmental Assessment Panel--Lancaster Sound Drilling (1979). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for Lancaster Sound Drilling. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. February, 1979. Environmental Assessment Panel--Roberts Bank Port Expansion (1979). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Roberts Bank Port Expansion. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. March, 1979. Environmental Assessment Panel--Arctic Pilot Project (1980). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Arctic Pilot Project (Northern Component). Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. October, 1980. Environmental Assessment Panel--Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal (1984). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Beaufort Sea Production and Transportation Proposal. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. July, 1984. Environmental Assessment Panel--Port of Quebec Expansion Project (1984). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Port of Quebec Expansion Project. Report No. 26, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. September, 1984. Environmental Assessment Panel--Second Nuclear Reactor, Point Lepreau, New Brunswick (1985). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Second Nuclear Reactor, Point Lepreau, New Brunswick. Report No. 29. Published by the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of New Brunswick. May, 1985. Environmental Assessment Panel--Hibernia Development Project (1985). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for tile Hibernia Development Project. Published by the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. December, 1985. Environmental Assessment PanelIOffshore Hydrocarbon Exploration (1986). Report and Recommendations of the West Coast Offshore Exploration Environmental Assessment Panel. Published by the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of British Columbia. April, 1986. Environmental Assessment Panel--Sea Island Fuel Barge Facility. (1989). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel for the Sea Island Fuel Barge Facility. Report No. 33. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. March, 1989.