Lessons learned report for the Area Response Planning

From: Transport Canada

From Transport Canada, Canadian Coast Guard

The intent of this report is to provide a consolidation of the lessons learned from the Area Response Plan (ARP) pilot projects and to identify recommendations for Regional Response Planning (RRP) based on the ARP pilot experiences. RRP is an initiative under the Oceans Protection Plan that will expand the scope of ARP to include additional sources of marine pollution (including all sizes of vessels), enhanced collaboration with Indigenous and coastal communities, and increased integration with existing marine planning and management mechanisms.

The lessons learned and recommendations identified in this report will inform marine environmental response planning activities in regions across Canada.

Table of contents

Introduction

About Area Response Planning

Canada currently has one of the strongest marine safety regimes in the world. As the transportation of oil products is expected to continue to grow internationally, steps must be taken to ensure the regime continues to meet or exceed international standards. In 2013, the Tanker Safety Expert Panel made a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening Canada’s Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime including the implementation of a regional, risk-based approach to environmental response planning for oil spills.

The ARP Initiative was initiated in 2014 and jointly led by Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard. It had the objective of piloting an approach that shifts from the current “one size fits all” regime to one that reflects the risks and conditions specific to a geographic area, incorporates scientific information to inform appropriate decision-making, and engages a broad range of stakeholders in the development of ARPs.

Four pilot areas were selected for the Initiative based on levels of vessel traffic and areas of response for Canada’s four certified Response Organizations.

Area Response Planning Initiative Pilot Areas

The southern portion of British Columbia
The St. Lawrence (Montreal to Anticosti Island)
 
Saint John and the Bay of Fundy
Port Hawkesbury and the Strait of Canso
 

The ARP Initiative piloted a process that was designed to complement both strategic level planning for national and international purposes as well as tactical level planning for various organizations’ on-water response requirements. The ARP was intended to fit within existing planning frameworks and avoid duplication with existing plans, procedures or content where possible.

For the purposes of the ARP pilots, the scope of planning covered prescribed classes of vessels noted within the Canada Shipping Act (2001), Part 8 and specifically included:

  1. Oil tankers of 150 gross tonnage or greater;
  2. Vessels of 400 gross tonnage or more that carries oil as cargo or fuel;
  3. Groups of vessels, towed or pushed, 150 gross tonnage or more in aggregate and carry oil as cargo; and
  4. Oil Handling Facilities when engaged in loading or unloading operations with a prescribed vessel.

As part of the pilot project, Transport Canada led the development of the Area Risk Assessment (ARA) methodology and the Canadian Coast Guard led the development of the ARP methodology. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada supported the initiative through science-based information, including data on physical, biological and socio-economic sensitivities. Three Regional Task Forces responsible for four pilot areas were created, with representation from Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment and Climate Change Canada, industry and provincial environment departments (for membership lists see Annex A). The Task Forces were directed to develop the ARP methodology and support the development of the ARA methodology. Working groups were also established for focused discussion on specific subject areas such as the Area Risk Assessment, data management and engagement.

Area Response Planning achievements and successes

While ARP was a pilot process, a number of tangible successes were achieved through the Initiative that will support environmental response moving forward. In particular, as a direct result of the internal collaborative planning approach implemented as part of ARP, agencies within the Government of Canada are now better positioned to participate in marine emergency response. For instance, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has established marine emergency response capacity in key areas across Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada also increased data integration and sharing within the federal family related to environmental sensitivities, which will be enhanced as RRP progresses.

In addition to enhanced collaboration within the federal government, working relationships and awareness of the roles, responsibilities and capabilities among agencies, regime organizations and the spill-response community were improved as a result of ARP. This has generated interest and expertise that will be leveraged for RRP.

Through the response planning process, there were successes achieved through engagement of Indigenous and fishing communities to build capacity related to the collection of environmental sensitivity data. Contribution agreements were established to increase partners’ capacity to gather, structure, document, map and share marine environmental data to support preparedness and decision-making in the event of an oil spill. The enhanced capacity developed through these activities has established a foundation that will support risk-based environmental response planning at the local level.

In addition to the recommendations identified in this report, these successes will provide a foundation for the development of Regional Response Planning and support and sustain progress towards the development of a national framework for RRP.

Recommendations for RRP

Initial discussions related to lessons learned were presented at the ARP Final Evaluation Workshop, held May 30 to June 1, 2017 in Gatineau, Quebec. The primary objective of this workshop was to compare and evaluate the work done as part of each ARP pilot and assess progress against each of the prescribed deliverables for ARP. As part of this workshop, Task Force representatives also presented region-specific lessons learned. Building on the work done as part of that workshop, a subsequent ARP Lessons Learned Workshop was held August 15-17, 2017 in Victoria, British Columbia. The objective of the workshop was to discuss the lessons learned from the ARP pilots, to identify a consolidated set of lessons learned and to derive a suite of recommendations to be applied to the RRP pilot in Northern BC and the development of the national framework for RRP.

The lessons learned and recommendations identified fall within six categories:

  1. Risk Assessment
  2. Sensitivity data collection, standardization and integration
  3. Building Area Response Plans
  4. Regime and policy implications
  5. Engagement
  6. Governance and collaboration across agencies – defining roles and responsibilities

Risk assessment

Transport Canada led the development of an Area Risk Assessment methodology with the support of a contractor. The methodology was tested in each of the four pilot areas. Using data inputs from federal sources, the intent of the ARAs was to provide an evaluation of the three primary outputs:

  1. Probability of a Spill: An assessment of the likelihood that a spill could occur in a given area, taking into account the number of transits, size of vessels, volume of oil moved and other factors that could contribute to or mitigate a potential spill (i.e. navigational hazards, weather, prevention measures, etc.).
  2. Consequence of a Spill: An assessment of the potential environment and socio-economic sensitivities that could be impacted by a spill, represented both through geospatial data and qualitative descriptions of the resources.
  3. Oil Spill Scenarios and Trajectories: An assessment of the possible and worst-case spill scenarios for a region, including the probability, potential spill trajectories, consequences and the potential effectiveness of on-water recovery operations.

The ARAs for the pilot areas were one of activities undertaken as part of the ARP Initiative and the results of the risk assessments were intended to inform the development of the ARPs. As part of the pilot process, gaps to address in future ARAs were also identified.

Lessons learned

The steps taken towards a risk-based planning process reflects a significant change to the traditional approach to marine environmental response planning in Canada. In order to pilot this new model of planning, ARP brought together a wide variety of subject matter expertise on science, planning and environmental response. The development of the ARA was one of the initial opportunities for subject matter experts to work towards the development of a common deliverable. One of the first challenges encountered was the lack of a common lexicon amongst participants. This was a barrier that could have been mitigated through the establishment of common terminology and the development of a collective nomenclature at the outset of discussions.

Stakeholders and Indigenous partners expressed concern regarding the limited opportunities made available to influence the methodology used for assessing risk. Specific concerns included the focus on high-probability/high-consequence events as well as limited opportunities for community-based input and review. In addition, the complexity of the methodology used for the ARA created significant challenges for federal subject matter experts to interpret the results and determine how the results from the ARA should be incorporated into the ARP. Access to in-house capacity would have enhanced flexibility for planning and enabled ongoing development and refinement of the risk methodology.

As part of a risk-based planning process, a risk assessment should typically be completed prior to the start of planning however; due to project timelines, the ARA and the ARP were, for the most part, developed concurrently. This led to a number of challenges and created gaps in the identification and validation of risks within the ARPs. Additionally, the parallel and separate development of the ARA and the ARP reduced the integration of the project and created challenges for identifying linkages and integrating outputs from the ARAs into the ARPs. Supplementary sources of risk information, such as assessments by provincial governments or Indigenous organizations, could have been a valuable input into the ARP planning process.

Only one year of historical data for vessel types and cargo was used as an input for the ARA due to contract limitations, which meant that the outputs were not representative of historical trends. In addition, data requirements were identified in parallel with the development of the ARA methodology and it took time to clarify data requirements. As a result, much of the data submitted was at the wrong scale, did not include seasonal information and could not be easily incorporated into the ARA. Data collection in support of the ARA also highlighted data gaps that exist within the ARP areas.

Recommendations

  1. To be an effective input for planning, data should be collected prior to the development of an ARA. Planners should have access to up to date risk information, as well as data to support the identification of historical trends, prior to commencing planning activities or updating an existing plan.
  2. In-house capacity should be established to provide flexibility for the continued development of ARA modelling in support of emergency response planning, including the ability to adjust modelling parameters to determine value and impact of applied mitigation and planning efforts.
  3. Due to the number and variety of subject matter experts involved, a common lexicon should be established at the outset of the ARA process.
  4. There should be a comprehensive review of the ARA methodology by subject matter experts, including Indigenous partners and industry stakeholders, to ensure that it is aligned with RRP objectives, provides a clear definition of data requirements and generates outputs that can be applied to RRP. The methodology should be presented in a way that enables those without significant technical knowledge to meaningfully contribute to the analysis.
  5. Additional risk inputs beyond the ARA should be identified, validated and applied to response planning if and where applicable. This could include risk assessments developed by provincial and municipal governments, Indigenous organizations or environmental non-governmental organizations.

Sensitivity data collection, standardization and integration

Using science to inform sound decision-making was a fundamental objective of the ARP process. Recommendation 41 of the World Class Tanker Safety System Panel, Phase I Report, 2014 specifically called on “Environment Canada, in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, [to] collect and collate environmental sensitivity information for each Area of Response and make this information publicly available”. As a result, ARP was designed to be informed by scientific knowledge and data related to oil spills. This included the implementation of projects to:

  • Improve fate and behavior modeling information;
  • Collect information on environmental sensitivities and resources at risk in collaboration with Indigenous communities and other stakeholder organizations; and
  • Undertake research on diluted bitumen.

Work done was also used to identify data gaps and assess data needs for future emergency response planning activities.

Lessons learned

A primary lesson learned for ARP is that data is required throughout the planning process. While this was apparent at the outset of the pilot project, the overall data needs for each project deliverable were not clearly defined. Undertaking the data needs assessment as well as the subsequent analysis, compilation and processing to inform the ARA and ARP was a significant and multi-faceted aspect of the pilot that could have benefitted from leveraging data management expertise both internal and external to the federal government for data analysis, compilation, processing and management.

Time limitations for completing the pilot project meant that many of the long-term activities associated with data management for risk-based response planning were not completed. This included the identification of available data and translation of that data into a useable format for emergency response planning; assessment of data gaps and implementation of scientific data collection to fill identified gaps; and, establishment of adequate and integrated data management infrastructure to facilitate data storage and retrieval. In some cases, there was existing data that could not be accessed because it included confidential or proprietary information. In addition, there was not enough time to establish the data sharing agreements, protocols and infrastructure necessary to collect and store sensitive data. In particular, this impacted access to data held by Indigenous communities and other coastal organizations.

One significant success for the data collection aspect of ARP was the value that was found in increasing capacity of key data providers, particularly Indigenous and fishing community data providers. This enhanced capacity supported the development of partnerships as well as the collection of relevant biological and socio-economic data at the local level. Contribution agreements with Indigenous and fishing communities were put in place for a five year period, so data collection was not completed by the end of the ARP pilot. However, the enhanced capacity and data will be available for future environmental response planning initiatives.

Recommendations

  1. The project scope should be clearly defined at the outset of planning activities and sufficient time should be allocated to undertaking thorough data needs assessment in advance of the development of the ARA and/or RRP.
  2. Data sharing protocols and agreements, including protocols and agreements for data handling and storage, should be established at the outset of the project.
  3. Interoperable data platforms that facilitate data integration should be developed to improve data access and use in all aspects of planning. Supporting procedures for the collection and storage of data relevant to risk and response planning should be identified and established (i.e. AIS multi-year database, accident statistics, weather information, etc.) to make up to date information continuously available for planning.
  4. Timelines developed for the planning process should ensure adequate time is available for the identification of data sources, data collection and synthesis both prior to the risk assessment and as part of the planning process.
  5. A methodology for the prioritization of environmental sensitivities should be developed by ECCC and DFO, in partnership with Indigenous and coastal communities and in consultation with other subject matter experts, to avoid deficiencies and inconsistencies in risk assessment and planning.
  6. Grants and Contributions funding should be dedicated to building capacity within Indigenous and coastal communities, fisheries associations and environmental non-governmental organizations to continue to provide up to date and locally relevant socio-economic information and marine sensitivity data with the recognition that investments in capacity development may need to be maintained over time.
  7. Targeted efforts should be undertaken to address key data gaps identified as a result of the ARAs to support future RRP and emergency response activities.

Building risk-based response plans

Building a sample risk-based response planning methodology was the core activity of the ARP pilot project. It stems from the recommendation made by the World Class Tanker Safety System Panel, Phase I Report, 2014 which indicates: “The Government of Canada should implement a risk-based Area Response Planning model to prepare for ship-source oil spills.” Responding to this recommendation, a pilot project for Area Response Planning was developed to test this new risk-based planning model.

The planning process was divided into a set of eight deliverables that were designed to provide nationally consistent guidance for documenting the processes and executing the construction of a pilot plan. These deliverables comprised:

  1. Area Marine Activity Assessment Summary
  2. Area Marine Sensitivities
  3. Area Marine Pollution Scenario Assessment
  4. Strategic Area Concept of Operations (Mitigation Planning)
  5. Area Resident Response Capacity Identification
  6. Operations, Tactics and Logistics Requirements
  7. Risk Based Area Response Plan
  8. ARP Review Report

Lessons learned

At the outset of the development of the four ARPs, it was determined that the same set of deliverables would be provided to each ARP Task Force and subsequently the Task Force would have the flexibility and autonomy to develop an ARP reflective of the unique regional factors in each area. Once the planning process was complete, the intent was that deliverables would be compared to identify best practices and lessons learned. It was envisioned that the best elements of each planning process would be used to develop a planning methodology for ARP as well as a planning template.

ARP represented a departure from traditional planning methods. The intent was to allow each ARP Task Force to determine how they would reach the defined outcome. The ARP Task Forces found it challenging to implement this approach, and resulted in each of the Task Forces spending a prolonged period of time at the outset working through fundamental questions before being able to begin implementation of ARP. The Task Forces interpreted this approach as a lack of direction for the overall project.

At the same time, the set of deliverables identified for ARP were very prescriptive, resulting in each deliverable being developed to align with a very broad scope. This resulted in implementation challenges in all ARP areas and none of the pilots completed the full suite of deliverables in the time allocated to the project. In addition to project implementation challenges, working within a new planning paradigm for ARP meant that it was challenging to determine the completeness or robustness of the plans being developed. Progress and performance measurement was assessed based on the completion of the eight prescribed project deliverables, but this did not provide a way to gage the overall completeness for each area response plan. Ideally, there would have been a way to measure the maturity of the planning in each ARP area in order to evaluate progress towards a new framework for emergency response planning and that could also be used to assess plans on an ongoing basis.

Recommendations

  1. A clear planning process/methodology should be established at the outset of RRP that details each step of the planning process and what entities are involved. International best practices for risk-based response planning should inform the development of the planning process.
  2. The scope, purpose, objective and content of RRPs should be clearly defined prior to the commencement of the project in collaboration with Indigenous partners, provincial governments and scientific experts, and in consultation with industry and other stakeholders. This includes: defining planning boundaries; identifying the types of spill response capacity that will be included as part of the plan; situating the plans within existing planning frameworks, both domestically and internationally; and, identifying the intended participants as well as the audience.
  3. Response planning scope should look beyond the initial on-water response and include emergency management coordination to ensure public safety, preparedness structures for prolonged shoreline recovery operations as well as post-spill processes such as sampling plan templates and environmental and human health impact assessments.
  4. Criteria for establishing RRP boundaries should include the results from previous area risk assessments as well as input from Indigenous partners, industry, scientific experts and other stakeholders.
  5. Accountabilities, responsibilities and authorities in both preparedness and response should be clarified and established in an updated national framework.
  6. Established tools should be used to validate and evaluate plans such as the Readiness Evaluation Tool for Oil Spills (RETOS), an internationally recognized evaluation tool used to assess oil spill response planning and readiness.
  7. Plans should be updated on a regular basis and a nationally consistent planning methodology should be reviewed against international best practices on a fixed schedule.

Regime and policy implications

The Area Response Planning pilots included a regime and policy review element. It was recognized that in order to implement a risk-based planning framework, the regime as well as certain policies may need to be updated. This would include amendments in support of operational procedures such as dealing with oiled wildlife, post-incident monitoring, and use of alternative response measures during a response operation.

Lessons learned

Many policy questions arose through the development of the ARPs. This includes questions such as: the incorporation of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge in planning; identifying and defining policy gaps in areas such as waste management and oiled wildlife; and, opportunities for updating the Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime. These policy questions are complex and could not be answered before the completion of the pilot. As a result, a number of gaps that were identified as part of the ARP planning process did not receive analysis to determine if or how they could be filled. Policy support throughout implementation of the pilot project could have reduced the number of outstanding policy-related questions and assisted in providing direction and decisions for the advancement of ARP. Many of the policy questions raised during the pilot resulted in several initiatives included in the Oceans Protection Plan.

The ARP methodology was to be used to determine the amount of response resources that should be allocated to each ARP area based on the outcomes of the risk analysis. The ultimate goal was to identify opportunities to re-establish levels of service based on the risks identified as part of ARP. However, the existing regulatory regime does not explicitly identify how much recovery capacity is required for a response. This lack of regulatory prescription presented challenges when discussing resident capacity requirements and limited progress was made towards the completion of this objective. Policy direction and initiation of discussions at the national level could have provided support for the advancement of this aspect of ARP.

Recommendations

  1. Consistent and on-going policy support should be provided to planners throughout the Regional Response Planning process to analyse and address policy issues and questions related to the marine oil spill response regime.
  2. Strong linkages, coordination and coherence should be established between RRP and existing legislative and policy initiatives underway through the Oceans Protection Plan and existing programs (i.e. oiled marine mammals, alternative response measures, hazardous and noxious substances, seamless regime, marine spatial planning).

Engagement and communications

As part of ARP, there were a number of interrelated and complementary objectives identified for engaging with stakeholders and Indigenous groups in the various phases of the pilot:

  1. To increase awareness and understanding of preparedness and response for marine oil spills.
  2. To achieve appropriate levels of participation in the pilot project, resulting in more effective response plans that reflect a range of diverse views and interests.
  3. To increase the confidence of stakeholders, Indigenous groups and the broader public in the Government of Canada’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills in Canadian waters.
  4. To build strong regional and local relationships over the medium and long term.

These objectives drove the development of an engagement strategy for ARP and provided an overall framework for communications activities, meetings and events.

Lessons learned

Engagement is essential for risk-based response planning and sufficient time must be dedicated to establishing partnerships and developing relationships. A robust eight-phased engagement plan was developed at the outset of the ARP Initiative with the goal of establishing an iterative and collaborative approach to engagement. However, delays due to a variety of factors impacted the already time-limited process and resulted in the plan having to be reworked to include fewer meetings and engagement sessions with stakeholders than originally planned. The implementation of a collaborative and ongoing engagement approach throughout ARP could have benefitted from the establishment of partnerships, improved the identification of sensitive marine areas and facilitated the development of regionally focused risk-based response planning. Additionally, the use of an engagement specialist or facilitator, particularly for sessions with Indigenous communities, could have helped develop and implement an engagement approach appropriate for the intended audience.

The development of a communications strategy that included common messaging to be used nationally as a starting point for discussions related to project outcomes as well as the use of web-based tools would have been beneficial for ARP. A web site was developed for ARP, however, it was primarily intended for communicating general information on ARP. The use of web-based fora to acquire feedback from a wider range of stakeholders and interested Canadians could have leveraged additional input from a broader audience, particularly considering the large size of ARP areas.

Identifying which ARP deliverables could be shared publically and developing them with that in mind could have helped with communications with stakeholders. This includes determining at the outset the method and format for sharing information and working closely with departmental communications units to develop products and messaging.

Recommendations

  1. Robust communications and engagement plans should be developed at the outset of the planning process and implemented consistently throughout. These should clearly articulate partnership parameters and support communication with existing and potential partners. In addition, adequate time should be allocated to developing meaningful and sustained partnerships.
  2. Where possible, technology should be leveraged to facilitate engagement and collaboration including using online fora and web-based tools for seeking input and sharing documents. However, this should be balanced with ensuring that communities with limited access to the internet also have access to relevant materials and opportunities to provide feedback.
  3. Internal and regionally-based expertise should be used for the development and implementation of and engagement plan and communications products. This includes using meeting facilitators where possible to assist with enhancing the effectiveness of meetings and reducing any perceived bias during engagement forums.
  4. Information sharing should strive to find a balance between transparency and protection of sensitive or proprietary information. This includes identifying appropriate formats and fora for information sharing and developing reports, for both ARA and RRP, that are accessible to the general public, rather than just subject matter experts.

Governance and collaboration across agencies

The overall governance structure for ARP included: a Steering Committee that was co-chaired by Transport Canada and Canadian Coast Guard with representation from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada; three regional task forces for the four ARP areas; and, a number of working groups established to address specific topics such as Area Risk Assessment, data management and engagement.

Lessons learned

To facilitate the planning process, it is important to establish a clear set of inter- and intra- agency roles and responsibilities through official project planning mechanisms, such as an integrated project charter and project plan. These products should be collaboratively developed and shared to support effective project implementation and establish the necessary linkages between headquarters and the regions. This includes the identification and development of a clear governance structure that defines expectations and reporting relationships at all levels as well as clear timelines and protocols for vetting and sharing deliverables. The importance of the structures that are established, particularly at the regional level should be underscored. In particular, the creation of the ARP Task Forces created a useful forum that significantly contributed to planning.

More generally, the federal environmental response community is well informed and eager for the implementation of risk-based planning, as is the broader emergency response community. Within this context, executing a pilot project for risk-based planning created challenges for communications with and engagement of stakeholders. Potential partners were less enthusiastic about participating in a short-term pilot than they would have been had ARP been initially rolled out as a program. However, the level of interest in risk-based response planning highlighted a level of readiness to integrate this kind of approach into existing planning structures.

Recommendations

  1. A governance structure should be established that creates strong intra- and inter-agency connections between the regions and headquarters. In addition, the governance structure should identify how partners and stakeholders both internal and external to the federal government will be involved in response planning.
  2. Decision making within the established governance structure should be supported by subject matter expertise. This includes developing a means to facilitate collaborative and integrated information sharing on topics such as data management, policy and engagement to support informed decision-making.
  3. Working groups/task forces should be established that include all parties implicated in a spill response. This may require the engagement of umbrella organizations or aggregate structures to communicate with a broad range of partners. Where possible, existing governance frameworks should be leveraged for engagement activities.
  4. An integrated project charter and implementation plan should provide a clear direction related to accountabilities, roles and responsibilities, tasks and timelines. As part of this plan, the initiation of the project should be clearly identified to generate project momentum and facilitate engagement with project partners.
  5. An ongoing program for risk-based response planning should be implemented with expert-based support provided by implicated departments and sectors.

Conclusion and way forward

The Area Response Planning Initiative sought to pilot a new model of planning for Canada’s Ship-Source Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime. The pilot was not meant to be perfect or yield perfect results and, as with the implementation of any new process, there were many lessons learned. The set of recommendations derived from the ARP lessons learned will help to inform the next project that will be piloting an expanded version of the risk-based response planning model: Regional Response Planning in Northern British Columbia. Results from the RRP pilot project will help inform a national analysis of risk-based response planning needs across Canada.

Moving forward, RRP will continue to build on the successes of ARP, including the significant capacity that was developed for collaborative emergency response planning. While it will take several years to fully implement RRP, the lessons learned through the ARP pilot will provide a valuable starting point for the establishment of risk-based response planning in Canada.

Annex A: ARP task force membership

The Southern BC Task Force included representatives from:

  • Transport Canada (Co-chair)
  • Canadian Coast Guard (Co-chair)
  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  • Environment Canada
  • British Columbia Ministry of Environment
  • Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC) Response Organization

The St Lawrence Task Force included representatives from:

  • Transport Canada (Co-chair)
  • Canadian Coast Guard (Co-chair)
  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  • Environment Canada
  • Eastern Canada Response Corporation (ECRC) Response Organization

The Atlantic Task Force (Saint John and Bay of Fundy/Port Hawkesbury and Strait of Canso) included representatives from:

  • Transport Canada (Co-chair)
  • Canadian Coast Guard (Co-chair)
  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  • Environment Canada
  • New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government
  • Atlantic Environmental Response Team (ALERT) Response Organization
  • Point Tupper Marine Services (PTMS) Response Organization

Report a problem with this page

Date modified: