NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. N-7, as amended (the NEB Act) and the regulations made thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Encana Corporation (Encana) pursuant to section 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act and section 50 of the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations.

DEEP PANUKE OFFSHORE GAS DEVELOPMENT

LEAVE TO ABANDON APPLICATION

June 2018

To: The Secretary National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8

Document No. DCEN-X00-RP-RE-00-0006.02U

ABBREVIATIONS

ANSMC Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs APC Atlantic Policy Congress of Chiefs CSA Canadian Standards Association CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CNSOPB Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board Encana Encana Corporation ESA environmental and socio-economic assessment FAC Fisheries Advisory Committee (CNSOPB) GEPT gas export pipeline terminus km Kilometre LNG liquid natural gas m Metre mm Millimetre M&NP Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline MAPC Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council Municipality Municipality of District of Guysborough NCNS Native Council of Nova Scotia NEB National Energy Board OPR Onshore Pipeline Regulations (NEB) PFC production field centre RoW right of way SBM Single Buoy Moorings Inc. SSIV subsea isolation valve VC valued components

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 2

APPLICATION OVERVIEW...... 4 Applicant ...... 4 Facilities History ...... 4 Scope of the Abandonment Activity ...... 5

ECONOMICS AND FINANCE ...... 6 Abandonment Costs and Funding ...... 6 Accounting Treatments, Tolls and Service Impacts ...... 7

INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT ...... 7 Background and Overview ...... 7 Identification of Indigenous Communities for Engagement ...... 7 Summary of Indigenous Engagement Activities ...... 9 Ongoing Indigenous Engagement Activities ...... 9

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...... 10 Regulatory and Government Agencies ...... 10 Local Government Agencies (Municipal) ...... 10 Fisheries Groups and Associations ...... 10 Other Stakeholders ...... 11

LAND MATTERS ...... 11 Easements to be Surrendered ...... 12

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 12

SUPPORTING MATERIAL ...... 13

RELIEF REQUESTED ...... 14

ATTACHMENT 1: GUIDE B AND GUIDE K FILING MANUAL CHECKLIST

ATTACHMENT 2: ABANDONMENT PLAN (INCLUDING FACILITY MAPS)

ATTACHMENT 3: ABANDONMENT SCHEMATICS

ATTACHMENT 4: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 3

APPLICATION OVERVIEW

Deep Panuke is a natural gas development located offshore Nova Scotia, producing natural gas since 2013. Deep Panuke is owned by Encana Corporation (Encana). Encana hereby applies to the National Energy Board (NEB) for leave to abandon the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated onshore facilities pursuant to Section 74(1)(d) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) and Section 50 of the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR). See Figures A-1 and A-2 in the Deep Panuke pipeline Abandonment Plan (included as Attachment 2 to this application) for maps of the Deep Panuke Development location and of the Deep Panuke onshore pipeline and facilities.

Applicant

1. Encana is a “company” as that term is defined in the NEB Act and is the applicant for this Leave to Abandon Application.

2. The Deep Panuke Development is a natural gas development consisting of an offshore platform (production field centre or PFC), subsea wells, infield flowlines/umbilicals, and a gas export pipeline and associated onshore facilities. The NEB regulates the pipeline, which consists of a 560 mm diameter sweet natural gas subsea pipeline, 175 km in length (172 km offshore and 3 km onshore), and the associated onshore facilities. The pipeline begins at the top of the PFC riser and extends to, and includes, the onshore facilities in Goldboro, Nova Scotia (where it ties into the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NP) facilities).

3. Encana is the Operator of Record for Deep Panuke. Encana owns the Deep Panuke facilities, with the exception of the PFC, which is owned by Single Buoy Moorings Inc. (SBM). Encana applies corporate policies in Deep Panuke operations; SBM, by terms of its contract with Encana, applies Encana’s corporate policies in PFC operations.

Facilities History

4. Encana submitted an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the NEB for the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated onshore facilities (NEB Pipeline Application) in 2006. Encana also submitted a Development Plan Application for Deep Panuke to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) in 2006. These applications provided a detailed description of the construction and operation phases of Deep Panuke. Decommissioning and abandonment activities were also described in the applications.

5. Deep Panuke was subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and submitted an Environmental Assessment Report in 2006 in support of the NEB, CNSOPB and CEAA processes. Decommissioning and abandonment activities were assessed in the approved 2006- 2007 Deep Panuke environmental assessment conducted under CEAA and in support of the NEB and CNSOPB approval processes.

6. The NEB issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, GC-111, to Encana in respect of the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated onshore facilities pursuant to section 52 of the NEB Act in 2007. The NEB also issued Order GPLO-E112-007-2013 granting leave to open the Deep Panuke pipeline in 2013.

7. In 2017, Encana was reaching a stage of declining production and began preparing for decommissioning and abandonment activities.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 4 8. On February 28, 2018, Encana met with NEB staff for a pre-application meeting to provide a status update and outline Encana’s plan to file an application to abandon the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated onshore facilities.

9. Encana submitted a Pre-Application Project Description to the NEB on March 19, 2018, providing preliminary information about Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities.

10. Encana permanently ceased production from Deep Panuke on May 7, 2018.

11. The Deep Panuke facilities continue to be safely maintained and monitored using the asset integrity plans and the maintenance management system for Deep Panuke.

12. No economically viable alternatives to abandonment have been identified.

Scope of the Abandonment Activity

13. Section 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act and Section 50 of the OPR require that a company proposing to abandon the operation of a pipeline must submit an abandonment application to the NEB. Encana seeks NEB approval to abandon a 560 mm diameter pipeline, 175 km in length from the Deep Panuke PFC offshore to where it ties into M&NP facilities in Goldboro, Nova Scotia. It also includes the decommissioning and abandonment of associated onshore facilities, which include a beach valve station and a gas export pipeline terminus (GEPT) site.

14. Refer to Attachment 1 for the completed Guide B (Abandonment) and Guide K (Decommissioning) Filing Manual Checklists detailing concordance of this application.

15. Refer to the Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan (Attachment 2) for detailed decommissioning and abandonment activities and methodology rationale.

16. For detailed abandonment schematics, refer to Attachment 3.

17. For the environmental and socio-economic assessment for Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment (ESA), refer to Attachment 4.

18. Decommissioning and abandonment activities encompass the complete cycle of abandonment from the physical work of decommissioning and abandoning the pipeline and associated onshore facilities to the subsequent remediation and reclamation, where required.

19. Abandonment of the Deep Panuke pipeline will be completed as per the “Canadian Standards Association Z662-15, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems” (CSA Z662-15).

20. The following summarizes the general activities associated with the decommissioning and abandonment of the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated onshore facilities:  The pipeline will be flushed and cleaned by pigging to remove sales quality natural gas and leave it filled with untreated seawater.  The offshore pipeline will be disconnected from the PFC at or just prior to the subsea riser flange with the end left open to the sea.  The offshore pipeline will also be disconnected on both sides of the subsea isolation valve (SSIV) structure and the ends left open to the sea; the SSIV structure will be removed. The

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 5 offshore pipeline and additional offshore assets (concrete mattresses, concrete tunnels and rock) will be abandoned in place.  The buried onshore pipeline will be flushed, de-watered, end capped, and abandoned in place. The fiber optic cable located in the onshore pipeline trench will also be abandoned in place with the end buried. The buried beach valve station power supply cable, “No Anchor” sign buried foundation and cathodic protection ground bed are expected to be abandoned in place. All other onshore facilities will be removed.  Grout plugs (or equivalent) will be installed in the pipeline at the Highway 316 crossing and the Sable Road crossing to prevent ground subsidence and unnatural drainage of wet areas as the pipeline corrodes and weakens.  If the pipeline is pigged from onshore to offshore, a temporary laydown area will be created near landfall to accommodate the water intake and storage/pumping equipment. Alternatively, if the pipeline is flushed from offshore to onshore, there will be no equipment at landfall (no new excavation).  Excavation required for these activities will be localized, short-duration, outside of wetlands, and in areas that have been excavated before. Standard erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented and monitored through onsite environmental inspections.  The onshore pipeline right of way (RoW) was re-vegetated after construction in 2010 and has been allowed to return to a natural state. The GEPT and adjacent parking lot, beach valve station, and all newly excavated areas will be restored and re-vegetated with native species seeds/transplants.  The abandoned offshore pipeline will remain marked on navigation charts, updated to identify it as abandoned.  A “No Anchor” sign is located in the onshore pipeline RoW near landfall. It was installed as a condition of an approval under the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. This sign will be removed (with the buried foundation to remain in place), subject to agreement with Transport Canada’s Navigation Protection Program. 21. A post-abandonment monitoring plan will be implemented for the abandoned offshore pipeline and associated assets using subsea ROV surveys. Monitoring will occur right after decommissioning (”as-left” survey) and one year following abandonment, with additional monitoring possible if unexpected changes are observed during the one-year survey. Information on post-abandonment monitoring for the onshore site will be provided in the Onshore Environmental Protection Plan.

ECONOMICS AND FINANCE

Abandonment Costs and Funding

22. On January 30, 2018, Encana submitted the annual reporting form, which included an Abandonment Cost Estimate of $11.7 million (Canadian) for the facilities that are the subject of this application, in response to the NEB’s Set-Aside Mechanism and Collection Mechanism (MH- 001-2013). Also noted on the annual reporting form is that Encana has Letters of Credit in place as the Method of Assuring Funding for abandonment. Encana recognizes future liabilities for abandonment on its balance sheet in its accounting treatment of asset retirement obligations and confirms that funding will be available for Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 6 23. Costs associated with activities noted in the post-abandonment monitoring plan are expected to be funded through the same mechanism as other abandonment costs.

24. Potential liability exposure following the conclusion of the abandonment activities includes third- party damage and ground subsidence. Encana expects these exposures to be low based on the proposed mitigation.

Accounting Treatments, Tolls and Service Impacts

25. Costs associated with abandonment will be funded by Encana.

26. The facilities being abandoned will be treated as ordinary retirements.

27. The original book cost of the facilities to be abandoned is $306,668,000 (Canadian) and has been fully depreciated in accordance with US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles using the full cost accounting method.

28. There are no shippers and, therefore, no tolls on the facilities being abandoned.

INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENT

Background and Overview

29. Encana strives to conduct its business in an open, transparent and timely manner, respecting cultural and individual differences.

30. Encana carried out a substantial engagement program with the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia between 2000 and 2006 during the regulatory process for the development of Deep Panuke, and this engagement program continued following project approval.

31. Encana conducted Indigenous engagement in the early planning stages of Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment to work to understand Indigenous perspectives and to deal constructively with any issues that may arise. Current engagement activities have expanded from Indigenous communities in Nova Scotia to also include communities in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

32. Encana’s engagement activities to date include information updates, individual meetings, email and telephone calls.

Identification of Indigenous Communities for Engagement

33. The Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia assert Aboriginal rights and Treaty rights to all of Nova Scotia and the offshore marine environment. Encana acknowledges the assertion of rights of the Mi’kmaq and has engaged the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia regarding decommissioning and abandonment activities. In addition, Encana engaged with Indigenous communities in New Brunswick (Mi’kmaq and Maliseet) and Prince Edward Island (Mi’kmaq) that hold commercial communal fishing licences to fish for certain species in the Nova Scotia offshore.

34. The nearest First Nation (Mi’kmaq) community is Paq’tnkek First Nation (in Afton, Nova Scotia) located 77 km north of Goldboro.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 7 35. Encana is engaging with the following Indigenous groups regarding Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities:

Nova Scotia  Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs (ANSMC) o The Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office is an administrative office that supports the ANSMC; coordinates consultation and negotiation with the Crown; and engagement with third parties, such as private industry proponents. They represent the following 11 Mi’kmaq First Nations communities in Nova Scotia: o Acadia o Annapolis Valley o L’sitkik (Bear River) o Glooscap o Pictou Landing o Potlotek (Chapel Island) o Paqt’nkek o Wagmatcook o We’koqma’q (Waycobah) o Eskasoni o Membertou  Sipekne’katik First Nation, which has its own, independent consultation and engagement protocol and structure.  Millbrook First Nation, which has its own, independent consultation and engagement protocol and structure.

New Brunswick  Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Incorporated representing the following New Brunswick Mi’kmaq First Nations: o Oinpegitjoig (Pabineau) o Esgenoôpetitj (Burnt Church) o Tjipõgtõtjg (Buctouche) o L’nui Menikuk (Indian Island) o Ugpi’ganjig (Eel River Bar) o Metepenagiag (Red Bank) o Amlamgog (Fort Folly) o Natoaganeg (Eel Ground)  Elsipogtog (Big Cove) First Nation, which has its own, independent consultation and engagement protocol and structure.  Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick representing the following New Brunswick Maliseet First Nations: o Madawaska o St. Mary’s o Tobique o Kingsclear o Oromocto  Woodstock First Nation, which has its own, independent consultation and engagement protocol and structure.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 8 Prince Edward Island  Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI representing the following Prince Edward Island Mi’kmaq First Nations: o Abegweit o Lennox Island

Other Indigenous Organizations  Atlantic Policy Congress of Chiefs (APC) – Fisheries Department. The APC is a policy body that represents the Assembly of First Nations in the Atlantic Region. They have a fisheries and integrated resources department that has considerable experience working with Indigenous community fisheries.  Native Council of Nova Scotia (NCNS)/Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC). The NCNS and MAPC represent a number of Indigenous people in the Maritime Provinces and provide important services to this population. They hold both FSC and commercial communal licences.

Summary of Indigenous Engagement Activities

36. Encana began engagement activities related to Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment with Indigenous groups in February 2018. Details of the activities completed to date are provided in Section 5 of the ESA.

37. Information from publicly available sources identified interests and issues of Indigenous peoples related to other oil and gas projects in the Maritimes. These interests and issues along with those raised directly with Encana during the course of current engagement activities are summarized in the following sections.

38. Indigenous peoples fish a variety of species, such as lobster and snow crab for food, social and ceremonial purposes in waters both in and around Nova Scotia. In addition, some Indigenous groups fish commercially for large pelagic species, such as swordfish and tuna. Indigenous peoples have expressed interest in understanding potential interaction between fishing activities and abandonment activities. While Encana does not anticipate that decommissioning and abandonment activities will interact or impede Indigenous fisheries, it will be important to provide regular communication on abandonment work, such as rig and other vessel movements and locations, the type of work being undertaken, and timeframes for that work.

39. There has been general interest expressed regarding the practice of leaving (abandoning) oil and gas infrastructure, such as pipelines, in place, and associated potential environmental impacts. Encana has provided information regarding environmental hazard mitigation to abandon the pipeline in place including pigging, flushing, sampling of the pipeline, snagging hazard mitigation, pipeline material and anticipated corrosion rates. The practice of pipeline abandonment in place is consistent with global industry practice and the commitments outlined in the approved NEB Pipeline Application and the CNSOPB Development Plan Application for Deep Panuke.

Ongoing Indigenous Engagement Activities

40. Encana will continue to engage Indigenous communities and organizations to provide updates as Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment progresses and will remain available to meet and discuss with Indigenous communities and organizations regarding any questions or concerns that they may have about its decommissioning and abandonment.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 9 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Background and Overview

41. Encana carried out a substantial engagement program with key stakeholders between 2000 and 2006 during the regulatory process for the development of Deep Panuke; this engagement continued following project approval.

42. Encana has engaged with stakeholders to provide up-to-date information and identify interests and issues to be considered in the early planning stages for Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment. Encana’s engagement activities to date include information updates, individual meetings, email and telephone calls.

43. Encana began engagement activities related to Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment with key stakeholders in February 2018. Details of the activities completed to date are provided in Section 5 of the ESA.

44. The key stakeholder groups currently engaged regarding Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities include regulatory and government agencies, fisheries groups and associations, and non-government stakeholders (e.g. non-government organizations, industry, etc.).

Regulatory and Government Agencies

45. A number of regulatory and government agencies regulate or are involved with the Deep Panuke facilities. Regarding the NEB Leave to Abandon Application (including the associated ESA), Encana has identified and engaged with the following regulatory and government agencies:

 CNSOPB  National Energy Board  Fisheries and Oceans Canada  Natural Resources Canada  Nova Scotia Department of Energy  Transport Canada

Local Government Agencies (Municipal)

46. Deep Panuke onshore facilities are located within the Municipality of the District of Guysborough (the Municipality). Encana initiated dialogue with the Municipality related to Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities on the following topics:

 facilities proposed to be removed/abandoned in place;  follow-up land reclamation and monitoring;  engagement of local supply community; and  land management post decommissioning.

Fisheries Groups and Associations

47. Encana has ongoing relationships with fisheries in the offshore and nearshore areas with proximity to Deep Panuke. Encana engaged with the following fisheries organizations and associations as part of the planning of Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment:

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 10

 CNSOPB Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC)  Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership  Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia  Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council  Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen’s Association  Ocean Pride

48. Encana has engaged with the CNSOPB FAC throughout the lifecycle of Deep Panuke providing regular updates. Encana began providing updates on Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities to FAC in February 2018. Encana will continue to provide updates to FAC on Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities through regularly scheduled FAC meetings and with any fisheries organization or association as necessary or upon request.

Other Stakeholders

49. Encana has engaged with the following companies, who operate, or are working to develop a project, in proximity to the Deep Panuke NEB-regulated facilities:

 M&NP;  ExxonMobil Canada Properties: operator of the Sable Offshore Energy Project;  BP Canada Energy Group: conducting exploratory drilling offshore Nova Scotia;  GTT Communications, Inc.: owners of the Hibernia subsea cable; and  Pieridae Energy (Canada) Ltd.: working to develop the Goldboro LNG Project in Goldboro, NS.

Encana has not been advised of any outstanding concerns from these third parties. Encana will continue to provide decommissioning and abandonment updates to these parties, as necessary or upon request.

50. Encana has also provided the following organizations with information updates on Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities:

 Sierra Club of Canada  Ecology Action Centre  World Wildlife Foundation

51. Encana is prepared to meet any stakeholder to discuss Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities upon request.

LAND MATTERS

52. The onshore pipeline is primarily located in a pipeline corridor in the Goldboro Industrial Park, within a 25-m wide easement acquired from the Municipality. An additional 5-m wide utility service easement was also acquired from the Municipality for an underground power cable. Both the GEPT and the beach valve station for Deep Panuke are located on properties owned by Encana; see Figure A-3 in Attachment 2. Adjacent land use is described in the section 2.5 of the Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan.

53. Encana will use existing rights of way for the decommissioning and abandonment activities. No additional easements will be required for the decommissioning and abandonment activities. If

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 11 temporary work space is required, Encana will acquire necessary access rights from the land owners.

54. Initial plans for decommissioning and abandonment activities were shared with the Municipality, the only affected land owner.

Easements to be Surrendered

55. Encana intends to surrender all easements to the Municipality, as well as return the land owned by Encana to the Municipality.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

56. This section summarizes the environmental and socio-economic effects assessment (ESA) for the decommissioning and abandonment activities. The ESA was prepared in accordance with Guide B.4 and K.3 of the NEB Filing Manual.

57. Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities were assessed in the 2006-2007 Deep Panuke environmental assessment conducted under CEAA. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has confirmed that an assessment for the Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities under CEAA 2012 is not required.

58. Encana will meet all commitments related to Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment made in the 2006-2007 environmental assessment and Encana’s application to the NEB for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Deep Panuke pipeline.

59. Proposed decommissioning and abandonment activities remain the same as described in the approved Deep Panuke 2006 EA Report; however, additional decommissioning details and environmental information are now available. Therefore, the ESA focuses on the technical, biophysical, and socio-economic updates or changes that have occurred since the preparation of the 2006 EA Report, both onshore and offshore.

60. The ESA uses the environmental effects assessment methodology presented in the approved 2006 EA Report, which is structured to (1) identify potential effects on selected valued components (VCs); (2) consider key issues raised by Indigenous groups and stakeholders; (3) integrate mitigation and follow-up measures and (4) assess significance of residual effects.

61. Based on a consideration of the technical, biophysical, and socio-economic updates or changes identified since the approved 2006 EA Report, the selected VCs for the ESA include (1) Marine Fish; (2) Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles; (3) Marine Related Birds; (4) Special Areas; (5) Onshore Environment; (6) Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries and (7) Other Ocean Users.

62. The ESA includes the assessment of potential cumulative environmental effects of Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out in the vicinity of the Deep Panuke development.

63. The ESA is divided into the following sections:

 Section 1: Introduction – provides an overview of the Deep Panuke development, the regulatory framework, and the purpose of the document.  Section 2: Project description – described the infrastructure components, the decommissioning and abandonment methods, and the schedule of proposed activities.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 12  Section 3: Biophysical and socio-economic setting: describes the ecological setting and current land use in the Deep Panuke development area.  Section 4: Environmental management plan – describes Encana’s corporate environmental policy, EHS management system and associated relevant practices, plans and procedures.  Section 5: Indigenous and stakeholder engagement – details planned and conducted engagement activities with Indigenous groups and key stakeholders, as well as issues and concerns raised to date.  Section 6: Scope and method – describes the scope and methodology for the effects assessment, including technical, biophysical and socio-economic updates or changes since the approved 2006 EA Report and resulting selection of VCs.  Section 7: Assessment of interactions – assessment of the potential interactions between decommissioning and abandonment activities and VCs identified in Section 5; issues and concerns heard through the engagement program; mitigation measures and assessment of residual effects significance.  Section 8: Cumulative effects – describes other undertakings/projects near the Deep Panuke field and assess potential cumulative effects from those undertakings with the proposed decommissioning and abandonment activities.  Section 9: Conclusions – summary of the effects assessment and concluding statement.

64. In addition, appendices to the ESA include the following:

 Appendix A: Encana’s Environment Policy  Appendix B: Deep Panuke Environmental Codes of Practice  Appendix C: Engagement Material  Appendix D: Indigenous Commercial Communal Licences  Appendix E: Commercial Fisheries Figures

65. Onshore and offshore environmental protection plans for pipeline decommissioning and abandonment activities will be prepared once a contractor has been selected for the work. These documents will provide additional details on site-specific environmental protection measures, such as onshore erosion and sediment control measures, site reclamation, onshore pipeline plugs installation, waste management, etc.

66. The ESA concludes that the potential effects of the decommissioning and abandonment activities, including cumulative effects, can be managed through effective mitigation measures. Therefore, the potential effects associated with decommissioning and abandonment activities are predicted to be not significant.

SUPPORTING MATERIAL

67. In support of this application, Encana provides and relies on information provided in the following attachments:

 Attachment 1: Guide B and K Filing Manual Checklist  Attachment 2: Abandonment Plan (including Facility Maps)  Attachment 3: Abandonment Schematics  Attachment 4: Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment

68. Encana may file additional information in support of this application, as directed or permitted by the NEB.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 13 RELIEF REQUESTED

69. Encana requests the following of the NEB:

 endorsement of the proposed methods of decommissioning and abandonment for the pipeline and associated onshore facilities as described in this Leave to Abandon Application;  issuance of an order, pursuant to s.74 of the NEB Act and s.50 of the OPR, to approve and allow Encana to abandon the pipeline and associated onshore facilities; and  granting of further and other relief as Encana may request or as the NEB may consider appropriate.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 14

ATTACHMENT 1: GUIDE B AND GUIDE K FILING MANUAL CHECKLIST

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018

Guide B – Applications to Abandon – (paragraph 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act and section 50 of the OPR)

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

B.1 Engineering

1. Confirm abandonment activities will follow the Section 4.2.1, Abandonment requirements of the latest revision of CSA Z662. Plan (Attachment 2)

2.  A complete description of facilities being Section 4, Abandonment abandoned Plan (Attachment 2)  An assessment of the potential safety hazards related to facility abandonment and mitigative actions planned to reduce such hazards  A plan outlining how the facility will be prepared for abandonment and how it will be monitored, if necessary

B.2 Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment

ESA (or environmental and socio-economic ESA (Attachment 4) assessment)

1. The different ecological settings found at the Section 3, ESA (Attachment project location and different land uses in place. 4)

2. Identify the ecological settings (identified in1) in Section 3, ESA (Attachment which each of the project components to be 4) abandoned is located

3. Methods to be used to cleanup any contamination Section 2 and 7, ESA found at the project component sites and: (Attachment 4)

 The amount of contamination that exists  Special handling techniques that will be used  Regulatory requirements to be followed for cleanup and disposal.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-1

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

4. For each project component: Section 2 and 7, ESA (Attachment 4)  How and when it will be abandoned  How the environment will be reclaimed  How the abandonment is appropriate for the ecological setting where it is located.

5. Use of appropriate level of detail to allow Section 2, ESA (Attachment regulators, public and others to understand what 4) is being proposed.

6. The regulatory requirements for reclamation and Section 2 and 7, ESA remediation and how these requirements will be (Attachment 4) met.

7. Identify historical spills and releases on the area Section 3, ESA (Attachment to be abandoned. 4)

B.3 Economics and Finance

1. Details of the costs associated with proposed Paragraphs 22-23 abandonment, including estimated costs for post- abandonment monitoring and contingency.

2. Confirmation that funding is and will be available Paragraphs 22-23 to finance the proposed abandonment, and post abandonment activities.

3. Original book cost and accumulated depreciation Paragraph 27 to retirement date.

4. Accounting details including details of whether Paragraph 26 retirement is ordinary or extraordinary.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-2

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

B.4 Lands Information

1. Describe the location and the dimensions of the Paragraphs 52 existing RoW and facility lands that would be affected by the abandonment.

2. Map or site plan of the pipeline or facility. Appendix A, Abandonment Plan (Attachment 2)

3. Locations and dimensions of temporary Paragraph 53 workspace required.

4. Describe any easement proposed to be acquired Paragraph 53; no new easements for the abandonment, including the location and are anticipated. dimensions of the easement.

5. Provide a record of public consultation activities Section 5, ESA (Attachment that have been undertaken for the abandonment, 4) including a description of:

 All discussions with landowners regarding the easement  Summary of any issues or concerns identified by the landowner regarding the easement, surrendering of the easement, or the lands proposed to be acquired  How the applicant proposes to address any concerns or issues raised by potentially affected people or landowners, or an explanation as to why no further action is required.

6. Provide the details of any reclamation plans Sections 2 and 7, ESA developed in consultation with landowners (Attachment 4) affected by the proposed abandonment.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-3

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

7. In the event that any easement will be Paragraph 55 surrendered:

 Identify the lands where easement will be surrendered,  Describe the contingency plans that will be put in place to protect the landowner should subsequent land issues arise following the abandonment of the facility and surrender of the easement,  File evidence to demonstrate that affected landowners have been advised of the proposed abandonment.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-4

Guide K – Decommissioning

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

K.1 General Requirements

1. Provide a complete description of the facilities Section 4, Abandonment being decommissioned. This should include a Plan description of any adjacent facilities that are (Attachment 2) impediments to allowing the facility to be abandoned

2. An application for abandonment must be filed for Not applicable as decommissioning all NEB-regulated facilities when they have activities are being conducted as reached their end of life, including associated part of the abandonment decommissioned facilities. Therefore, companies should demonstrate that they are planning for eventual abandonment of decommissioned facilities by providing the anticipated timing of abandonment activities (as best known at this time) for each facility being decommissioned as well as any measures taken to prepare for this eventual abandonment.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-5

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

K.2 Engineering

Pipeline:

1. Provide details to confirm the pipeline is going to Section 4.2.1 and 4.3.3, be: Abandonment Plan  emptied of service fluids (Attachment 2)  purged or appropriately cleaned or both in a manner that leaves no mobile materials remaining in the pipeline;  physically separated from any in-service piping;  capped, plugged, or otherwise effectively sealed;  left without any internal pressure;  left in a state where road, railway or utility crossings are not at risk of disturbance due to settlement;  equipped with signage; and  monitored as appropriate for subsidence and to maintain adequate cover for existing and future land use.

Note: Pipelines containing liners or constructed of polymeric pipe may require repeat purging and maintenance to accommodate out gassing of hydrocarbon or H2S. See CSA Z662 clause 13.2.8.6.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-6

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

Surface Equipment:

2. Provide details on the removal of pipeline related Section 4.3.3, Abandonment surface equipment. Plan  describe equipment to be removed to pipeline (Attachment 2) depth, except where surface equipment is within an existing surface facility that is in continuing operation or is required for the operation of any other remaining pipelines. Examples of such equipment could be, but are not limited to: pipeline risers, liner vent piping, casing vents, underground vault vents or valve extenders, inspection bell holes, and cathodic protection rectifiers, test posts, or anode wiring, storage tanks and associated piping and equipment.  describe how above ground pipelines and all related surface equipment are to be decommissioned except where they are part of or within an existing surface facility that is in continuing operation or is required for the operation of any other remaining pipelines.

Facilities:

3. Provide details on decommissioning of pipeline Section 4.3.3, Abandonment related facilities such as compressors and pump Plan stations unless they are still part of an operating (Attachment 2) site. Disposition of associated piping, supports and foundations shall also be described.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-7

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

Underground Components:

4. Provide details on the decommissioning of Not applicable to Deep Panuke underground vaults and closed-top pits. Discuss the decommissioning of any underground tanks in relation to requirements in API 1604.

Records:

5. Describe the records that are to be maintained of Section 4.9, Abandonment all pipeline components and facilities that are to Plan (Attachment 2) be decommissioned.

K.3 Environment and Socio-Economic

1. Describe the ecological setting and current land Section 3, ESA (Attachment use of the project footprint as well as adjacent 4) areas.

2. Describe any known areas of contamination in the Section 2, 3 and 7, ESA project areas as well as historical, ongoing or (Attachment 4) planned remediation activities associated with those sites. Describe any regulatory requirements for the reclamation and remediation of these sites and how these requirements will be met.

3. Provide an Environmental and Socio-Economic Section 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, ESA Assessment. (Attachment 4)

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-8

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

4. For decommissioning projects that are located Section 2, 3 and 7, ESA outside of lands owned or leased by the applicant, (Attachment 4) provide a monitoring plan outlining how the decommissioned facility will be monitored for the period of time between decommissioning and abandonment.This plan should include: • a description of the baseline data that has been collected or obtained for future monitoring results to be measured against. Baseline data should be of sufficient scale, scope and intensity to meet project monitoring requirements. • a description of how soils, vegetation establishment, invasive weeds, wetland hydrology and surface and ground water quality will be monitored. • contingency plans for the discovery of soil and water contamination, loss of depth of cover, or extreme weather events affecting the integrity of the decommissioned facilities. • input from interested parties. Any comments from stakeholders should be considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the plan.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-9

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? # 5. For decommissioning projects that are located Section 2, 3 and 7, ESA outside of lands owned or leased by the applicant, (Attachment 4) provide an explanation of how natural regeneration of the project footprint in forested areas or native prairie have been considered in the planning for decommissioning. This should include:  a discussion of whether or not non-agricultural lands will be allowed to naturally re-vegetate while the facility is in a decommissioned state.  a discussion of any limitations that this would have on the ability to monitor the facilities. A discussion of whether allowing re-vegetation of the project footprint would limit future physical abandonment choices) i.e., pipeline removal vs. abandonment in place). And if so, how that has been factored into decommissioning planning.

K.4 Economics and Finance 1. Provide details of the costs associated within the Paragraph 22 (included in proposed decommissioning. abandonment costs) 2. Confirm that funding is and will be available to Paragraph 22 (also includes finance the proposed decommissioning project. decommissioning) 3. Where the pipeline has or is likely in future to have Paragraph 28 (no shippers) third party shippers, provide:  information on the original book cost of the facilities and accumulated depreciation to the retirement date.  explain any impact on remaining ratebase, providing accounting details as outlined in the Gas Pipeline Uniform Accounting Regulations (GPUAR) or Oil Pipeline Uniform Accounting Regulations (OPUAR), including details of whether the retirement is ordinary or extraordinary.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-10

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

4. Explain the impact on the company’s Not applicable as decommissioning abandonment funding program or verify that the activities are being conducted as decommissioning does not impact it. For example, part of abandonment explain:  any resulting changes to the abandonment cost estimate for the system, or to the estimated timing of abandonment for various segments;  any resulting changes to the plans to fund future abandonment costs.

K.5 Lands Information

1. Describe the location and the dimensions of the Paragraphs 52 existing RoW or facility lands that would be affected by the decommissioning activities.

2. Provide a map or site plan of the facilities to be Appendix A, Abandonment decommissioned. Plan (Attachment 2)

3. Identify the locations and dimensions of temporary Paragraph 53 workspace required for decommissioning activities.

4. Provide a record of public consultation activities Section 5, ESA (Attachment that have been undertaken for the affected 4) landowners, including a description of:  all discussions with landowners regarding the proposed decommissioning activities;  summary of any issues or concerns identified by the landowner; and  how the applicant proposes to address any concerns or issues raised by potentially affected people or landowners, or an explanation as to why no further action is required.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-11

Filing Filing Requirement In Application? Not in Application? #

5. Provide a plan for how consultation with affected Not applicable as decommissioning people or landowners will be conducted during the activities are being conducted as period of time between decommissioning and part of abandonment abandonment.

K.6 Consultation

1. The Board expects applicants will consider consultation for all projects. Please refer to Chapter 3.3 of the NEB’s Filing Manual for Section 5, ESA (Attachment additional information. Sharing contamination 4) remediation plans, if any, with landowners, stakeholders – refer to Abandonment Guide B. 2.

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018 A1-12

ATTACHMENT 2: ABANDONMENT PLAN (INCLUDING FACILITY MAPS)

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018

Deep Panuke Offshore Gas Development

Abandonment Plan for Pipeline & Associated Facilities

Document No. DCEN-X00-RP-RE-00-0007.02U

Prepared by:

Encana Corporation Suite 700, 1701 Hollis Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3M8

June 2018

ABBREVIATIONS

CSA Canadian Standards Association CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CNSOPB Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board CP cathodic protection DNV Det Norske Veritas Encana Encana Corporation EPP Environmental Protection Plan ESA Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment FBE fusion bonded epoxy GEPT gas export pipeline terminus km kilometer LNG liquid natural gas m metre mm millimetre MMscf Million standard cubic feet M&NP Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Municipality Municipality of District of Guysborough NEB National Energy Board NGL natural gas liquid OPR Onshore Pipeline Regulations (NEB) PFC production field centre PID property identification numbers RoW right of way SOEP Sable Offshore Energy Project SSIV subsea isolation valve

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 2

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 Background ...... 4 1.2 Abandonment Plan Development ...... 4 1.3 Timeline ...... 5

2 FACILITIES TO BE ABANDONED ...... 5 2.1 Pipeline ...... 5 2.2 Additional Assets ...... 8 2.3 Onshore Facilities ...... 10 2.4 Adjacent Facilities ...... 13 2.5 Land Use ...... 14 2.6 Natural Features ...... 15 2.7 Land Ownership ...... 15

3 HISTORY OF RELEASES ...... 16

4 ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE ...... 16 4.1 Decommissioning and Abandonment Rationale ...... 16 4.2 Facilities to be Abandoned in Place ...... 19 4.3 Facilities to be Removed ...... 21 4.4 Risks and Associated Mitigation ...... 22 4.5 Remediation and Reclamation ...... 24 4.6 Performance Measures ...... 24 4.7 Waste Management, Recycling and Reuse ...... 24 4.8 Post-Abandonment Monitoring ...... 24 4.9 Reports ...... 24

5 REFERENCES ...... 25

APPENDIX A: MAPS ...... 26

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 3

1 INTRODUCTION

This document describes the abandonment plan for the Deep Panuke gas export pipeline and associated onshore facilities owned by Encana Corporation (Encana). The Abandonment Plan addresses the following:

 facilities to be abandoned;  land uses and natural features adjacent to the facilities;  history of releases;  abandonment procedure;  risk and associated mitigation;  reclamation;  performance measures; and  post-abandonment monitoring.

1.1 Background The Deep Panuke gas field is located offshore about 250 km southeast of Halifax, Nova Scotia, approximately 47 km west of Sable Island in a water depth of approximately 44 m. An offshore production platform (production field centre or PFC) produced and processed natural gas. The gas was transported to shore via a 175 km long, 560 mm (22 inch) diameter sales gas quality export pipeline to an interconnection with the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NP) facilities in Goldboro, Nova Scotia. Maps of the Deep Panuke development location and the onshore facilities are included in Appendix A.

The National Energy Board (NEB) regulates the Deep Panuke gas export pipeline and the associated onshore facilities. The pipeline begins at the top of the PFC riser and extends to, and includes, the onshore facilities in Goldboro, Nova Scotia (where it ties into M&NP facilities).

The NEB issued the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, GC-111, to Encana in respect of the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated facilities pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) in 2007. The NEB also issued Order GPLO-E112-007-2013 granting leave to open the Deep Panuke pipeline in 2013.

Encana permanently ceased production from Deep Panuke on May 7, 2018 and is now planning decommissioning and abandonment activities. These activities require the NEB’s Leave to Abandon the Deep Panuke pipeline and onshore facilities pursuant to Section 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act and Section 50 of the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR).

1.2 Abandonment Plan Development This Abandonment Plan includes decommissioning and abandonment activities associated with the Deep Panuke facilities regulated by the NEB. This Abandonment Plan was developed in accordance with the NEB Act, the OPR and the “Canadian Standards Association Z662-15, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems” (CSA Z662-15).

Encana is engaging Indigenous group and key stakeholders to obtain feedback on the proposed decommissioning and abandonment activities. Encana will conduct decommissioning and abandonment activities safely and in a manner that minimizes effects on the environment.

In addition, the following guidance was taken into consideration when developing this plan:

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 4

 “Pipeline Abandonment – A Discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues” (NEB 1996)  “Pipeline Abandonment Assumptions: Technical and Environmental considerations for development of Pipeline Abandonment strategies” (CEPA 2007)  “Pipeline Abandonment Scoping Study” (DNV 2010)  “Guidance Notes – Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and Pipelines” (UK 2018)

1.3 Timeline Decommissioning and abandonment activities will be conducted in the 2018-2021 timeframe.

2 FACILITIES TO BE ABANDONED

2.1 Pipeline The Deep Panuke pipeline consists of a 175 km long, 560 mm (22 inch) diameter, sweet natural gas subsea pipeline, which transports export sales gas to Goldboro, Nova Scotia. The pipeline can be broken into two sections: offshore and onshore. The offshore subsea portion of the pipeline is 172 km long; see Figure 2-1. The onshore portion of the pipeline is approximately 3 km long; see Figure A-2 in Attachment A.

Material properties for the pipeline are given in Table 2-1. The pipeline coating is a 0.5 mm layer of fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) coating and the offshore section has concrete for on-bottom stability. The pipeline does not have insulation. The field joints are wrapped with heat shrink sleeves with a polyurethane layer added to match the concrete thickness. The external FBE corrosion coating has been supplemented with a cathodic protection (CP) system. For offshore protection purposes, this is provided by sacrificial anodes. The anode material is a mixture of aluminum-zinc-indium. The onshore section of the pipeline is externally coated and has an impressed current CP system to accommodate the existing onshore soil properties. The onshore section of the pipeline is electrically isolated from the adjacent M&NP custody transfer station.

Table 2-1: Pipeline Material Properties Location (KP) OD (mm) Wall Thickness Steel Grade Fabrication (mm) M&NP Tie-in 565.4 & API 5L-X65 & CSA 17.5 & 22.2 SAWL to 0 574.8 Z245.1 Grade 448 Cat II 0-0.55 565.4 17.5 0.55-171.5 559 14.3 DNV 450 FU SAWL 171.5-PFC 565.4 17.5 Note: all sections had a 1mm corrosion allowance

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 5

Figure 2-1: Offshore Pipeline Route

The offshore pipeline has been trenched for sections of the route that are shallower than 85 m (i.e., from shore to KP 23.3 and from KP 98.3 to the PFC) for on-bottom stability. From the shore to a water depth of 14 m, a pre-dredged trench was provided. At water depths greater than 85 m, no trenching was required, and this part of the pipeline is exposed on the seabed. Table 2-2 summarizes the trenched

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 6

sections and provides details on the concrete weight coating thicknesses. The onshore pipeline has been trenched and backfilled along its entire length from KP0 to the gas export pipeline terminus (GEPT).

Table 2-2: Pipeline Trenching & Weight Coating Details KP Range (km) Pipeline Conditions Concrete Coating (mm) GEPT to 0.0 Trenched and backfilled None 0.0 - 0.8 Pre-Trenched 80 & 100 0.8 - 23.3 Post trenched 80 23.3 - 98.3 Exposed on seabed 60 & 80 98.3 - 127 60 Post trenched 127 - PFC 80

The offshore pipeline is fitted with a subsea isolation valve (SSIV) to isolate the full pipeline inventory from the PFC in the event of pipeline rupture; see Figure 2-2. The SSIV consists of a 610 mm ball valve with 51 mm by-pass gate valve and is located approximately 50 m from the PFC in a water depth of 44 m. The SSIV is contained within a steel framed protection structure (9 m x 4.5 m x 4.55 m), which is secured in place with piles. The SSIV is controlled by an umbilical from the PFC.

Figure 2-2: SSIV Structure

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 7

2.2 Additional Assets A number of additional assets have been used on the offshore pipeline for various reasons, including on-bottom stability, free span correction, upheaval buckling and scour protection. These assets include the following:

 rock;  concrete mattresses (approx. 6 m x 3 m x 0.3 m, 11 tonne each);  concrete tunnels (various sizes, 25-33 tonne each;  grout bags (typically 25 kg each); and  rock filter units (typically 4 tonne each).

See Figure 2-3 to 2-6 for photos of these typical features.

Figure 2-3: Concrete Mattress

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 8

Figure 2-4: Concrete Tunnel

Figure 2-5: Filled Grout Bag

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 9

Figure 2-6: Rock Filter Unit

The nature and quantity of the assets associated with the offshore pipeline are summarized in Table 2- 3.

Table 2-3: Additional Offshore Assets Item No. Weight Primary Material (tonne) Concrete Mattresses 41 578 Concrete Rock (km) 2.592 16450 Rock Rock Filter Units 25 100 Rock Groutbags 1600 40 Grout Concrete Tunnels 11 340 Concrete

2.3 Onshore Facilities At the end of the onshore pipeline, the Deep Panuke GEPT ties into the M&NP facilities located in Goldboro, Nova Scotia. In addition to the onshore pipeline, the onshore facilities for Deep Panuke include the following:

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 10

 beach valve station;  GEPT site; and  fiber optic cable.

The location of these facilities is illustrated on Figure A-2 in Appendix A.

The beach valve station (see Figure 2-7) contained an isolation valve that has since been removed from the pipeline; only the fencing, signage and some electrical equipment for this site now remains. A buried power cable provides electricity from Nova Scotia Power to the beach valve station.

Figure 2-7: Beach Valve Station

The Deep Panuke GEPT site is the termination point for the pipeline; see Figure 2-8. This facility contains an isolation valve, a pig receiver/launcher, control and communication systems and is the connection point to the M&NP custody transfer station. A CP system is included at the GEPT site, which is electrically isolated from the adjacent M&NP custody transfer station.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 11

Top left photo: GEPT building Top right photo: GEPT connection to M&NP Bottom photo: GEPT pig receiver Figure 2-8: GEPT Facility The fiber optic cable provides a communication connection between the beach valve station and GEPT; it is located in the onshore pipeline trench.

A “No Anchor” sign is also located in the onshore pipeline right of way (RoW) near landfall; see Figure 2-9.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 12

Figure 2-9: “No Anchor” Sign

2.4 Adjacent Facilities The following facilities are located in the vicinity of the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated facilities:

 Sable Offshore Energy Project (SOEP) Goldboro gas plant;  SOEP 26” diameter gathering pipeline;  SOEP natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline;  M&NP mainline;  Municipality’s wind farm; and  Hibernia offshore fiber optic cable

These facilities are described in Table 2-4. With the exception of the Hibernia cable, these facilities are also identified in Figures A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 13

Table 2-4: Facilities Near Deep Panuke Facility Length and Route Comment SOEP Goldboro  Located in Goldboro, NS SOEP 26” diameter gathering line gas plant terminates at the plant SOEP 26” diameter  26” diameter Runs parallel to most of the Deep gathering line  200 km (2 km onshore and 198 km offshore) Panuke pipeline. Pipelines are in length, transporting a mix of gas and less than 1 km apart offshore and liquids from SOEP’s offshore Thebaud less than 100 m onshore Platform to the SOEP gas plant SOEP NGL  8” diameter Installed adjacent to 30-inch pipeline  62 km in length, transporting NGL from M&NP mainline Goldboro gas plant to SOEP Fractionation Plant at Point Tupper M&NP mainline  30” diameter Deep Panuke onshore facilities tie  1300 km in length, transporting natural gas to into the M&NP mainline Dracut, Massachusetts, USA Wind farm  Three (3) wind turbines Owned by the Municipality of District of Guysborough. Also includes electrical equipment and connection to Nova Scotia Power Hibernia Atlantic  35.9mm diameter fiber optic cable protected Owned by GTT Communications fiber optic cable with external Uraduct product  Discrete crossing at KP43.12

2.5 Land Use

2.5.1 Adjacent Use – Onshore The Deep Panuke onshore pipeline and onshore facilities are located in land either owned by Encana or in a designated pipeline corridor within the Goldboro Industrial Park.

With the exception of the facilities listed in Table 2-4, Highway 316 and Sable Road, land along/in the vicinity of the onshore pipeline right-of-way is unoccupied and undeveloped, including the Goldboro Industrial Park; see Figure A-2 in Appendix A. Land use adjacent to the pipeline RoW for the onshore section is mostly forested or representative of natural habitat including grassy areas, shrubs, and wetlands. The adjacent forest areas have been subject to recent harvesting activities and are in various stages of growth. In addition, there has recently been clearing in the Goldboro Industrial Park as part of the Goldboro LNG Project.

2.5.2 Adjacent Use – Offshore The area of Sable Island Bank where the Deep Panuke field is located is not known as a productive fishing area for traditional commercial species. Historical data shows very little shellfish, groundfish or pelagic fishing in the area. The only fishing activity in the vicinity of the Deep Panuke field or offshore pipeline is fishing for sea cucumber (using dredges) around KP 110-140 where the pipeline is buried; some snow crab fishing activity around KP 30-40 (using crab pots), and nearshore fishing activity where the pipeline is buried (e.g. lobster, scallop, rock crab and sea urchin). Therefore, the risk of interaction with fishing gear is minimal. A 2003 research survey from Fisheries and Oceans Canada identified commercial quantities of Ocean quahog on Sable Island Bank; however, fishing for Ocean quahog has not yet materialized as the fleet has been focusing on Surf clam fishing east of Sable Island Bank.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 14

Oil tanker, commercial and merchant shipping follow routes that transit the north Atlantic. There is no single corridor by which the vessels pass. Relative to the Port of Halifax, the majority of the marine shipping traffic travels north of Sable Island. However, because Sable Island is close in proximity to other major ports, shipping traffic occurs in the general Deep Panuke area. The Deep Panuke facilities do not present any significant obstacles for marine traffic.

Currently, there is one active cable crossings located along the offshore pipeline. Abandoned cable crossings were cleared from the pipeline route in advance of Deep Panuke pipeline installation.

2.6 Natural Features The natural onshore and offshore environments are characterized in Section 3 from the Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment (ESA). Key environmentally sensitive locations are presented in Figure A-2 (onshore map) in Appendix A of this document and Appendix B of the ESA (Encana’s Codes of Practice for Sable Island National Park Reserve, the Gully Marine Protected Area, and Country Island).

2.7 Land Ownership Both the beach valve station and the GEPT are located on properties owned by Encana. The onshore pipeline is primarily located in a pipeline corridor in the Goldboro Industrial Park, within a 25-m wide easement acquired from the Municipality of District of Guysborough (the Municipality). An additional 5- m wide utility service easement was also acquired from the Municipality for installation of an underground power cable from a nearby Nova Scotia Power pole to the beach valve station. Land ownership for, and in the vicinity of, the Deep Panuke onshore pipeline and onshore facilities is presented in Figure A-3 in Appendix A.

Property Identification numbers (PID) and ownership of land parcels are provided in Table 2-5. This list includes the lands owned by Encana, all adjacent properties and lands along the easement for the onshore pipeline and associated facilities.

Table 2-5: Land Ownership Owner/Managing Agency Property Identification Number Encana Corporation 35206507 Encana Corporation 35206481 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited Partnership 35206515 Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline Limited 35125467 Municipality of the District of Guysborough 35095884 Municipality of the District of Guysborough 35198134 Municipality of the District of Guysborough 35179464 Municipality of the District of Guysborough 35206499 Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources 35094366

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 15

3 HISTORY OF RELEASES

There were three small leaks related to the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated facilities during construction and operations activities, as follows:

1. release of 250 millilitre of hydraulic fluid/water, which was immediately remediated; 2. contained oil leak <1 litre; and 3. natural gas.

See Table 3-1 for more details.

Table 3-1: Historical Hydrocarbon Releases at the Deep Panuke Pipeline and Associated Facilities Date Material Released Estimated Volume Description 2012-07-18 Hydraulic fluid + 250 millilitre Hydraulic and water mixture from shutdown Water valve at GEPT was sprayed on piping and gravel. Contaminated gravel removed and disposed of. 2014-09-03 Oil <1 litre Oil hose leak under hydro-vac truck at the beach valve. Leaked oil contained and disposed of. 2015-09-09 Natural Gas - Sweet 198 m3 Very small leak from gas over hydraulic actuator noticed during routine inspection at the terminus station (estimated volume assumes conservative leak duration of one week).

As described in Table 3-1, there is no known contamination related to the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated facilities. There have been no onshore spills to water. No reportable releases, leaks or ruptures are known to have occurred along the pipeline.

4 ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE

4.1 Decommissioning and Abandonment Rationale Encana submitted an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the NEB for the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated facilities in 2006; decommissioning and abandonment activities were described in this application. Deep Panuke also required approvals from the Canada- Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) and under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Decommissioning and abandonment activities were assessed in the approved 2006-2007 Deep Panuke environmental assessment conducted under CEAA and in support of the NEB and CNSOPB approval processes.

The 2006-2007 environmental assessment demonstrated that there are no likely significant adverse environmental effects predicted in relation to the Project’s proposed decommissioning and abandonment plans, with a minor positive reef/refuge effects on marine benthos and fish.

The approach for the decommissioning and abandonment of the Deep Panuke facilities remains consistent with these applications; i.e., the pipeline (both onshore and offshore sections) will be flushed and abandoned in place, and all aboveground facilities associated with the onshore pipeline will be removed. Encana will meet all the commitments related to decommissioning and abandonment made in the applications.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 16

However, additional decommissioning details and environmental information are now available. Therefore, the ESA assesses technical, biophysical, and socio-economic updates or changes that have occurred since the preparation of the 2006 EA Report, both onshore and offshore.

4.1.1 Onshore For the onshore portion of the pipeline, guidance from the “Pipeline Abandonment Assumptions: Technical and Environmental considerations for development of Pipeline Abandonment strategies” (CEPA 2007) and the “NEB Pipeline Abandonment Scoping Study” (DNV 2010) was reviewed and incorporated into the abandonment plans.

These documents included matrices to assess future potential uses of pipeline route, current land type, and pipeline diameter to recommend site specific abandonment methods. Abandonment in place was selected as the preferred abandonment method for the onshore pipeline because it is located in a designated pipeline corridor located on the edge of the Goldboro Industrial Park.

4.1.2 Offshore For the offshore portion of the pipeline and additional offshore assets, the “Guidance Notes – Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and Pipelines” (UK 2018) was reviewed and incorporated into the abandonment plans. This involved a comparative assessment of the following decommissioning options:

 removal; and  abandon in place.

The criteria used in this comparative assessment included the following:

 safety;  environmental (including socio-economic);  technical; and  economic.

Table 4-1 summarizes the results of the comparative assessment for the decommissioning options considered for Deep Panuke.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 17

Table 4-1: Comparative Assessment for Deep Panuke Decommissioning Options Criteria Removal Abandon in place Conclusion Safety  Higher risk associated with  Lowest safety risk Abandonment in offshore removal program activities place has lower which include underwater de- safety risk as a burial, cutting and lifting. result of the  Inability to assess the integrity of smaller offshore lifting connection on concrete removal program tunnels, concrete mattresses, rock (including filter units, etc. elimination of lifting operations) Environmental  Complete removal of potential  Potential interaction with fishing Abandonment in (Including snagging hazards gear mitigated by state of burial of place has least Socio-  Disturbance to seafloor sediment pipeline (approximately 50%); environmental Economic) caused by deburial and removal of removal of snagging hazards in impact assets unburied sections (remediated  Removal of localized reef effect spans; removal of PFC riser created by the subsea pipeline and section; additional rock/mattresses additional assets to secure abandoned items as  Large volume of recovered waste required); minimal bottom mobile material to be disposed of onshore gear fishing activity over unburied  Significantly longer program section of pipeline; updating of resulting in additional routine light, nautical charts; and fisheries noise, emissions and discharges compensation for damaged gear.  Lower disturbance to seafloor  Preservation of localized reef effect created by the pipeline and additional assets, including colonizing animals and those organisms that rely upon the reef- type community (e.g. fish, lobsters)  No risk of contamination from pipeline content following pipeline flushing and cleaning program; or from long-term degradation of pipeline material Technical  Technically feasibly; however,  Technically feasible; standard Both options are more challenging. Non-standard subsea activities performed technically subsea activities associated with feasible; extensive de-burial and large however, removal pipeline diameter retrieval is more challenging Economic  Higher cost to remove pipeline and  Lower cost associated with post Abandonment in additional assets abandonment monitoring place has lower cost

Abandonment in place was selected as the preferred abandonment method for the offshore pipeline and additional assets on the balance of safety, environmental, technical and economic criteria.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 18

4.2 Facilities to be Abandoned in Place

4.2.1 Pipeline The Deep Panuke pipeline will be abandoned in place as per applicable regulatory requirements and in accordance with CSA Z662-15.

The flushing and cleaning program will remove sales quality natural gas and leave the pipeline filled with untreated seawater prior to disconnection. Hydrocarbon dewpoint control has been performed in the offshore processing and thus no “liquids” are expected to be present within the pipeline. The pipeline volume is summarized in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: Pipeline Volumes Location Length (m) ID Pipeline Volume (m) (m3) Pig Launcher to Beach Valve Site 2750 0.5304 600 Beach Valve Site to PFC 172700 38200 Total 38800

The pipeline inventory will be used as fuel on the PFC until the pressure is below minimum fuel supply pressure. It will then be depressurized to atmospheric pressure via the PFC flare.

The pipeline will be cleaned using a stiff disk scraping pig train pushed through the pipeline using filtered seawater as described in Table 4-3 and illustrated in Figure 4-1. Approximately 200 m3 of water will be received ahead/within the pig train.

Table 4-3: Anticipated Pig Train Pig No. Water-Filled Section 1 200 m front water (for lubrication) 2 200 m water separation 3 200 m water separation Total 600 m

Figure 4-1: Anticipated Pig Train

The pig design is expected to be similar to those used during the pipeline pre-commissioning phase (i.e. flooding and dewatering). Final pig design will be determined in conjunction with selected pig provider.

The direction of pigging will either be: (1) from the GEPT to the PFC or (2) from PFC to GEPT.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 19

4.2.1.1 Flushing Option from GEPT to PFC For the GEPT to PFC flushing direction, a nearshore water intake system will be set up and connected to the beach valve station, which is 50 m away. Approximately 135 m3 of either fresh or seawater will also be required to be trucked to the GEPT site for the initial launch of the pig train. This is the same water supply method used during the initial flooding of the pipeline after installation and thus this methodology has previously been performed and is well understood.

The pig train will be received in the PFC topsides pig receiver. An initial slug of water/gas mixture will be collected in the flare and/or closed drain system. The recovered gas (approximately 2 MMscf) will be flared or cold vented on the PFC. Once it is established that only water (no gas) is being received, the pig train will then be slowed down to confirm that no liquid hydrocarbons are present (as per the Cleaning Guidelines from the “Pipeline Abandonment – A Discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues” (NEB 1996)).

If no liquid hydrocarbons are present, the remaining water will be routed overboard either via the open drains system or temporary pipework installed from the pig receiver to the seawater discharge caisson. If liquid hydrocarbons are present, the seawater will continue to be routed to the flare closed drain system until it is confirmed that no liquid hydrocarbons are present. Water collected in the flare and/or closed drain system will be processed through the existing produced water treatment system and discharged overboard or sent to shore for disposal at an approved facility. Samples of the received water will be collected upon receipt of each pig and tested in the PFC lab to confirm residual oil-in-water levels.

A subsequent onshore pipeline dewatering pig will be launched from the GEPT and stopped within the offshore section a short distance from the beach valve station. The displaced water (approx. 650 m3) will be discharged overboard the PFC location.

Once the flushing and cleaning and onshore pipeline dewatering program is completed, the pipeline will be disconnected from the PFC at or just prior to the subsea riser flange with the end left open to the sea. The pipeline will also be disconnected on both sides of the SSIV and the ends of the pipeline left open to the sea. The SSIV will be removed.

4.2.1.2 Flushing Option from PFC to GEPT For the PFC to GEPT flushing direction, the PFC will provide the seawater supply to launch and run the pig train to the GEPT. The pig train will be received at the GEPT. The recovered residual gas (less than 2 MMscf) will be flared or cold vented at the GEPT facility with a small portable flare stack (5-10 m height; <1 week). The water will be captured and trucked to an approved onshore facility for disposal until it is confirmed that no liquid hydrocarbons are present (as per the cleaning guidelines from the “Pipeline Abandonment – A Discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues” (NEB 1996)). Samples of the received water will be collected upon receipt of the pig train and tested by an onshore lab to confirm residual oil-in-water.

The offshore pipeline will then be disconnected from the PFC at or just prior to the subsea riser flange with the end left open to the sea. The pipeline will also be disconnected on both sides of the SSIV and the ends left open to the sea. The SSIV will be removed.

A subsequent onshore pipeline dewatering pig will be launched from the GEPT and stopped within the offshore section a short distance from the beach valve station. The displaced water (approx. 650 m3) will be discharged at the disconnected SSIV interface.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 20

4.2.1.3 Final Survey A final survey of the offshore section of the pipeline will be conducted by a remotely operated vehicle to confirm the condition of the pipeline following abandonment activities. The location of the offshore pipeline is currently identified on navigation charts; charts will be updated to identify it as abandoned after decommissioning activities are complete.

4.2.2 Additional Offshore Assets Additional assets (concrete mattresses, concrete tunnels and rock) associated with the offshore pipeline will be abandoned in place on the seabed. These features provide habitat for fish and invertebrates (“reef effect”) as documented during annual environmental effect monitoring surveys. Additional assets (e.g., rock filter units and/or concrete mattresses) may be added to secure items abandoned in place and eliminate any potential snagging hazards, as required.

4.2.3 Additional Onshore Assets The fiber optic cable, which provided communication between the GEPT and the beach valve station, is located in the onshore pipeline trench and will be abandoned in place. The ends of the fiber optic cable will be cut at trench depth and removed.

The buried power cable, which provides electricity from Nova Scotia Power to the beach valve station, will be disconnected from the power pole and the beach valve station. The ends of the power cable will be cut at trench depth and removed. The buried power cable, located in a utility easement, is expected to be abandoned in place.

The onshore CP rectifier will be disconnected from both the pipeline and the ground bed and then removed. The CP ground beds is expected to be abandoned in place.

The “No Anchor” sign located near landfall was installed as a condition of an approval under the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. This sign will be removed and the buried foundation will remain in place, subject to agreement with Transport Canada’s Navigation Protection Program.

4.3 Facilities to be Removed

4.3.1 PFC Riser Section The pipeline will be disconnected from the PFC riser and the PFC riser section will be removed as part of the PFC de-installation program at a later date.

4.3.2 Subsea Isolation Valve Structure As noted in section 4.2.1, the SSIV structure will be removed. The pipeline will be disconnected on both sides of the SSIV and the piles of the SSIV structure will be cut a minimum of 1 m below seabed. The structure (including the SSIV) will then be recovered and returned to shore for recycling.

4.3.3 Onshore Facilities As previously noted, onshore facilities will be removed with the exception of the onshore pipeline and the fiber optic cable located in the onshore pipeline trench. In addition, the buried power supply cable for the beach valve station, the no anchor sign buried foundation and the impressed current CP ground bed are expected to be abandoned in place. Any aboveground structures associated with the onshore pipeline and facilities will be removed, including the CP test post located near the beach valve station. The buried onshore pipeline will be flushed, de-watered, end capped (at landfall and as at the GEPT), and abandoned in place.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 21

If the pipeline is flushed from the GEPT to the PFC, the pig loading and launching equipment will be located at the GEPT facility within the existing gravel pad and/or parking area, and a new temporary laydown area will be created near landfall to accommodate the water intake system and water storage/pumping equipment.

Alternatively, if the pipeline is flushed from the PFC to the GEPT, the existing gravel pad and/or parking area will be used at the GEPT to accommodate the equipment required to flare or cold vent gas ahead of the pigs and to receive the water in front of each pig within the pig train. There is no equipment required at landfall with this option, so no new excavation is required.

In addition, grout plugs (or equivalent) will be installed in the pipeline at the Highway 316 crossing and the Sable Road crossing to prevent ground subsidence and unnatural drainage of wet areas. The open pipeline will also be capped opposite each of these grouted locations. Excavation required for these activities will be localized, short-duration, outside of wetlands, and in areas that have been previously excavated.

The onshore pipeline RoW was re-vegetated after construction in 2010 and has been allowed to return to a natural state. Following decommissioning of the onshore facilities, the GEPT and adjacent parking lot, beach valve station, as well as all newly excavated areas (i.e., for grout plug installation and temporary laydown area (if pipeline is flushed from GEPT to the PFC)) will be restored and re-vegetated with native species seeds/transplants. The access road will be left as is since it is used by M&NP to access their assets.

It is expected that all onshore signage will be removed. Signage is not required as there are no concerns related to pipeline integrity nor are there any safety or environmental concerns as the abandoned pipeline will be flushed, plugged and capped at prescribed locations. With respect to the “No Anchor” sign located near landfall, as previously noted, this sign was installed as a condition of an approval under the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. This sign will also be removed (with the buried foundation to remain in place), subject to agreement with Transport Canada’s Navigation Protection Program.

4.4 Risks and Associated Mitigation Potential risks related to abandonment of the pipeline and associated facilities are as follows:

 onshore pipeline corrosion;  onshore soil erosion;  offshore snagging hazards; and  marine water contamination.

These risks will be mitigated as noted in the following sections.

4.4.1 Onshore Pipeline Corrosion There are potential risks associated with pipeline corrosion, which can result in effects varying from perforations to pipeline collapse. This can lead to soil subsidence, which can cause damage to transportation and utility crossings. Corrosion can also result in the pipeline becoming a conduit (draining wetlands/watercourses, etc.).

Encana will conduct segmentation of the onshore pipeline to address the following:

 excessive soil subsidence in critical areas (i.e. road crossings) as the pipeline corrodes and deforms; and

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 22

 prevent the pipeline from acting as a conduit allowing unnatural drainage of wet areas.

The “Pipeline Abandonment – A Discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues” (NEB 1996) indicate pipelines greater than 323.9 mm in diameter can impact the surface after pipeline collapse. With the exception of the road crossings, soil subsidence is not a concern since the adjacent properties are undeveloped and the risk of a major consequence is low. Encana will segment the pipeline at the Highway 316 crossing and the Sable Road crossing by filling the pipeline with a flowable grout or concrete material to prevent road subsidence in the future.

With respect to the pipeline acting as a water conduit, while the onshore pipeline generally slopes toward the landfall, there is low point in the onshore pipeline north of Highway 316 and the pipeline will be segmented at Highway 316. This will prevent water from nearby wetlands or watercourses from flowing through the pipeline into the ocean.

Encana could not identify any benefit in further segmenting the pipeline between the Sable Road and Highway 316.

4.4.2 Onshore Soil Erosion Soil erosion is caused by wind, precipitation, and surface water runoff, which can be mitigated with vegetation cover. Erosion can lead to the loss of pipeline depth of cover and could lead to exposure of the pipeline.

Abandonment in place will minimize the effects of soil erosion as there will be minimal excavation (and vegetation disturbance). Excavation will be limited to the locations described in Section 4.3.3, as follows:

 GEPT: as required to remove aboveground facilities and to disconnect the pipeline from the aboveground facilities;  Beach valve station: as required to remove aboveground facilities. The pipeline does not connect to any aboveground facilities;  Sable Road and Highway 316 to segment to pipeline; and  near landfall if the flushing direction is from GEPT to PFC.

In these locations, erosion will be minimized through application of proven erosion control methods, including soil and slope stabilization, re-establishing vegetation cover, etc. Erosion and sediment control measures will be addressed in the Onshore Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).

4.4.3 Offshore Snagging Hazards The offshore pipeline (trenched and untrenched) portions of the offshore pipeline will be abandoned in place. Additional features associated with the offshore pipeline will also be abandoned in place.

An assessment of the potential risk of fishing equipment snagging and recommended mitigation measures was conducted. This assessment took into account the status of pipeline spans, remediation measures implemented to date, current and foreseeable fishing effort in the vicinity of the pipeline, and feedback gathered during decommissioning engagement activities. This assessment, which concluded that no additional pipeline span remediation measures are required, is presented in Section 7.6 of the ESA.

As noted in section 4.2.1, a final survey of the offshore section of the pipeline will be conducted. Navigation charts will be updated to identify the pipeline as abandoned after decommissioning activities are complete.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 23

4.4.4 Marine Water Contamination The Deep Panuke pipeline transported sales quality natural gas. Hydrocarbon dewpoint control has been performed in the offshore processing and thus no “liquids” are expected to be (or have been) present within the pipeline. In addition, contamination from residual hydrocarbons will be further mitigated by the flushing and cleaning program outlined in Section 4.2.1, such that no deleterious environmental effects are expected from pipeline flushing discharges. Additional information is presented in Sections 2 and 7 of the ESA.

4.5 Reclamation As previously noted, no “liquids” are expected to be (or have been) present within the pipeline. In addition, there was no historical contamination from accidental events (see Section 3). As a result, there is no known or anticipated contamination associated with the Deep Panuke pipeline or associated onshore facilities, and no site remediation is required.

As described in Section 4.3.3, the onshore pipeline RoW was re-vegetated after construction in 2010 and has been allowed to return to a natural state. Following decommissioning of the onshore facilities, the GEPT and adjacent parking lot, beach valve station, as well as all newly excavated areas (i.e., for grout plug installation and temporary laydown area (if pipeline is flushed from GEPT to the PFC)) will be restored and re-vegetated with native species seeds/transplants. The access road will be left as is since it is used by M&NP to access their assets. Additional information on site reclamation will be provided in the Onshore EPP.

4.6 Performance Measures Environmental monitoring has been outlined in the ESA and will be included in the EPP(s). Onshore performance measures will focus on spill prevention during decommissioning and abandonment activities, effective erosion and sediment control measures, and site reclamation. These measures will be monitored through onsite environmental inspections. Offshore performance measures will focus on spill prevention and discharged water quality (oil in water).

4.7 Waste Management, Recycling and Reuse All equipment and materials associated with the onshore facilities will be dismantled and removed from site. All waste material will be transported to approved offsite recycling and waste disposal facilities. Addition information on waste management will be provided in the EPP(s).

4.8 Post-Abandonment Monitoring A post-abandonment monitoring plan will be implemented for the abandoned offshore pipeline and associated assets using subsea ROV surveys. Monitoring will occur after decommissioning (”as-left” survey) and one year following abandonment, with additional monitoring possible if unexpected changes are observed during the one-year survey.

Information on post-abandonment monitoring for the onshore site will be provided in the Onshore EPP.

4.9 Reports All activities associated with the decommissioning and abandonment activities will be subject to compliance monitoring, in accordance with applicable regulations. The following documents will be compiled and submitted to the NEB upon request: • final site survey drawings; • description of final condition of facilities left-in-place and reclamation activities; and • post-abandonment monitoring reports.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 24

5 REFERENCES

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA). 2007. Pipeline Abandonment Assumptions: Technical and Environmental considerations for development of Pipeline Abandonment strategies. Prepared for the Terminal Negative Salvage Task Force of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. 90 pp.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Group. 2015. Z662-15: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. 868 pp.

Det Norske Veritas (DNV). 2010. Pipeline Abandonment Scoping Study. Prepared for National Energy Board. 87 pp. https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/prtcptn/pplnbndnmnt/pplnbndnmntscpngstd.pdf

Encana Corporation (Encana). 2006. Deep Panuke Offshore Gas Development: Environmental Assessment Report (Volume 4). 436 pp. + appendices.

Encana Corporation (Encana). 2006. Deep Panuke Offshore Gas Development: Application to National Energy Board for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. 136 pp.

National Energy Board (NEB). 1996. Pipeline Abandonment – A Discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues. Prepared for the Pipeline Abandonment Steering Committee. https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/prtcptn/pplnbndnmnt/pplnbndnmnttchnclnvrnmntl-eng.html

United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (UK). 2018. Guidance Notes – Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and Pipelines. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data /file/704675/Offshore_Oil_and_Gas_Decommissioning_Guidance_Notes_May_2018.pdf.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 25

APPENDIX A: MAPS

A-1 Deep Panuke Development Location A-2 Deep Panuke Onshore Map Figure A-3 Land Ownership in Vicinity of Deep Panuke Pipeline

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 26

Figure A-1 Deep Panuke Development Location

Figure A-2 Deep Panuke Onshore Map

Figure A-3 Land Ownership in Vicinity of Deep Panuke Pipeline

ATTACHMENT 3: ABANDONMENT SCHEMATICS

DCEN-X00-SC-EG-74-0001-01I, Abandonment Schematic, Onshore Facilities DCEN-X00-SC-EG-74-0002-01I, Abandonment Schematic, GEP Riser at PFC & SSIV

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment Plan • June 2018 14

ATTACHMENT 4: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Deep Panuke Application for NEB Leave to Abandon • June 2018

Deep Panuke Offshore Gas Development

Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment for Abandonment of Pipeline & Associated Facilities

Document No. DCEN-X00-RP-RE-00-0008.02U

Prepared by:

Encana Corporation Suite 700, 1701 Hollis Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3M8

June 2018

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 6

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE DEEP PANUKE DEVELOPMENT ...... 8 1.2 PREVIOUS REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESSES ...... 8 1.3 CURRENT REGULATORY PROCESS ...... 9 1.4 DOCUMENT OVERVIEW ...... 9

2 DECOMMISSIONING AND ABANDONMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 9 2.1 DEEP PANUKE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION ...... 9 2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS...... 10 2.2.1 Gas Export Pipeline (GEP) ...... 10 2.2.2 Additional Assets ...... 13 2.2.3 Onshore Facilities ...... 15 2.3 DECOMMISSIONING AND ABANDONMENT ...... 18 2.3.1 GEP Cleaning/Flushing and SSIV Removal ...... 18 2.3.2 Onshore Facilities Decommissioning and Abandonment ...... 20 2.3.3 Additional Assets Abandonment ...... 20 2.4 EMISSIONS AND DISCHARGE SUMMARY ...... 21 2.5 SCHEDULE ...... 21

3 BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING ...... 21 3.1 OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT ...... 21 3.1.1 Biophysical Setting ...... 21 3.1.2 Socio-Economic Setting ...... 23 3.2 ONSHORE ENVIRONMENT ...... 24 3.2.1 Biophysical Setting ...... 24 3.2.2 Socio-Economic Setting ...... 25

4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS ...... 27 4.1 OVERVIEW ...... 27 4.2 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ...... 27 4.3 ETHOS – CORPORATE EHS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...... 27 4.4 RELATION TO OTHER DEEP PANUKE PLANS ...... 28 4.5 RISK ASSESSMENTS ...... 29 4.6 ORIENTATION AND TRAINING ...... 29

5 INDIGENOUS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...... 29 5.1 INDIGENOUS GROUP ENGAGEMENT ...... 30 5.2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...... 33 5.3 INDIGENOUS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES TO-DATE ...... 34 5.3.1 Indigenous Engagement ...... 34 5.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 36 5.4 ISSUES AND CONCERNS ...... 38

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 2

6 SCOPE AND METHODS ...... 41 6.1 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ...... 41 6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY METHODS ...... 42 6.3 UPDATES FROM 2006 EA REPORT ...... 42 6.4 SELECTION OF VALUED COMPONENTS ...... 44

7 ASSESSMENT OF INTERACTIONS...... 46 7.1 MARINE FISH ...... 46 7.1.1 Baseline Conditions Update ...... 46 7.1.2 Potential Interactions ...... 51 7.1.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction ...... 51 7.1.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment ...... 51 7.2 MARINE MAMMALS AND SEA TURTLES ...... 52 7.2.1 Baseline Conditions Update ...... 52 7.2.2 Potential Interactions ...... 57 7.2.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction ...... 57 7.2.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment ...... 57 7.3 MARINE RELATED BIRDS ...... 58 7.3.1 Baseline Conditions Update ...... 58 7.3.2 Potential Interactions ...... 61 7.3.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction ...... 61 7.3.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment ...... 62 7.4 SPECIAL AREAS ...... 6 2 7.4.1 Baseline Conditions Update ...... 62 7.4.2 Potential Interactions ...... 68 7.4.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction ...... 68 7.4.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment ...... 68 7.5 ONSHORE ENVIRONMENT ...... 69 7.5.1 Baseline Conditions Update ...... 69 7.5.2 Potential Interactions ...... 76 7.5.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Predictions ...... 76 7.5.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment ...... 77 7.6 INDIGENOUS AND COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ...... 78 7.6.1 Baseline Conditions Update ...... 78 7.6.2 Potential Interactions ...... 99 7.6.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction ...... 99 7.6.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment ...... 104 7.7 OTHER OCEAN USERS ...... 104 7.7.1 Baseline Conditions Update ...... 104 7.7.2 Potential Interactions ...... 105 7.7.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction ...... 105 7.7.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment ...... 106

8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 107 8.1 SCOPING OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 107 8.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 116 8.2.1 Marine Fish ...... 117

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 3

8.2.2 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles ...... 118 8.2.3 Marine Related Birds ...... 119 8.2.4 Special Areas ...... 121 8.2.5 Onshore Environment ...... 121 8.2.6 Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries ...... 123 8.2.7 Other Ocean Users ...... 124

9 CONCLUSIONS ...... 125 9.1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...... 125 9.2 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION ...... 126 9.3 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS...... 126

10 REFERENCES ...... 128

APPENDIX A Encana’s Environment Policy APPENDIX B Environment Codes of Practice APPENDIX C Engagement Material APPENDIX D Indigenous Commercial Communal Licences APPENDIX E Commercial Fisheries Figures

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1.1 Deep Panuke Development Location ...... 10 Figure 2.2.1 Gas Export Pipeline Route ...... 11 Figure 2.2.2 Subsea Isolation Valve (SSIV) Structure ...... 12 Figure 2.2.3 Fish Diversity along the GEP from the 2015 Video Survey ...... 13 Figure 2.2.4 Typical Concrete Mattress (Pre- and Post-Deployment) ...... 14 Figure 2.2.5 Typical Concrete Tunnel (Pre- and Post-Deployment) ...... 14 Figure 2.2.6 Typical Filled Grout Bag Figure 2.2.7 Typical Rock Berm ...... 14 Figure 2.2.8 Typical Rock Filter Unit (Pre- and Post-Deployment) ...... 14 Figure 2.2.9 Overview of Onshore Facilities ...... 16 Figure 2.2.10 Terminus Facility ...... 17 Figure 2.3.1 Anticipated Pig Train ...... 19 Figure 4.1.1 Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Management Framework ...... 27 Figure 5.1.1 Identified First Nation Communities in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island ...... 32 Figure 7.4.1 Protected Areas ...... 66 Figure 7.4.2 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) ...... 67 Figure 7.6.1 Mobile Gear Fishing Activity for Invertebrates in the 4W Region ...... 97 Figure 7.6.2 Mobile Gear Fishing Activity for Groundfish in the 4W Region ...... 98 Figure 7.6.3 KP-26.3 Span Location ...... 101 Figure 7.6.4 KP-26.3 Span Dimensions ...... 102 Figure 7.6.5 KP-26.3 Span Topography ...... 103

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 4

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.2.1 Additional Assets ...... 15 Table 2.4.1 Decommissioning Emission and Discharge Summary ...... 21 Table 5.2.1 Fisheries Advisory Committee ...... 33 Table 4.3.1 Summary of Indigenous Engagement to Date ...... 35 Table 4.3.2 Summary of Stakeholder Engagement to Date ...... 37 Table 5.4.1 Summary of Key Issues Raised During Indigenous and Stakeholder Engagement ...... 38 Table 6.3.1 Technical Updates ...... 43 Table 6.3.2 Biophysical Updates ...... 43 Table 6.3.3 Socio-Economic Updates ...... 44 Table 5.4.1 Selection of Valued Components for the ESA ...... 44 Table 7.1.1 Marine Fish Species at Risk Potentially Occurring on the Scotian Shelf Designated Since 2006 ...... 49 Table 7.2.1 Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Species at Risk Potentially Occurring on the Scotian Shelf Designated Since 2006 ...... 55 Table 7.3.1 Marine Related Bird Species at Risk Potentially Occurring on the Scotian Shelf Designated Since 2006 ...... 59 Table 7.4.1 Key Priorities and Action Commitments for Implementation of Regional Oceans Plan (2014-2017) ...... 63 Table 7.5.1 Species at Risk Potentially Occurring Onshore in the Study Area (designated as SAR since 2006) ...... 70 Table 7.6.1 Identified Indigenous Groups within the DFO Maritimes and Gulf Regions 80 Table 7.6.2 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities within the Deep Panuke Development Area ...... 83 Table 7.6.3 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Gulf Region for Indigenous Communities within the Deep Panuke Development Area ...... 85 Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk* ...... 87 Table 8.1.1 Updates to Past, Present, and Future Projects included in the Scope of the Cumulative Effects Assessment in the 2006 EA Report ...... 108 Table 8.1.2 Potential Cumulative Interactions with Other Projects and Activities in the Study Area ...... 112 Table 9.3.1 Summary of Residual Environmental and Cumulative Effects ...... 127

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 5

Abbreviations

“ inch ALARP as low as reasonably practicable ANSMC Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs AOI Area of Interest APC Atlantic Policy Congress of Chiefs CEA Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CNSOPB Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CSR Comprehensive Study Report CSV construction support vessel DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada DPA development plan application DPEMP Deep Panuke Emergency Management Plan EA environmental assessment EBSA Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area ECCC Environment and Climate Change Canada EEMP environmental effects monitoring plan EHS environmental, health and safety EL Exploration Licence Encana Encana Corporation ENGO environmental non-governmental organization EPP Environmental Protection Plan ESA Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment ESSIM Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management FAC Fisheries Advisory Committee FBE fusion bonded epoxy FSC food, social and ceremonial GEP gas export pipeline IBoF Inner Bay of Fundy km kilometres KMKNO Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office KP kilometre point LOMA Large Ocean Management Area m metres M&NP Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline mm millimetre MAPC Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council MMscfd million standard cubic feet per day MODU mobile offshore drilling unit MOPU mobile offshore processing unit MPA Marine Protected Area MTI Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Incorporated NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NCNS Native Council of Nova Scotia NEB National Energy Board NGL natural gas liquids NS ESA Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act OWTG Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines PFC production field centre

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 6

PL Production Licence RoW right-of-way SAR species at risk SARA Species at Risk Act SOEP Sable Offshore Energy Project SPANS Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia SSIV subsea isolation valve TUS Traditional Use Study VC valued component VSP vertical seismic profiling WHPS wellhead protection structure WNNB Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 7

1 INTRODUCTION

Encana Corporation (Encana) proposes to decommission and abandon its Deep Panuke Development, offshore Nova Scotia. An environmental assessment (EA) for the development (including future decommissioning and abandonment activities) was completed by Encana in 2006 and approved by regulatory authorities in 2007. This report is an Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) that updates the previous EA in support of Encana’s application to the National Energy Board (NEB) for leave to abandon the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated onshore facilities. The updates include:

 additional decommissioning and abandonment details;  changes to the regulatory environment since the approved 2006 EA Report; and  changes to the biophysical and socio-economic environment since the approved 2006 EA Report.

The purpose of this report is also to assist Indigenous groups and stakeholders in identifying potential interests in the decommissioning and abandonment phase of Encana’s Development. This report includes information on engagement activities that Encana is conducting with Indigenous groups and stakeholders with respect to planned decommissioning and abandonment activities.

1.1 Overview of the Deep Panuke Development

Encana is the owner and operator of the Deep Panuke Natural Gas Development in Nova Scotia’s offshore marine environment. The Development includes facilities required to produce natural gas from the Deep Panuke field, located approximately 175 kilometres (km) offshore of Nova Scotia. Natural gas was processed offshore and transported via a subsea pipeline to Goldboro, Nova Scotia for further transport to market by means of the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NP). Encana permanently ceased production from Deep Panuke on May 7, 2018; therefore, Encana has begun preparing for decommissioning and abandonment activities.

1.2 Previous Regulatory Approval Processes

In December 2002, Encana received Ministerial approval for the Deep Panuke Comprehensive Study Report (CSR) based on a development comprising three offshore platforms and a dedicated export pipeline with tie-in to M&NP facilities. In February 2003, just prior to the public hearing process for application to the CNSOPB and the NEB, a “time-out” was requested by Encana to allow further review and refinement of the development. Between 2003 and 2006, Encana completed the re-evaluation phase and re-filed a Development Plan Application (DPA) and NEB application based on a new development design basis. The 2006 EA Report for the revised development received approval in 2007.

Decommissioning and abandonment activities were assessed and approved as part of the 2006-2007 environmental assessment. Proposed decommissioning and abandonment activities detailed in the 2006 EA Report remain the same for the current proposed approach. The 2006 EA Report describes decommissioning and abandonment of the pipeline as the pipeline “flushed, cleaned, and abandoned in place.” The decommissioning and abandonment phase was assessed for each of the valued components (see Section 6.4 for list of valued components), with the adverse effects on the environment predicted to be not significant.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 8

1.3 Current Regulatory Process

Decommissioning and abandonment of the Deep Panuke Development will require approvals from CNSOPB and the NEB. The CNSOPB will issue Operations Authorizations and well approvals to approve the decommissioning and abandonment of Deep Panuke facilities, including the production field centre (PFC), subsea wells, flowlines and umbilicals, and the offshore gas export pipeline.

The NEB will issue a Leave to Abandon for the Deep Panuke gas export pipeline and onshore facilities. The requirement for a leave to abandon a pipeline from the NEB is stipulated in Section 74(1)(d) of the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7. The detailed requirements for the NEB decommissioning and abandonment application are described in Guide B and Guide K of the NEB’s “Filing Manual”, including the requirements for environment and socio-economic assessment (Section B.4).

This ESA Report has been prepared to identify the potential changes since the approved 2006 EA Report to support Encana’s Leave to Abandon application to the NEB. Proposed decommissioning and abandonment activities for the Deep Panuke pipeline and associated onshore facilities remain the same as described in the 2006 EA Report; however, additional project details and environmental information are now available. Therefore, this ESA includes a discussion of technical, regulatory, biophysical, and socio- economic updates or changes that have occurred since the preparation of the 2006 EA Report.

Given the decommissioning and abandonment phase for the Deep Panuke Development was included in the 2006-2007 environmental assessment conducted under the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), the CEA Agency has confirmed that a new assessment for the decommissioning and abandonment project under CEAA 2012 is not required.

1.4 Document Overview

The following sections provide a description of the infrastructure to be decommissioned and abandoned, decommissioning and abandonment activities, biophysical and socio-economic setting, environmental management plans, Indigenous and stakeholder engagement, the ESA scope and methods, and the assessment of environmental and socio-economic effects including cumulative effects.

2 DECOMMISSIONING AND ABANDONMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Deep Panuke Development Location

The Encana Deep Panuke gas field is located offshore about 250 km southeast of Halifax, Nova Scotia, approximately 47 km west of Sable Island in approximately 44 m water depth (Figure 2.1.1).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 9

Figure 2.1.1 Deep Panuke Development Location

2.2 Infrastructure Components

The facilities to be decommissioning and abandoned under the NEB Leave to Abandon include the following:

 gas export pipeline (GEP)  additional assets; and  onshore facilities.

2.2.1 Gas Export Pipeline (GEP)

The export sales gas from Deep Panuke was compressed and transported to the onshore GEP terminus in Goldboro, Nova Scotia via a 560 mm (22 inch) diameter, 175 km long pipeline (Figure 2.2.1). The GEP can be broken into two sections: the onshore pipeline and the offshore pipeline. The offshore subsea portion of the GEP is 172 km long. The onshore portion of the GEP is 3 km. At the end of this portion of pipeline, Deep Panuke’s GEP terminus ties into the M&NP metering facility (refer to Section 2.2.3 for more details on the onshore facilities). The pipeline is made of steel with an FBE corrosion coating supplemented with cathodic protection as well as concrete coating for on-bottom stability in the offshore.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 10

Figure 2.2.1 Gas Export Pipeline Route

For on-bottom stability reasons, the pipeline has been trenched for sections of the route that are shallower than 85 m (i.e., from shore to kilometre point (KP) 23.3 and from KP 98.3 to the PFC; Figure 2.2.1). From the shore to a water depth of 14 m, a pre-dredged trench was provided. At water depths greater than 85 m, no trenching was required and this part of the GEP is exposed on the seabed.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 11

The GEP is fitted with an SSIV (Figure 2.2.2). The SSIV is located approximately 50 m from the PFC in a water depth of 44 m. The SSIV is contained within a steel-framed protection structure (9 m x 4.5 m x 4.55 m). The SSIV is secured to the seabed by piles.

Figure 2.2.2 Subsea Isolation Valve (SSIV) Structure

As shown on Figure 2.2.3, during the environmental effects monitoring programs conducted for Deep Panuke from 2011 to 2017, it was observed that marine life continues to be abundant and diverse around the GEP. Commercial species noted during the surveys included Atlantic cod, pollock, haddock, redfish, and hagfish (Encana 2017). The number of Atlantic wolffish (a species at risk) sightings along the GEP increased over time (17 Atlantic wolffish noted in the eight video clips reviewed in 2016); Atlantic wolffish appeared to use the GEP as a refuge burrow. The GEP does not act as a barrier to crustacean movement, as several crustacean species were observed regularly sitting on top of the pipeline (Encana 2017).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 12

A gadoid fish at KP 61.66. Redfish at KP 85.59.

A Jonah crab on the GEP at KP 85.55. A wolffish at KP 85.58. Source: McGregor GeoScience Limited 2015 Figure 2.2.3 Fish Diversity along the GEP from the 2015 Video Survey

2.2.2 Additional Assets

A number of additional assets have been used on the offshore pipeline for various reasons, including on- bottom stability, free span correction, upheaval buckling and scour protection. These assets include the following:

 Concrete mattresses (approximately 6 m x 3 m x 0.3 m, 11 tonnes each; Figure 2.2.4)  Concrete tunnels (various sizes, 25-33 tonnes each; Figure 2.2.5)  Grout bags (typically 25 kilograms each; Figure 2.2.6)  Rock (Figure 2.2.7)  Rock filter units (Figure 2.2.8)

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 13

Lobster

Figure 2.2.4 Typical Concrete Mattress (Pre- and Post-Deployment)

Lobster

Figure 2.2.5 Typical Concrete Tunnel (Pre- and Post-Deployment)

Figure 2.2.6 Typical Filled Grout Bag Figure 2.2.7 Typical Rock Berm

Figure 2.2.8 Typical Rock Filter Unit (Pre- and Post-Deployment)

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 14

The nature and quantity of these items are summarized in Table 2.2.1.

Table 2.2.1 Additional Assets

Weight Secondary Item Quantity Primary Material (metric tonne) Material Concrete Mattresses 281 3,080 Concrete Polypropylene Rock 11.39 (km) 67,653 Rock - Rock Filter Units 528 2,098 Rock Polyester Sand/Groutbags 6,600 165 Sand/Grout Polypropylene Concrete Tunnels 99 2,924 Concrete Steel

As shown in Figures 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7 and 2.2.8, the additional assets have created a reef effect. As recorded during annual environmental effects monitoring surveys, marine life continues to be abundant and diverse around these assets. The artificial reef effect has been shown to provide shelter and protection for many species of fish (e.g., redfish and Atlantic cod) and invertebrates (e.g., lobster).

2.2.3 Onshore Facilities

The onshore facilities for Deep Panuke include the following:

 Beach valve station  GEP terminus site  Fiber optic cable

An overview of the onshore facilities is included in Figure 2.2.9.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 15

Figure 2.2.9 Overview of Onshore Facilities

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 16

The beach valve station contained an isolation valve that has since been removed from the GEP; only the fencing and signage for this site now remain. A buried power cable provides electricity from Nova Scotia Power to the beach valve station. A “No Anchor” sign is also located in the onshore pipeline right of way (RoW) near landfall. The Deep Panuke GEP terminus site is the termination point for the GEP (Figure 2.2.10). This facility contains an isolation valve, pig receiver/launcher (bottom photo in Figure 2.2.10 where a ‘pig’ is an inspection and cleaning tool run through the pipeline), control and communication systems and is the connection point to the M&NP custody transfer station. A cathodic protection system is included at the GEP terminus, which is electrically isolated from the adjacent M&NP custody transfer station. The fiber optic cable provides a communication connection between the beach valve station and GEP terminus; it is located in the onshore pipeline trench.

Top left photo: GEP terminus building Top right photo: GEP terminus connection to M&NP Bottom photo: GEP terminus pig receiver Figure 2.2.10 Terminus Facility

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 17

2.3 Decommissioning and Abandonment

This section summarizes the preferred decommissioning and abandonment options for the Deep Panuke GEP and associated onshore facilities. Decommissioning and abandonment activities described below were assessed in the 2006 EA Report, which received approval from the CEA Agency in 2007. Decommissioning and abandonment activities will meet all commitments made in the original NEB Application and 2006-2007 environmental assessment and will be executed in compliance with all applicable regulations, codes and standards.

2.3.1 GEP Cleaning/Flushing and SSIV Removal

The offshore GEP will be abandoned in place after it is depressurized, flushed, and filled with seawater. Approximately 50 to 100 MMscf of gas is expected to be flared at the PFC to fully depressurize the GEP. The primary goal of the flushing and cleaning program is to remove the sales quality natural gas and leave the GEP filled with untreated seawater. Hydrocarbon dewpoint control has been performed during the production life and thus no hydrocarbon liquids are present within the GEP. The pipeline will be cleaned using a stiff disk scraping pig train (Figure 2.3.1). The pig train will be either pushed from onshore to the PFC using nearshore filtered seawater, or from the PFC to onshore using offshore filtered seawater.

2.3.1.1 Onshore to Offshore GEP Flushing

If the pipeline is flushed from onshore to offshore, the pig train will be received in the PFC topsides pig receiver. An initial slug of water/gas mixture will be collected in the flare and/or closed drain system. The recovered gas (approx. 2 MMscf) will be flared or cold vented on the PFC. Once it is established that only water (no gas) is being received, the pig train will then be slowed down to confirm that no liquid hydrocarbons are present (as per the Cleaning Guidelines from the Pipeline Abandonment – Discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues (NEB 1996)). If no liquid hydrocarbons are present, then the remaining water will be routed overboard either via the open drains system or temporary pipework installed from the pig receiver to the seawater discharge caisson. If liquid hydrocarbons are present, the seawater will continue to be routed to the flare closed drain system until it is confirmed that no liquid hydrocarbons are present. Water collected in the flare and/or closed drain system will be processed through the existing produced water treatment system and discharged overboard or sent to shore for disposal at an approved facility.

Samples of the received water will be collected upon receipt of each pig and tested in the PFC lab to confirm residual oil-in-water levels as per the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition (as amended or updated), 5520 Oil and Grease, 5520 C Partition-Infrared Method and 5520 F Hydrocarbons.

A volume of approximately 40,000 m3 of nearshore filtered seawater (except for the initial 135 m3 which will be freshwater trucked to the GEP terminal for the launch) is expected to be pumped into the GEP for the flushing and cleaning program. Approximately 200 m3 from this water is expected to be discharged at the PFC during the pig run. In addition, the remaining water in the onshore section of the pipeline will be removed by running a foam pig from the terminus facility to just beyond the shoreline, which will push an additional 650 m3 of seawater overboard at the PFC. The rest of the water will remain in the GEP and some

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 18

of it will mix up with ocean water over time. The intake of nearshore filtered seawater will follow screening to specifications from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).

Figure 2.3.1 Anticipated Pig Train

Once the flushing and cleaning and onshore pipeline dewatering program is completed, the GEP will be disconnected from the PFC at or just prior to the subsea riser flange with the end left open to the sea. The GEP will also be disconnected on both sides of the SSIV and the ends left open to the sea. The SSIV will be removed by the decommissioning support vessel/ construction support vessel (CSV) as part of the subsea decommissioning activities. The piles will be cut internally below seabed and the SSIV will be recovered.

2.3.1.2 Offshore to Onshore GEP Flushing

If the pipeline is flushed from offshore to onshore, the pig train (Figure 2.3.1) will be received at the onshore pipeline terminus facility. The recovered residual gas (less than 2 MMscf) will be flared or cold vented at the terminus facility with a small portable flare stack (5-10 m height; flaring duration <1 week). The water will be captured and trucked to an approved onshore facility for disposal, until it is confirmed that no liquid hydrocarbons are present (as per the Cleaning Guidelines from the Pipeline Abandonment – Discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues (NEB 1996)).

Samples of the received water will be collected upon receipt of the pig train and tested by an onshore lab to confirm residual oil-in-water levels as per the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition (as amended or updated), 5520 Oil and Grease, 5520 C Partition-Infrared Method and 5520 F Hydrocarbons.

A volume of approximately 40,000 m3 of filtered seawater pumped at the PFC (in accordance with DFO screening guidelines specifications) is expected to be pushed into the GEP for the flushing and cleaning program. Approximately 200 m3 from this water is expected to be recovered at the terminus facility during the pig run and sent to an approved disposal facility.

The GEP will then be disconnected from the PFC at or just prior to the subsea riser flange with the end left open to the sea. The GEP will also be disconnected on both sides of the SSIV and the ends left open to the sea. The water remaining in the onshore section of the pipeline will be removed by running a foam pig from the terminus facility to just beyond the shoreline, which will push an additional 650 m3 of seawater to the ocean at the disconnected SSIV interface (on the seabed). The rest of the water will remain in the GEP and some of it will mix up with ocean water over time.

The SSIV will be removed by the decommissioning support vessel/CSV as part of the subsea decommissioning activities. The piles will be cut internally below seabed and the SSIV will be recovered.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 19

2.3.2 Onshore Facilities Decommissioning and Abandonment

The buried onshore pipeline will be flushed, de-watered, end capped, and abandoned in place. The fiber optic cable located in the onshore pipeline trench will also be abandoned in place with the end buried. The buried beach valve station power supply cable, “No Anchor” sign buried foundation and cathodic protection ground bed are expected to be abandoned in place. All other onshore facilities (including any aboveground structures) will be removed and sent to approved disposal facilities.

If the pipeline is flushed from onshore to offshore, a temporary laydown area will be created near landfall to accommodate the water intake and storage/pumping equipment. Alternatively, if the pipeline is flushed from offshore to onshore, there will be no equipment at landfall (no new excavation).

In addition, grout plugs (or equivalent) will be installed in the pipeline at the Highway 316 crossing and the Sable Road crossing to prevent ground subsidence and unnatural drainage of wet areas as the pipeline corrodes and weakens.

Standard erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented and monitored through onsite environmental inspections.

The onshore pipeline RoW was re-vegetated after construction in 2010 and has been allowed to return to a natural state. Following decommissioning of the onshore facilities, the GEP terminus site and adjacent parking lot, beach valve station, as well as all newly excavated areas (i.e., for grout plug installation and temporary laydown area (if pipeline is flushed from GEPT to the PFC)) will be restored and re-vegetated with native species seeds/transplants. The access road will be left as is since it is used by M&NP to access their assets.

The “No Anchor” sign located near landfall was installed as a condition of an approval under the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. This sign will also be removed (with the buried foundation to remain in place), subject to agreement with Transport Canada’s Navigation Protection Program.

2.3.3 Additional Assets Abandonment

It is intended that additional assets (mattresses, grout bags, concrete tunnels, rock, etc.) associated with the offshore GEP will be abandoned in place on the seabed and keep providing habitat for fish and invertebrates (“reef effect”) as documented during annual environmental effect monitoring surveys (Encana 2017). Additional assets (e.g., rock filter units and/or concrete mattresses) may be added to secure items abandoned in place and to eliminate any potential snagging hazards, as required.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 20

2.4 Emissions and Discharge Summary

Table 2.4.1 summarizes expected emissions and discharges during decommissioning activities.

Table 2.4.1 Decommissioning Emission and Discharge Summary

Item GEP/Onshore Fluids/  Onshore to offshore flushing: approx. 40,000 m3 of nearshore filtered seawater (except for effluent initial 135 m3 of trucked freshwater) pumped into GEP. Approx. 850 m3 of this water to be discharge treated (as required) and discharged at PFC; rest of the water to remain in GEP, some of it mixed up with ocean water over time.  Offshore to onshore flushing: approx. 40,000 m3 of filtered seawater pumped at PFC pushed into GEP. Approx. 200 m3 of this water to be recovered and disposed onshore; approx. 650 m3 of this water to be pushed out to the ocean at disconnected SSIV interface; rest of the water to remain in GEP, some of it mixed up with ocean water over time.  Routine discharges (ballast/bilge/ sanitary) from vessels Air  50 to 100 MMscf of gas flared at PFC to depressurize GEP Emissions  Onshore to offshore flushing: approx. 2 MMscf residual gas flared or cold vented at PFC  Offshore to onshore flushing: <2 MMscf residual gas flared or cold vented at terminus facility  Routine exhaust from vessel power generation Waste  Recovered onshore structures sent to approved disposal facilities  Routine recyclable/garbage/hazardous waste from vessels sent to shore for disposal at approved facility  Recovered SSIV structure sent to shore for scrap metal recycling  Hydraulic fluid inside SSIV tubing recovered and sent to shore for disposal at approved facility Other  Lights and noise from vessels emissions

2.5 Schedule

Encana declared cessation of Deep Panuke production on May 7, 2018. Encana anticipates conducting decommissioning and abandonment activities during the 2018-2021 timeframe.

3 BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING

This section provides a brief overview of the biophysical and socioeconomic settings in the Deep Panuke area. This information is based on previous studies conducted for the Cohasset, SOEP and Deep Panuke decommissioning projects.

3.1 Offshore Environment

3.1.1 Biophysical Setting

3.1.1.1 Climate and Physical Oceanography The Deep Panuke field is located on the Sable Island bank approximately 47 km to the southwest of Sable Island in 44 m of water. The weather conditions in the area have been studied extensively as a result of offshore exploration activities and the long-established weather station on Sable Island. The area is subject to rapidly changing weather conditions. Tropical storms, particularly in late summer and fall, track up the

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 21

east coast of North America and through the study area. Extratropical storms are frequent throughout the winter months.

On an annual basis, the dominant winds at Sable Island are westerly. In the winter months, winds from the west through north quadrant are most frequent; in the summer months, the south through west quadrant winds are most frequent. Calms are rare, averaging less than one percent of the winter, and about two percent in summer. The median wind speed is near 20 kt (37 km/hr), and hourly extremes of 70 kt (130 km/hr) have been recorded. Although west sector winds predominate, there are significant periods of easterly winds, particularly during the passage of cyclonic storms. Fog is frequent in the area, averaging 130 days per year, contributing to an average of 47 days per year with visibility less than 1 km. Extreme air temperatures offshore of the Sable Island area reach +30°C in the summer and can fall below -20°C in the winter.

In shallow continental shelf areas such as the Deep Panuke site, wind and current-driven water movement can result in the presence of high levels of suspended particulate matter. Strong current patterns can cause the predominately sand bottom to form irregular bedform morphology. Sand transport across Sable Island Bank is generally to the northeast and east and principally occurs during storms. Average currents from surface to 30 m depths are in the order of 10 cm/s. The annual sea temperature in the vicinity of the Deep Panuke field at a depth of approximately 10 m ranges from a low of 1.55°C in February to a high of 16.36°C in September.

3.1.1.2 Marine Benthos The area west of Sable Island is characterized by well-sorted, fine to coarse sand, with periodic disturbances brought on by storms; large mega-ripples are common. A thin veneer of organic material accumulates in micro depressions in the sand.

Benthic surveys were conducted by Encana at the Cohasset platform, Panuke platform and Panuke H-08 wellsite in 2000, and at the Deep Panuke site in 2001. The surveys showed that the epifaunal benthic community (i.e., organisms living on or moving above the sediment) in the Deep Panuke area had low abundance and mainly consisted of sparsely distributed crustaceans, mollusks and sand dollars. The predominant infaunal organisms (i.e., living in the sediment) were polychaetes.

3.1.1.3 Marine Fish The area of Sable Island Bank where the Deep Panuke field is located is not known as a productive fishing area, even before the cod and haddock moratoriums. The lack of obvious food resources is likely a significant factor. Fish most often observed at the Deep Panuke site during annual environmental effects monitoring surveys were cunners. Other species that may occur on a seasonal basis include Atlantic cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, sandlance, winter skate, red hake, white hake, pollock, American plaice, halibut, and flounder.

As observed during the annual environmental effects monitoring programs conducted for Deep Panuke from 2011 to 2017, the GEP and associated assets (mattresses, rock filter units, grout bags) have created a reef effect, which provides shelter and protection for many species of fish (e.g., redfish and Atlantic cod) and invertebrates (e.g. lobster). Commercial species noted during the GEP surveys included Atlantic cod, pollock, haddock, redfish, and hagfish. The number of Atlantic wolfish (a species at risk) sightings along the GEP increased over time (17 Atlantic wolffish noted in the eight video clips reviewed in 2016); Altantic wolffish appeared to use the GEP as a refuge burrow. The GEP does not act as a barrier to crustacean movement, as several crustacean species were observed regularly sitting on top of the pipeline.

3.1.1.4 Marine Mammals and Turtles Three species of sea turtle (Leatherback, Atlantic Loggerhead and Kemp's Ridley) have been recorded in the study area. All three species are considered threatened or endangered in Canada and/or the US. Major

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 22

breeding grounds are in warmer waters well to the southwest of the study area, and individuals recorded are summer occasional migrants.

Seventeen species of whales, dolphins and porpoise and four species of seals are found in the Scotian Shelf waters, including three endangered whale species. Their distributions change seasonally. Most baleen whales come to feed on the Scotian Shelf in the summer and move back toward the south for the winter. Sperm whales and Northern Bottlenose whales occur in deeper waters along the Scotian slope. Smaller toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises could be in the area year-round, although most species move southwest as winter approaches. Harbour and Grey seals are present in the Sable Island area throughout the year.

3.1.1.5 Marine Birds The distribution of seabirds over the Scotian Shelf is dependent on availability and distribution of preferred prey and on the breeding status of the bird. In offshore waters, prey distribution is generally of prime importance. In the Deep Panuke area, the waters are also used by breeding birds from Sable Island. Over 25 species of marine birds may be observed in the waters over the Scotian Shelf.

3.1.1.6 Sable Island Sable Island is approximately 42 km in length and is located 290 km southeast of Halifax and approximately 50 km east of Deep Panuke. The island is composed of sand and is the only emergent portion of the Sable Island Bank. It supports a fragile ecosystem consisting of diverse flora and fauna; the best-known components being the feral horses, seal populations, the rare Ipswich (Savannah) sparrow and the endangered Roseate tern.

Legislation to formally protect Sable Island as a National Park Reserve under the Canada National Parks Act was passed in June 2013. Access and activities on the island are administered by Parks Canada. Nesting tern colonies on the island have also been designated as critical habitat for Roseate terns under the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

3.1.1.7 Gully Marine Protected Area The Gully is a large submarine canyon approximately 40 kilometres (km) (21.6 nautical miles) east of Sable Island on the edge of the Scotian Shelf. It is unique among canyons of the Eastern Canadian margin because of its depth, steep slopes and extension back into the continental shelf. The Gully contains a rich diversity of marine habitats and species, including deep-sea corals and the endangered northern bottlenose whale. The area is nationally and globally acknowledged as an important and exceptional marine habitat.

The Gully has been designated by DFO as an MPA under the Oceans Act in 2004 and comprises an area of 2,364 square km (913 square miles).

3.1.1.8 Species at Risk Species at risk (under the SARA and/or the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)) that could occur in the Deep Panuke field area are addressed under individual environmental components, i.e. Sections 7.1.1 (marine fish), 7.2.1 (marine mammals and sea turtles), 7.3.1 (marine birds) and 7.5.1 (onshore environment).

3.1.2 Socio-Economic Setting

3.1.2.1 Fishery As noted above, the area of Sable Island Bank where the Deep Panuke field is located is not known as a productive fishing area for traditional commercial species.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 23

Historical data shows very little shellfish, groundfish or pelagic fishing in the area. The only fishing activity in the vicinity of the Deep Panuke field or GEP is fishing for sea cucumber (using scallop rakes) around KP 110-140 of the GEP where the pipeline is buried; some Snow crab fishing activity around KP 30-40 (using crab pots), and nearshore fishing activity where the pipeline is buried (e.g. lobster, scallop, rock crab and sea urchin). Therefore, the risk of interaction with fishing gear is minimal. A 2003 research survey from DFO identified commercial quantities of Ocean quahog on Sable Island Bank; however, the fleet has been focusing on Surf clam fishing east of Sable Island Bank.

3.1.2.2 Marine Shipping Oil tanker, commercial and merchant shipping follow routes that criss-cross the north Atlantic. There is no single corridor by which the vessels pass. Relative to the Port of Halifax, the majority of the marine shipping traffic travels north of Sable Island. However, because Sable Island is close in proximity to other major ports, shipping traffic occurs in the general Deep Panuke area. The Deep Panuke facilities do not present any significant obstacles for marine traffic.

3.1.2.3 Military Use The Department of National Defence has designated operational areas that cover the entire offshore region of Nova Scotia. The Deep Panuke area is not designated on hydrographic/nautical charts as a target firing range. To date, the military has not conducted offshore training exercises in the vicinity of any of the offshore oil and gas operations.

3.1.2.4 Ocean Mining At present there are no active or leased areas for ocean mining of offshore aggregates or other mineral resources on the Scotian Shelf.

3.1.2.5 Cables Currently, there is one active cable crossings located along the offshore pipeline. Abandoned cable crossings were cleared from the pipeline route in advance of Deep Panuke pipeline installation.

3.1.2.6 Petroleum Industry The search for petroleum resources on the Scotian Shelf has slowed over recent years. Licenses control the physical locations of exploration and development. Latest exploration activities have been directed towards the deep waters of the Scotian Slope.

The Sable Offshore Energy Project (SOEP) is approximately 45 km east of the Deep Panuke field centre. SOEP is currently preparing for decommissioning.

The Cohasset oil development project, in the immediate vicinity of Deep Panuke, was decommissioned in the fall of 2005. Both platforms and PLEM topsides were removed and the flowlines and umbilicals abandoned in place.

3.2 Onshore Environment

3.2.1 Biophysical Setting The landfall for the GEP near Goldboro, Guysborough County, Nova Scotia. The pipeline travels over land to the tie-in with the M&NP facilities.

Shoreline topography includes slightly to steeply sloping fore and back shores. The landfall area is underlain by rocks of the Meguma Group, consisting primarily of the older Goldenville Formation and the younger Halifax Formation. Surficial geology in the Country Harbour area is mainly quartzite till. Well water records

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 24

from the Goldboro area indicate a range of overburden thickness from 2.7 m to 4.6 m. A surficial aquifer is the primary domestic water supply source in the area.

Surface water resources in the area include, but are not limited to: Betty’s Cove Brook, Gold Brook, Crane Lake, and Seal Harbour Lake. The only fish-bearing stream crossed by the Deep Panuke pipeline is Betty’s Cove brook, where a pre and post construction fish salvage program found American eel and Brook trout.

Vegetation near the onshore pipeline facilities is characterized by forest, shrub thickets, wetlands, and disturbed areas. Forests in the area are boreal in nature and characterized by relatively low species richness. Forest plant communities present in the study area are dominated by various combinations of black spruce (Picea mariana), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), tamarack (Larix laricina), and mountain white birch (Betula cordifolia). Shrub thickets are typically found on stony knolls, and in some cases are associated with disturbed areas such as abandoned mine sites. Wetlands in the area consist mainly of bogs, swamps, and marshes.

Two vascular plant species of conservation interest, northern commandra (Geocaulon lividum; “Sensitive” NSDNR status and “S3” – uncommon – ACCDC status) and wood’s-rush (Juncus subcaudatus; “Undetermined” NSDNR status) were encountered along the corridor in 2008 prior to the commencement of pipeline construction. A post-construction monitoring program conducted in 2011 concluded that no additional mitigation measures were recommended for either species.

Pre-construction surveys conducted in 2008 documented the presence of a variety of birds, mammals, and herptiles within and near the pipeline corridor. None of the species encountered were listed as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable by the COSEWIC, SARA, or the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act (ESA). A number of the bird species encountered were considered to be sensitive within the province, based on a review of population rankings provided by the NSDNR (2011b). Incidental observations of the use of the pipeline corridor by wildlife, particularly the presence of rare or uncommon species, were recorded during post-construction site visits in 2011.

A deer wintering area was identified to the east of the onshore pipeline right-of-way (RoW). Country Island is a sensitive nesting area for the endangered Roseate tern (Strena doughallii).

3.2.2 Socio-Economic Setting Guysborough County, with a land area of 4,371 square kilometers and a 2016 population of approximately 7,600, is located in the northeastern part of Nova Scotia. It is a distinctly rural area with a long coastline and rich history.

The population of the county, which includes the incorporated town Mulgrave and the municipal Districts of Guysborough and St. Mary's, has declined by approximately 6% between 2011 and 2016. The largest aggregations of population are located in the town of Mulgrave, the former town of Canso and the Shire towns of Guysborough and Sherbrooke; the balance is distributed in smaller unincorporated communities throughout the county. The more important of these in the vicinity of the Deep Panuke landfall include Goldboro, Isaac's Harbour, Drumhead, Seal Harbour, Coddles Harbour, Larry's River, Stormont, Middle Country Harbour, Country Harbour Mines and Cross Roads Country Harbour.

The Study Area's economy continues to be dependent upon the fishery and forestry, with the addition of global transportation, energy, gold, aggregate and rare earth metal mining, and tourism in the 21st century (MODG 2016). The fishery remains an important resource for the community with a lucrative inshore fishery. As in Nova Scotia as a whole, lobster is the most important fishery in the district. Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen’s Association, an association made up of 134 inshore, small boat, fixed gear fishermen who reside and fish in Guysborough County and hold licences for tuna, shrimp, groundfish, scallop, snow

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 25

crab, and Atlantic mackerel (GCIFA 2014). Marine sport fishing has increased in popularity due to multiple tuna tournaments.

With approximately 70% of Guysborough County comprised of forested land, the forestry industry remains an important sector with about 250-300 forestry-related jobs in the area including in harvesting activities, trucking, road buildings, and silvaculture work (MODG 2016). The County supplies about 30% of the wood fibre received by Nova Scotia’s pulp and paper mills.

Despite its reliance on fishery and forestry, the economy is both changing and diversifying (MODG 2017). Aggregate mining has grown in recent years with the only Canadian aggregates quarry owned and operated by Martin Marietta Inc. A second aggregate quarry is located at Black Point aggregate quarry and marine terminal owned and operated by Vulcan Materials Company. Gold mining remains a potential opportunity in the district with several gold deposits identified in several locations, including the Goldboro Gold Project, owned by Anaconda Mining, which is undergoing preliminary feasibility assessments. In January 2018, a Preliminary Economic Assessment was completed with positive results (Anaconda Mining 2018). The proposed mine production to start in 2020 would be by open pit and underground mining with onsite concentration and gold recovery occurring at Anaconda’s Pine Cove Mill in Newfoundland.

The agriculture industry is also an important resource in the County. In 2013, the Northern region represented approximately 26% of the agricultural industry in Nova Scotia (NSFA 2014). Guysborough County has specialized farm production activities such as greenhouse, nursey and floriculture production, and fruit and tree nut farming. Although not the dominant industry in Guysborough, there is potential for economic growth with only 3% of arable land being used for agricultural production (NSFA 2014).

The district was also the first municipality in Nova Scotia to invest in and build a major wind power project (MODG 2016). Sable Wind is a 13.8 MW wind farm located near Canso/Hazel Hill, developed in partnership with Nova Scotia Power. The wind farm has created jobs in construction and ongoing operations as well as economic spin-off opportunities.

Recently, two liquid natural gas plants have been proposed in the district; Pieridae Energy at Goldboro in the MODG, and Bear Head on the Richmond side of the Strait of Canso. The tourism sector continues to develop with eco-tourism, outdoor recreation, and aquaculture development. There is also a proposed spaceport undergoing the regulatory review process to be located in the Canso Hazel Hill area (MLS 2018). The launch site construction and operation capital investment in Nova Scotia is anticipated to be a $155M Initial Capital Investment with $15M Annual Operating Expenses, as well as several direct and indirect job opportunities. In regard to employment, health care, trade, manufacturing, and education are the dominant industries in the Northern region (NSFA 2014).

Several archaeological and heritage resources have been identified in, or in proximity to, the study area at Goldboro. These include reported pre-European contact finds along the shores of Betty’s Cove, a cemetery on the point known as Redhead, evidence of nineteenth and twentieth century mining activities and three ship wrecks in the vicinity of the nearshore pipeline.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 26

4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

4.1 Overview

Encana’s corporate environmental, health and safety (EHS) management framework (Figure 4.1.1) includes the following:

 Encana corporate policies, practices, and guidelines  Encana’s corporate EHS management system, “Ethos”, including standards and guidance documents  Site-specific EHS practices and procedures

The environmental components of that framework are summarized below.

Figure 4.1.1 Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Management Framework

4.2 Corporate Environmental Policy

Encana’s environmental policy is provided in Appendix A.

4.3 Ethos – Corporate EHS Management System

Ethos sets out 12 corporate-wide standards that clearly define how Encana conducts its business. It also provides a systematic ‘Plan-Do-Check-Act’ methodology, which is a simple four-step process that drives the continuous improvement of Encana’s EHS processes and performance. All Encana staff and

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 27

contractors must conform to these corporate standards. The Encana Deep Panuke Senior Manager has ultimate responsibility for the implementation of Ethos to support Deep Panuke activities.

The 12 standards are designed to work together to maximize worker safety, and minimize Encana’s environmental impact and ensure regulatory compliance:

 Leadership and Accountability Standard  Risk and Hazard Management Standard  Operational Competency Management Standard  Contractor and Service Provider Management Standard  Process Safety Stewardship Standard  Personal Safety Stewardship Standard  Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene Standard  Environmental Stewardship Standard  Security Standard  Compliance Assurance Standard  Incident and Emergency Management Standard  Verification, Audit, and Performance Standard

4.4 Relation to Other Deep Panuke Plans

The following environmental-related plans will be developed as separate documents for the Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies.

 Environmental protection plan/environmental effects monitoring plan (EPP/EEMP): separate EPP/EEMPs will be developed for various programs associated with the decommissioning scope and will address program-specific protection measures such as vessel-specific discharges, waste handling and disposal, chemical management, emissions management, bird monitoring, spill response, interactions with fishing activity, and post-abandonment follow-up monitoring, for example.

 Emergency management plan: will provide emergency response command and control functions for both onshore and offshore emergency situations and cover foreseeable emergencies during all Deep Panuke decommissioning activities. This will include provisions for the notification, assessment, and response to environmental incidents.

 Spill response plan: subset of the Deep Panuke emergency management plan. Will provide guidance to respond to offshore spills that may result from Deep Panuke decommissioning activities, including planning considerations, response, and spill environmental effects monitoring.

 Encana codes of practice for Sable Island, the Gully Marine Protected Area, and Country Island (see Appendix B): outline Encana’s voluntary commitments to protect these special areas.

 Work procedures: will provide vessel-specific work procedures related to decommissioning and abandonment activities, including (but not limited to) power generation, fuel system, cooling water system, bilge, and ballast systems, drains, and flares, for example.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 28

4.5 Risk Assessments

Hazard and risk assessments will be used to assess and mitigate potential risks associated with Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities, including risks to the environment. All facets of decommissioning and abandonment activities that affect safety and the environment will be assessed with consideration of the following potential events/undesirable outcomes:

 Interface problems between equipment and systems  Abnormal conditions not envisioned during design  Human error in design, operation, and maintenance

A fundamental objective is to reduce the risks to personnel and the environment to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).

4.6 Orientation and Training

Both Encana and its contractors will provide appropriately targeted orientation and training programs and materials to assist personnel fulfill their responsibility to work in a safe and environmentally responsible manner consistent with Encana’s policies. This training will be provided prior to the commencement of decommissioning activities, as well as specific “on-the-job” training as required.

5 INDIGENOUS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

As part of the decommissioning and abandonment process, Encana has initiated an Indigenous group and stakeholder engagement program. The purpose of the engagement program is to provide Indigenous groups and stakeholders with up-to-date information, specifically on the decommissioning and abandonment process and timing; to provide opportunities for Indigenous groups and stakeholders to ask questions and express their concerns; and, to provide input into decommissioning and abandonment planning, including incorporation of their views and concerns, and how they were addressed in the final ES Report. Encana’s Indigenous engagement program is separate from the Crown’s duty to consult with impacted Indigenous groups1.

Encana also engages interested stakeholders, such as the fishing industry, municipalities, environmental non-governmental organizations, to ensure their views are understood and considered.

A substantial engagement program was undertaken from 2000-2002 and in 2006 during the regulatory process for Deep Panuke development approvals (Encana 2006; Encana 2002). Groups and individuals participated, including the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia (through the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs), nearshore and offshore fishing organizations, local municipalities and regional development authorities, residents and businesses in the Guysborough area, scientists, regulatory agencies, environmental non- governmental organizations (ENGOs), and interested members of the public. Encana also engaged with

1 The company, Encana does not have a separate duty to consult with Indigenous groups – that is the duty of the Crown. However, Encana plays a critical role in information sharing, discussion and decision-making regarding their proposed project, and therefore, will engage Indigenous groups in that process. The Crown will rely on appropriate engagement between the proponent and identified Indigenous groups to assist in their own consultation processes.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 29

Indigenous organizations such as the Native Council of Nova Scotia (NCNS), and the Atlantic Policy Congress of Chiefs (APC). Engagement continued following development approval throughout construction and operations activities, with Indigenous groups, members of the CNSOPB’s Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC), an advisory body which includes knowledgeable and experienced representatives from fishing organizations, provincial and federal governments, and Indigenous groups2), individual fishing organizations, and the Goldboro community.

The engagement process for the decommissioning and abandonment phase of Deep Panuke will build working relationships with identified Indigenous groups, meet any regulatory requirements, communicate appropriately in dialogue that will build better understanding of the decommissioning phase of Deep Panuke, and identify and discuss any mitigation measures for potential impacts that may be of interest to the parties. Proposed engagement activities include the distribution of project related documentation and information, individual meetings and workshops as required, and email and phone communications. Indigenous groups will be engaged throughout the various stages of the decommissioning phase, including early in the planning process and continuing throughout the implementation of decommissioning and abandonment activities. Encana will conduct similar activities with interested stakeholders.

5.1 Indigenous Group Engagement

For the purposes of Encana’s current Indigenous engagement program, the following groups have been identified by Encana and the NEB as potentially impacted by proposed decommissioning and abandonment activities in the offshore of Nova Scotia: 13 Mi’kmaq communities in Nova Scotia, 6 Maliseet and 9 Mi’kmaq communities in New Brunswick, and two Mi’kmaq communities in Prince Edward Island (Figure 5.1.1). Because decommissioning activities are largely marine focused, interests expressed to date relate to impacts on either fishing activity, or the environment.

Encana is engaging the following First Nations, and other Indigenous groups who have access to, and/or an interest in, the Deep Panuke area:

Nova Scotia  Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs (ANSMC)  The Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office (KMKNO) is an administrative office that supports the ANSMC; coordinates consultation and negotiation with the Crown; and engagement with third parties, such as private industry proponents. They represent the following 11 Mi’kmaq First Nations communities in Nova Scotia:  Acadia  Annapolis Valley  L’sitkik (Bear River)  Glooscap  Pictou Landing  Potlotek (Chapel Island) First Nation  Paq’tnkek

2 The FAC is a non-consultative advisory body that provides advice related to marine and fisheries issues related to the oil and gas industry to the CNSOPB, and includes participation from ANSMC, UINR, Membertou, MTI (NB) and NCNS.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 30

 Wagmatcook  We’koqma’q (Waycobah)  Eskasoni  Membertou  Sipekne’katik First Nation, which has its own, independent consultation and engagement protocol and structure.  Millbrook First Nation, which has its own, independent consultation and engagement protocol and structure.

New Brunswick  Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Incorporated (MTI) representing the following New Brunswick Mi’kmaq First Nations:  Oinpegitjoig (Pabineau)  Esgenoôpetitj (Burnt Church)  Tjipõgtõtjg (Buctouche)  L’nui Menikuk (Indian Island)  Ugpi’ganjig (Eel River Bar)  Metepenagiag (Red Bank)  Amlamgog (Fort Folly)  Natoaganeg (Eel Ground)  Elsipogtog (Big Cove), which has its own, independent consultation and engagement protocol and structure.  Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick (WNNB) representing the following New Brunswick Maliseet First Nations:  Madawaska First Nation  St. Mary’s First Nation  Tobique First Nation  Kingsclear First Nation  Oromocto First Nation  Woodstock First Nation, which has its own, independent consultation and engagement protocol and structure.

Prince Edward Island  Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island representing the following Prince Edward Island Mi’kmaq First Nations:  Abegweit First Nation  Lennox Island First Nation

Other Indigenous Organizations  Atlantic Policy Congress of Chiefs – Fisheries Department. The APC is a policy body that represents the Assembly of First Nations in the Atlantic Region. They have a fisheries and integrated resources department that has considerable experience working with Indigenous community fisheries.  Native Council of Nova Scotia/Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC). The NCNS and MAPC represent a number of Indigenous people in the Maritime Provinces and provide important services to this population. They hold both FSC and commercial communal licences.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 31

Figure 5.1.1 Identified First Nation Communities in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 32

5.2 Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholders who are being engaged for Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities include offshore fishing associations, local municipalities, regulatory agencies, and ENGOs. Most fishing interests that would be potentially impacted by Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment activities in Nova Scotia are represented through the CNSOPB’s FAC (Table 5.2.1), including many Indigenous fishing interests (see list below). The CNSOPB’s FAC meets on a regular basis (usually, once every three months) to receive project updates from all oil and gas operators and government agencies with an interest in the Nova Scotia offshore; and, to discuss any matters relevant to their interests. There are also a small number of fishing associations and individuals that are not directly represented through the FAC but have an interest in oil and gas industry-related issues. In addition to regularly scheduled FAC meetings, Encana is reaching out to member groups and associations individually, as well as other associations or stakeholders that do not belong to FAC.

Table 5.2.1 Fisheries Advisory Committee

Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Secretariat Crab Fishing Area 23/LFA 30 Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia (SPANS) Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Oceans Branch, Gulf Region, Habitat protection and Sustainable Development Area 19 Snow Crab Fisherman’s Association Natural Resources Canada Dick Stewart (independent) Nova Scotia Department of Energy Nova Scotia Swordfish Fishermen’s Association Mi’kmaq Rights Initiative of Nova Scotia Canadian Red Crab Company Ltd. NS Fish Packers Association Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership Scotia Harvest Seafoods CNSOPB First Fishermen Seafoods Membertou First Nation Eastern Shore Fisherman’s Protective Assoc. Maritimes Fishermen’s Union Eastern Fishermen’s Federation Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council Fisheries & Oceans Canada – Fisheries Protection N-ENS Snow Crab Association Fisheries & Oceans Canada – Oceans and Coastal Cold Water Lobster Association Management Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen’s Association Area 22 Snow Crab Association Netukulimkewe’l Commission (Native Council of NS) Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn Incorporated (MTI)

For Deep Panuke decommissioning and abandonment, Encana has identified and begun to engage the following key stakeholders:

Local Government (Municipal)  Municipality of District of Guysborough

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 33

Fisheries Groups and Associations  CNSOPB’s Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC)  Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership  Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia (SPANS)  Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council  Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen’s Association  Ocean Pride

Industry Stakeholders  BP  ExxonMobil  Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline  Pieridae Energy  GTT Communications

Other Stakeholders  Sierra Club of Canada  Ecology Action Centre  World Wildlife Foundation

5.3 Indigenous and Stakeholder Engagement Activities to-date

Indigenous groups and stakeholders have been engaged in various forms since 2001 throughout the various phases of the Deep Panuke Development and will continue to be engaged during the decommissioning activities.

The engagement process builds on the working relationship with identified groups, meets regulatory requirements, builds better understanding of the decommissioning phase of Deep Panuke, and identifies and discusses any mitigation measures for potential impacts that may be of interest to the parties.

Engagement activities undertaken to date include:

 Notification of planned decommissioning and abandonment activities  Distribution of the Decommissioning and Abandonment Overview (Information Update – March 2018)  Individual meetings as requested

Materials distributed during the engagement process are provided in Appendix C. Engagement activities undertaken to date are outlined below. Indigenous groups and stakeholders will continue to be engaged throughout the various stages of the decommissioning and abandonment activities.

5.3.1 Indigenous Engagement

Engagement activities completed to date (June 15, 2018) are summarized in Table 4.3.1 and included distribution of information update bulletins, individual meetings, email correspondence, and telephone communication.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 34

Table 5.3.1 Summary of Indigenous Engagement to Date

Indigenous Group Date Type Engagement Purpose Assembly of Nova Scotia February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Mi’kmaq Chiefs / March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn March 2018 Negotiation Office March 29, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence April 19, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting April 23, 2018 Email Meeting follow-up Sipekne’katik First Nation February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 15, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence April 25, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting April 26, 2018 Email Meeting follow-up May 2, 2018 Email Additional meeting follow-up June 5, 2018 Email Additional meeting follow-up June 15, 2018 Telephone Additional meeting follow-up Millbrook First Nation February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Incorporated (MTI) March 8, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 21, 2018 Meeting FAC meeting – Introductory meeting April 13, 2018 Meeting Introductory Meeting April 16, 2018 Email Meeting follow-up May 2, 2018 Email Additional meeting follow-up Wolastoqey Nation of New February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Brunswick (WNNB) March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 Woodstock First Nation February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 8, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 April 16, 2018 Meeting via Telephone Introductory meeting Elsipogtog First Nation February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 35

Table 5.3.1 Summary of Indigenous Engagement to Date

Indigenous Group Date Type Engagement Purpose Mi’kmaq Confederacy of February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet PEI (MCPEI) March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 14, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence April 24, 2018 Meeting via Telephone Introductory meeting Maritime Aboriginal February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Peoples Council March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 21, 2018 Meeting FAC meeting – Introductory meeting June 7, 2018 Email Emailed introductory meeting slides Atlantic Policy Congress February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet of First Nation Chiefs March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update Secretariat March 2018 March 21, 2018 Meeting FAC meeting – Introductory meeting April 6, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting Unama’ki Institute of February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Natural Resources March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 21, 2018 Meeting FAC meeting – Introductory meeting April 24, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting First Fishermen Seafoods February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Membertou First Nation March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 13, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence March 21, 2018 Meeting FAC meeting – Introductory meeting April 24, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting May 2, 2018 Email Meeting follow-up

5.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement

Engagement activities completed to date (June 15, 2018) with stakeholders are summarized in Table 4.3.2 and have included distribution of information update bulletins, individual meetings, email correspondence, and telephone communication.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 36

Table 5.3.2 Summary of Stakeholder Engagement to Date

Group Date Type Engagement Purpose Seafood Producers February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Association of Nova February 27, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence Scotia (SPANS) March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 21, 2018 Meeting FAC meeting – Introductory meeting April 3, 2018 Meeting Meeting to discuss overall process and fisheries concerns April 30, 2018 Email Meeting follow-up May 9, 2018 Telephone Additional meeting follow-up Fisheries and Ocean February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Canada February 28, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 21, 2018 Meeting FAC meeting – Introductory meeting April 4, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting Nova Scotia Department February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet of Energy February 26, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 21, 2018 Meeting FAC meeting – Introductory meeting April 5, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting Ocean Pride February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 March 15, 2018 Email Meeting set-up correspondence May 15, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting June 1, 2018 Email Meeting follow-up Fisheries Advisory February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet Committee (see Table March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update 5.2.1) March 2018 March 21, 2018 Meeting Presentation at FAC meeting BP Canada February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 Sierra Club of Canada February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 37

Table 5.3.2 Summary of Stakeholder Engagement to Date

Group Date Type Engagement Purpose Ecology Action Centre February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018 World Wildlife Foundation February 23, 2018 Email Notification email and offer to meet March 13, 2018 Email Deep Panuke Information Update March 2018

Municipality of District of April 5, 2018 Email Notification email and Information Update March 2018 Guysborough May 10 and 11, 2018 Email Forwarded notification email and Information Update March 2018 to a larger group May 28, 2018 Email Received response requesting meeting in June June 13, 2018 Meeting Introductory meeting

ExxonMobil May 10, 2018 Email Notification email and Information Update March 2018

Maritimes & Northeast Feb 21, 2018 Meeting Initial notification at Annual Operations Meeting Pipeline May 23, 2018 Email Notification email and Information Update March 2018 Pieridae Energy May 10, 2018 Email Notification email, Information Update March 2018 and offer to meet GTT Communications May 10, 2018 Email Notification email, Information Update March 2018 and offer to meet

5.4 Issues and Concerns

Questions and comments raised during engagement have been taken into consideration during the preparation of this ESA Report. Table 5.4.1 provides a summary of key issues that have been raised during engagement about the decommissioning and abandonment of the GEP and associated facilities, and how they have been addressed.

Table 5.4.1 Summary of Key Issues Raised During Indigenous and Stakeholder Engagement

Question or Comment Response Questions about how Deep Panuke compares to The Deep Panuke pipeline and SOEP pipeline run parallel to SOEP: each other and are located less than 1 km apart offshore and ‐ How close the Deep Panuke pipeline is less than 100 m onshore. The Deep Panuke Development from the SOEP pipeline? processes the gas offshore at the PFC. The gas that comes to ‐ Why is Deep Panuke’s onshore footprint shore through the export pipeline is dry sales quality gas; and smaller than SOEP? therefore, there is no requirement for additional facilities onshore. ‐ Consider cumulative effects of Section 8 of this ESA provides an assessment of cumulative abandonment in place? effects. This assessment includes the abandonment of the SOEP pipeline. As discussed in Section 8, there are no anticipated

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 38

Table 5.4.1 Summary of Key Issues Raised During Indigenous and Stakeholder Engagement

Question or Comment Response significant cumulative effects associated with pipeline abandonment. Is there an instance where you would not Encana is not aware of an instance where the pipeline would not abandon in place? be abandoned in place. Subsea pipeline abandonment in place is a common international practice based on environmental and safety considerations and was approved in the 2006 EA. Has there been much erosion along the The pipeline has been surveyed regularly following construction pipeline? Has the pipeline been inspected? How and all major spans were fully remediated using rock except one deep is the trenched pipeline? span at KP 26.3. However, this span represents a very low risk of snagging due to local fishing activities and no additional mitigation is recommended (see more details in Section 7.6.3). The target depth of burial for trenched pipeline was one meter but actual depth varies along the length of the pipeline depending upon trenching performance and soil conditions. Will the pipeline be left open or capped? The pipeline will be capped onshore and left open on the ocean side. As described in more detail in Section 2.3.1, the pipeline will be abandoned in place after it is depressurized, flushed, and filled with seawater. The GEP will be disconnected from the PFC at or just prior to the subsea riser flange with the end left open to the sea. The buried onshore pipeline will be flushed, seawater removed, end capped, and abandoned in place. Grout plugs (or equivalent) will be installed at strategic locations to prevent ground subsidence as the pipeline corrodes and deforms and to prevent unnatural drainage of wet areas, where required. Will there be any new exclusion zones during No. Offshore decommissioning and abandonment activities will the work? be occurring within the current safety zone, which includes the platform and subsea wells. There will not be any activities along the gas export pipeline. What is the life span of buried pipeline? The The export pipeline is designed for 25 years (based on corrosion concern is that it has the potential to deteriorate protection) and it has been used for less than 10 years. For the over time and leak into groundwater sources. offshore pipeline, consumption of the anodes from the cathodic protection system has been significantly lower than expected so it is anticipated that the offshore pipeline will be protected from corrosion for several decades. For the onshore pipeline, the cathodic protection ground bed system will be deactivated as part of decommissioning, so the onshore pipeline will start to slowly corrode once it is abandoned. The full deterioration of the pipeline (onshore and offshore) is expected to take centuries. The deterioration of steel and cement is a very localized process and is unlikely to result in leaching of toxic components to the surrounding environment. As a result, this process is not expected to impact surrounding water quality (including groundwater onshore). Will there be any laydown areas onshore or land New land work will be required onshore. Most work will be done work that may result in acid rock drainage that on the gravel pads at the beach valve and terminus sites; could affect aquatic resources? however, small areas outside the existing gravel pads will need to be excavated to install the pipeline flushing equipment at the landfall site (if pipeline is flushed from onshore to offshore), and to install the cement plugs on each side of highway 316 and Sable Road. They will be located within the RoW (i.e., in areas that have been dug up before) and outside wetland areas.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 39

Table 5.4.1 Summary of Key Issues Raised During Indigenous and Stakeholder Engagement

Question or Comment Response Ground/vegetation will be re-instated. Previous testing has confirmed there is no acid rock in the onshore pipeline area. In the area of the onshore pipeline, was Yes; following construction activities the area above the onshore vegetation returned following construction? Any pipeline was revegetated. Reed canary-grass (which has been invasive species identified? referred to as an invasive species in the Maritime Provinces) and Tansy ragwort (listed as a noxious weed under the Nova Scotia Weed Control Act) were found in or around the Deep Panuke RoW during post construction monitoring. However, during the 2016 RoW environmental effects monitoring survey, abundance of these two species had decreased as a result of increased competition from native plant species. The survey concluded that no vegetation control measures should be required other than to allow native plant cover to continue to increase. How long for the reef effect to take place along Marine growth was observed on subsea structures during the first the pipeline? annual survey following deployment. Is the ‘reef’ effect changing the ecology in the Scientific studies of the “rigs to reefs” program in the Gulf of area? Mexico have demonstrated that the abandoned platforms create Are there images from the EEM work to show new life that would not otherwise exist (they don’t just attract fish the ‘reef’ effect? from other areas). However, for Deep Panuke, because of the small size of the structures, the effect is very localized. No overall change in the ecology of the area. Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of this report describe the reef effect observed to date from the environmental effects monitoring program. What is the timing for decommissioning? There Encana has not set a date for the commencement of are concerns around noise at certain times of decommissioning activities. There is very little noise associated the year, as there are species migrating through with the decommissioning activities. There will be relatively little the area (e.g., North Atlantic right whale). noise produced from the vessels/rig and from the internal cutting of the SSIV piles (e.g., compared with construction and drilling). Potential effects from decommissioning and abandonment activities on marine fish and marine mammals and sea turtles is provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, respectively. Consider vessel speed around whales A discussion on the potential effects from decommissioning and depending on the time of year. In the Gulf of St. abandonment activities is provided in Section 7.2.3. Reducing Lawrence, there is a new imposed vessel speed. vessel speed has been shown to reduce the number of deaths From June through to December is the key and severe injuries by vessel strike (Vanderlaan and Taggart migratory time for the North Atlantic right whale. 2007; Vanderlaan et al. 2008, 2009; van der Hoop et al. 2012). At Should consult with the North Atlantic right vessel speeds less than 25.9 km/hour (14 knots) lethal strikes to whale database for sightings prior to North Atlantic right whale are noted to be infrequent, and at decommissioning activities. speeds less than 18.5 km/hour (10 knots) they are considered rare (Laist et al. 2001). Encana will consult with DFO to confirm applicable vessel speed restrictions prior to decommissioning and abandonment activities. Concerns related to potential impacts of Potential effects from decommissioning and abandonment decommissioning activities (short and long-term) activities on marine fish and Indigenous and commercial fisheries on migratory species of interest, such as the is provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.6, respectively. As noted in American eel and Atlantic salmon (and there these sections, decommissioning and abandonment activities are may be others). not predicted to result in a significant adverse residual effect. Will there be a post monitoring program? Yes; the specific details of the post-abandonment monitoring program have not yet been identified. Likely monitoring will occur right after decommissioning (”as-left” survey) and one year

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 40

Table 5.4.1 Summary of Key Issues Raised During Indigenous and Stakeholder Engagement

Question or Comment Response following abandonment, with additional monitoring possible if unexpected changes are observed during the one-year survey. Monitoring surveys will be undertaken by ROV survey. What are the external contracting opportunities? Encana provides full and fair opportunity for the local supply community and other interested parties to participate in business and contracting opportunities for Deep Panuke. Information will be posted to the Business Opportunities section of the Deep Panuke pages on the Encana website (www.encana.com/deeppanuke), shared with the electronic bulletin board BIDS, distributed via an email distribution list to disadvantaged group representatives and communicated by RSS feed and social media. Business opportunities are also often reported through third party organizations such as the Maritimes Energy Association. Encana also plans to hold supplier workshops when the decommissioning and abandonment prime contractors have been selected (specific time to be determined). Are there any economic development or See above. employment opportunities? What is the rationale for not having to do an The decommissioning and abandonment phase for the Deep environmental assessment under the Canadian Panuke Development was included in the 2006-2007 Environmental Assessment Act, 2012? environmental assessment conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), and Encana will meet all the conditions from this regulatory process. Therefore, the CEA Agency has confirmed that an additional assessment under CEAA 2012 is not required.

6 SCOPE AND METHODS

6.1 Scope of the Environmental Study

This ESA was prepared to describe the potential changes since the approved 2006 EA Report. The ESA was prepared to address the following scope:

 Additional details now available related to the decommissioning and abandonment activities presented in Section 2 of this report, supplementing Section 2.5 of the approved 2006 EA Report (Table 6.3.1)  Changes to the regulatory environment since the approved 2006 EA Report  Changes to the biophysical environment since the approved 2006 EA Report (Table 6.3.2)  Changes to the socio-economic environment since the approved 2006 EA Report (Table 6.3.3)

The preparation of this ESA relies heavily on the 2002 CSR and the approved 2006 EA Report. A scoping exercise was conducted to clearly define the scope of the assessment (i.e., identify changes from the approved 2006 EA Report) and identify issues that require reconsideration in the ESA.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 41

6.2 Environmental Study Methods

The environmental effects assessment framework presented in the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report was used in the preparation of this ESA. The ESA Report, however, is focused on technical, regulatory, biophysical, and socio-economic updates or changes. The assessment method is structured to:

 Identify the issues and potential effects that are likely to be important  Consider key issues raised by Indigenous groups and stakeholders  Integrate decommissioning and abandonment engineering design and programs for mitigation and follow-up into an environmental planning process

This method is focused on the identification and assessment of potential adverse environmental effects of the technical, regulatory, biophysical, and socio-economic updates or changes on the valued components (VCs) identified in the 2002 CSR and the 2006 EA Report. VCs are environmental attributes associated with the proposed activities that are of particular value or interest because they have been identified to be of concern to Indigenous peoples, regulatory agencies, Encana, resource managers, scientists, and/or key stakeholders.

The Study Area identified in Figure 1.1 of the 2006 EA Report remains valid for the ESA; however, as discussed in the VC assessment (Section 7), potential effects will generally be limited to the footprint of decommissioning and abandonment activities.

Residual environmental effects (i.e., those environmental effects that remain after the planned mitigation measures have been applied) are characterized for each individual VC using specific analysis criteria (i.e., magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, reversibility, and context). The significance of residual environmental effects is then determined based on pre-defined standards or thresholds (i.e., significance rating criteria) specific to each VC. Analysis criteria and definitions of significance identified in the 2006 EA Report will remain the same.

Given other project and activities in the area of the decommissioning and abandonment activities have changed since the 2006 EA Report, the potential for cumulative effects has be updated and provided in Section 8. Potential cumulative environmental effects are identified in consideration of potential interactions with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out in the vicinity of the Deep Panuke Development. These other physical activities include certain or reasonably foreseeable future undertakings. Where there is potential for cumulative interaction, the residual environmental effects of decommissioning and abandonment activities are assessed in combination with those of other physical activities.

6.3 Updates from 2006 EA Report

Tables 6.3.1 to 6.3.3 present the variations and updates from the approved 2006 EA Report. The tables provide a discussion of scoping considerations for assessment of potential effects related to the decommissioning and abandonment of the GEP and associated facilities. Proposed decommissioning and abandonment activities remain the same as described in the 2006 EA Report; however, additional decommissioning and abandonment details and environmental information are now available. Therefore, the ESA Report includes a discussion of the technical (Table 6.3.1), biophysical (Table 6.3.2), and socio- economic (Table 6.3.3) updates or changes that have occurred since the preparation of the 2006 EA

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 42

Report. No regulatory updates from the NEB that are applicable to the decommissioning phase environmental requirements have been identified since 2006. Given the decommissioning and abandonment phase for the Deep Panuke Development was included in the 2006-2007 environmental assessment conducted under the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the CEA Agency has confirmed that an assessment for the decommissioning project under CEAA, 2012 is not required.

Table 6.3.1 Technical Updates

Technical Updates Scoping Considerations Pipeline span status data Pipeline asset surveys undertaken to date and the potential for the existence of pipeline spans along the GEP. Onshore pipeline plugs Grout plugs (or equivalent) will be installed at strategic locations to prevent ground subsidence and unnatural drainage of wet areas, where required.

Table 6.3.2 Biophysical Updates

Biophysical Update Scoping Considerations Species at Risk (SAR) The biophysical effects assessment focuses on SAR, particularly with regard to marine fish, birds, mammals, and sea turtles. For the purpose of this ESA Report, species at risk are defined as: “native wildlife species that are—or have become— most sensitive to human activity due to their rare occurrence, restricted range in Canada, dependence on specialized habitats or declining population or distribution” (CWS 2004). These may include species listed by Species at Risk Act (SARA), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), or by the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources through the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act. Since the preparation of the 2006 EA Report, new SAR have been identified. New SAR will be reviewed, and potential effects analysis provided for species that have the potential to occur in the decommissioning and abandonment area. The North Atlantic right whale, although listed in the 2006 EA Report, may require additional discussion following increased population decline in 2017. New critical habitat will also be identified, such as newly established critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle and northern bottlenose whale. Where species recovery strategies or management plans have been developed, or updated since the approved 2006 EA Report (e.g., fin whale, North Atlantic right whale, Sowerby’s beaked whale), these will be reviewed and discussed as appropriate. Special Areas The 2006 EA Report describes only one Special Area, Sable Island. Since 2006, Sable Island has become a National Park Reserve. In addition, new Special Areas have been identified, in particular, Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs). A preliminary list of EBSAs near the decommissioning and abandonment project area include the Sable Island Shoals, Emerald Western Sable Banks Complex, Middle Bank and Canso Bank and Canso Basin. These EBSAs will be reviewed and discussed as appropriate.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 43

Table 6.3.3 Socio-Economic Updates

Socio-economic Update Scoping Considerations Indigenous fisheries updates Limited information is provided in the 2006 EA Report on Indigenous fisheries information and data. The ESA Report will update Indigenous fishing data (commercial communal and food, social and ceremonial (FSC)) including information on sensitivity on migration from pelagic fish (tuna/swordfish/salmon/eel) by Indigenous community. Fisheries updates (General) The 2006 EA Report describes the potential effects on commercial fishing activity as it relates to the project, including the decommissioning phase. The ESA Report will update fisheries data, including mapping, based on commercial fishing data (2010-2014) and DFO Observer Program Data (2007-2017).

6.4 Selection of Valued Components

An important part of the assessment process is the early identification of key biophysical and socio- economic issues, known collectively as the valued components (VCs) upon which the assessment will be focused. Issues scoping is an important part of the VC identification process. The issues scoping exercise for this report included a review of decommissioning and abandonment technical changes, regulatory updates, biophysical updates, and socio-economic updates, as described in Section 6.3. Table 5.4.1 presents the rationale for the selection of VCs, along with other scoping considerations.

Table 6.4.1 Selection of Valued Components for the ESA

2006 EA Report ESA Report Scoping Considerations VC Proposed VC Biophysical VCs Air Quality  No update or no new interaction with the air quality VC. N/A Information provided in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA remain applicable for the GEP decommissioning and abandonment phase; therefore, no further analysis is required for the ESA. Marine Water Quality  No update or no new interaction with the marine water quality N/A VC. Information provided in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA remain applicable for the GEP decommissioning and abandonment phase; therefore, no further analysis is required for the ESA. Marine Benthos  No update or new interaction with the marine benthos VC. N/A Information provided in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA remain applicable for the GEP decommissioning and abandonment phase; therefore, no further analysis is required for the ESA. Marine Fish  New marine fish SAR have been identified since the 2006 EA Marine Fish Report.  The potential interactions between the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and marine fish remain the same; however, further analysis is required for new fish SAR. Marine Fish remains as a VC. Marine Mammals and  New marine mammal and sea turtle SAR have been identified Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles since the 2006 EA Report. Sea Turtles  The potential interactions between the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and marine mammals and sea

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 44

Table 6.4.1 Selection of Valued Components for the ESA

2006 EA Report ESA Report Scoping Considerations VC Proposed VC turtles remain the same; however, further analysis is required for new marine mammal and sea turtle SAR and their critical habitat. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles remains as a VC. Marine Related Birds  New marine related bird SAR have been identified since the Marine Related Birds 2006 EA Report.  The potential interactions between the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and marine related birds remain the same; however, further analysis is required for new bird SAR. Marine Related Birds remains as a VC. Sable Island  There is potential for new Special Areas identified since the Special Areas 2006 EA Report.  Given the updated information available, Special Areas remains a VC, focused on the new EBSAs.  Note, this VC was previously referred to as Sable Island VC; however, given the additional Special Areas, this VC has been renamed to Special Areas. Onshore Environment  New onshore SAR have been identified since the 2006 EA Onshore Environment Report.  New information on onshore pipeline plugs.  The potential interactions between the decommissioning activities and the onshore environment remain the same; however, further analysis is required for new onshore SAR and onshore pipeline plugs. Onshore Environment remains as a VC. Socio-Economic VCs Land Use  Information provided in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA remain N/A generally applicable for the GEP decommissioning and abandonment phase; therefore, no further analysis is required for the ESA Report. Economy  Information provided in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA remain N/A generally applicable for the GEP decommissioning and abandonment phase; therefore, no further analysis is required for the ESA Report. Commercial Fisheries  Updated Indigenous fisheries and commercial fisheries data Indigenous and and Aquaculture are available since the preparation of the 2006 EA Report. Commercial Fisheries  Updated pipeline span status data.  The potential interactions between the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and the fisheries remain the same; however, further analysis is required for updated fisheries data (especially mobile fishing gear) and updated pipeline span status data. Commercial Fisheries remains as a VC.  Note, this VC was previously referred to as the Commercial Fisheries and Aquaculture VC. The VC has been renamed to Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries to include updated Indigenous fisheries data.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 45

Table 6.4.1 Selection of Valued Components for the ESA

2006 EA Report ESA Report Scoping Considerations VC Proposed VC Other Ocean Users  Updated information on submarine cables and oil and gas N/A activity are available since the preparation of the 2006 EA Report.  The potential interactions between the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and other ocean users remain the same; however, further analysis is required for updated submarine cables and oil and gas data. Other ocean users remains as a VC.

Based on a consideration of the potential changes to the environment identified in Section 6.3, the following valued components have been selected:

 Marine Fish  Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles  Marine Related Birds  Special Areas  Onshore Environment  Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries  Other Ocean Users

This scoping is based on the considerations discussed in Tables 6.3.1 to 6.3.3.

7 ASSESSMENT OF INTERACTIONS

7.1 Marine Fish

Marine fish is considered a VC because new species at risk (SAR) have been identified since the 2006 EA Report.

7.1.1 Baseline Conditions Update

The description of marine fish contained in the 2002 CSR (Section 6.1.2.2) and 2006 EA Report (Section 7.1.2.2) remain valid for this ESA Report except for the designation of some newly designated fish species at risk. Since the approval of the 2006 EA Report, there have been updates to the list of fish species at risk (Table 7.1.1). Marine fish SAR previously assessed in the 2002 and 2006 reports include the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), Atlantic whitefish (Coregonus huntsman), Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor), northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus), cusk (Brosme brosme), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (Inner Bay of Fundy (IBoF) and Atlantic populations), porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), blue shark (Prionace glauca), and winter skate (Leucoraja ocelatta).

Since the 2002 and 2006 reports have been conducted, recovery plans have been created by DFO for the Atlantic salmon (IBoF population) (DFO 2010) and for the northern and spotted wolffish (Kulka et al. 2007). A management plan for the Atlantic wolffish (Kulka et al. 2007) has also been created.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 46

IBoF Atlantic salmon may have had as many as 40,000 adults within the population in the early 20th century but have been reduced to as few as 250 adults by 1999 (DFO 2010). IBoF salmon differ from other populations with respect to their marine migrations. Adults remain in the Bay of Fundy or in the northern Gulf of Maine instead of migrating to the Labrador Sea off Greenland like many other populations. There is currently no knowledge of their overwintering at sea habitat or location. The cause of their decline is not well understood but is made up of factors which affect survivability in both freshwater and marine habitats. The primary objective of the recovery strategy is to identify sources of unusually high marine mortality and to protect the population’s genetic characteristics (DFO 2010). The Mi’kmaq are in general agreement that the salmon population has been in decline, noting certain rivers where this is a concern (Denny and Fanning 2016). For the Mi’kmaq, conservation is inclusive of a holistic perspective which includes the maintenance of habitats and ensuring food availability for salmon (Denny and Fanning 2016).

The recovery and management strategies for the three species of wolffish within the Study Area (Kulka et al. 2007) identify incidental catches in commercial fisheries as the main anthropogenic cause of mortality and population decline for these species. Other sources of harm (habitat alteration, oil and gas exploration and production, shipping, and cables and pipeline installation and operation) are considered negligible. The strategies for recovery which are planned and/or being implemented include conducting research (life history), habitat conservation (identifying critical habitat), mitigating human activities, promoting knowledge and stakeholder participation in recovery, and monitoring anthropogenic activities and interactions with wolffish species.

Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) have been identified based on a compilation of scientific expert opinion and traditional knowledge that was solicited through efforts to support integrated ecosystem-based management efforts on the Scotian Shelf (Doherty and Horsman 2007). EBSAs are areas of particularly high ecological and biological significance that may require greater than usual degree of risk aversion in the management of activities in these areas (DFO 2014a). The classification of an EBSA does not give the area any special legal status; however, they are considered in a broad range of coastal management and planning processes such as environmental assessments, environmental emergency response, sustainable fisheries policies and Marine Protected Area (MPA) planning (DFO 2014a). Seven EBSA’s can be found within 100 km of the Deep Panuke Development and include the Emerald Bank, Western Bank, and Sable Bank Complex EBSA, Emerald Basin and Scotian Gulf EBSA, Scotian Slope EBSA, Middle Bank EBSA, Eastern Scotian Shelf Canyons EBSA, Sable Island Shoals EBSA, and the Canso Bank and Canso Basin EBSA.

The Emerald Bank, Western Bank, and Sable Bank Complex EBSA overlaps with the Deep Panuke Development area and is an area of significance for Atlantic cod for both spawning and juvenile development purposes (BP 2016). The Middle Bank EBSA is also an important area for Atlantic cod spawning and nursing (DFO 2014a). The Emerald Basin and Scotia Gulf EBSA is important habitat for the white hake as well as many prey items, such as sandlance and shortfin squid, which SAR species may rely upon (DFO 2014a). The Scotian Slope EBSA is an area of unique geology as well as high finfish diversity (BP 2016). It provides important habitat for pelagic fish species, some of which are SAR (Atlantic bluefin tuna, blue shark, porbeagle shark, white shark, shortfin mako). The Eastern Scotian Shelf Canyons EBSA is a unique submarine canyon ecosystem which has diverse and abundant benthic communities and is important for Atlantic cod, redfish, smooth skate, and white hake (DFO 2014a). The Canso Bank and Canso

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 47

Basin contain high fish diversity and has been observed to be important habitat for the American plaice. The Sable Island Shoals EBSA is a nursey area for many fish species and an area of high primary productivity and may be used by SAR species. Although these areas provide important spawning and rearing areas for some SAR species, they do not provide critical habitat for any SAR listed marine fish.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 48

Table 7.1.1 Marine Fish Species at Risk Potentially Occurring on the Scotian Shelf Designated Since 2006

Potential for SARA COSEWIC NS ESA Occurrence in the Common Name Scientific Name Distribution and Habitat Spawning Status Status Status Development Area1, 2

Demersal Species The Acadian redfish can primarily be found along the Scotian Shelf edge Spawning: May– June

Acadian redfish (Atlantic and slope and in deep channels in water depths ranging from 150 to 300 Sebastes fasciatus No Status Threatened No Status m. The species uses a wide range of habitats and is known to use rocks Larvae have the potential to be High population) and anemones for protection from predation. present in the water column from May to August. The Maritime population of the American plaice can be found in the Gulf Spawning: April – May of St. Lawrence and on the Scotian Shelf in water depths from 100 to 300 m. The species prefers soft or sandy substrates and water temperatures Eggs and larvae are planktonic and American plaice (Maritime Hippoglossoides from 1 to 4 ⁰C. Throughout their Canadian range, the species is limited to have the potential to be in the water No Status Threatened No Status column between May and June. High Population) platessoides local movements and move in response to temperature and/or prey availability changes. Major spawning locations include Banquereau, Western, and Browns Banks. Atlantic Sturgeon (Maritimes Population found throughout the coastal waters of the Maritimes and Spawning: Occurs outside of the Ancipenser extends out onto the shelf. Concentrated in water depths less than 50 m Study Area in the lower Saint John Populations) No Status Threatened No Status River area. Low - Transient oxyrinchus and highly migratory in nature so any presence in the area is likely transient. The deepwater redfish are closely associated with the seafloor and can Spawning: May– June be found from Baffin Bay to the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Laurentian Deepwater redfish (Gulf of St. Channel. Much like the Acadian redfish, they can be found over a variety Larvae have the potential to be present in the water column from Lawrence – Laurentian Channel Sebastes mentella No Status Endangered No Status of habitats, using rocks and anemones as protection from predators. They Low can be commonly found in depths ranging from 350 to 500 m. They can May to August. population) be found on the edge of the banks and in deep channels from the Labrador Sea to Sable Island. In the northwest Atlantic, the lumpfish can be found from Newfoundland Spawning: May – June and Labrador to New Jersey. They prefer cold water and live close to the seafloor typically on hard, rocky areas with dense vegetation. The species Males migrate to inshore spawning Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus No Status Threatened No Status can be found in shallow coastal waters (< 20 m) to depths of over 300 m. areas to establish territories and Low nest in locations of high structural complexities. Females arrive after males to deposit eggs. The roughhead grenadier is a benthopelagic species which can be found Spawning: Year-Round Roughhead grenadier Macrourus berglax No Status Special Concern No Status from the continental slope and deep shelf from Newfoundland and Low Labrador to Georges Bank at depths from 200 to 2,000 m. The roundnose grenadier can be found from Newfoundland and Labrador Spawning: Year-Round to the Scotian Slope. The species is more prevalent within the northern Coryphaenoides portion of its Canadian range. It is commonly found inhabiting waters from Roundnose grenadier No Status Endangered No Status Low rupestris 800 to 1,000 m but has been observed in water up to 2,600 m. They prefer the absence of currents and can be found in aggregations in troughs, gorges, and in deep sections of the Scotian Slope. Within its Canadian range the smooth skate can be commonly found from Spawning: Year-Round the Grand Banks to the Scotian Shelf and into the Gulf of Maine. The Smooth skate (Laurentian- species can be found at depths ranging from 25 to 1450 m with dense Females lay an egg capsule on the Malacoraja senta No Status Special Concern No Status seafloor. Larvae take one to two Moderate Scotian population) aggregations being found between 150 to 500 m. They prefer soft mud substrates but can also be found on sand, shell hash, gravel, and pebble years to hatch. substrates. Within the northwest Atlantic, the spiny dogfish is most prevalent between Spawning: Winter Nova Scotia and Cape Hatteras, with the highest concentrations being Mate during late fall to early winter Spiny dogfish (Atlantic found on the Scotian Shelf. The species shows no affinity towards Squalus acanthias No Status Special Concern No Status substrate types and prefer a temperature range between 6 to 12°C. They and have internal embryo gestation Moderate Population) have a general seasonal migration between inshore waters during the for 18-24 months. summer and fall and offshore waters during the winter and spring.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 49

Table 7.1.1 Marine Fish Species at Risk Potentially Occurring on the Scotian Shelf Designated Since 2006

Potential for SARA COSEWIC NS ESA Occurrence in the Common Name Scientific Name Distribution and Habitat Spawning Status Status Status Development Area1, 2 The thorny skate can be found from Baffin Bay to Georges Bank on Spawning: Year-Round substrates including sand, shell hash, gravel, pebbles, and soft muds. Thorny skate Amblyraja radiata No Status Special Concern No Status They prefer water temperatures from 0 to 10°C and can be found at Moderate depths up to 1,200 m. White hake can be found on the Scotian Shelf and upper slope on soft Spawning: June to September bottom substrates in water temperatures ranging from 5 to 11°C. High concentrations have been observed on Georges Bank and the offshore Eggs are buoyant and planktonic White hake Urophycis tenuis No Status Threatened No Status Moderate banks of the Scotian Shelf. until they hatch. Larvae and juveniles are pelagic for two to six months. Pelagic Species American Eel American eels can be found in Canadian freshwater, estuarine, coastal, Spawning: Occurs in the Sargasso and marine waters from Niagara Falls to Labrador and have a complex Sea, outside of the Study Area. life history. Within the marine environment and, with respect to the Study Area, any presence would be migratory in nature. The lifecycle begins in the Sargasso Sea, where they are born in seaweed and as tiny larvae Anguilla rostrata No Status Threatened No Status they drift for months in the Gulf Stream (UNIR 2015a). In November Silver Transient eels out migrate from Nova Scotia freshwater streams to the Sargasso Sea to spawn and die (UINR 2015a). Larvae and glass eels can be found on the Scotian Slope and Shelf from March to July on their migration back to Nova Scotia. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Adult bluefin tuna enter Canadian waters from June to October and can Spawning: Occurs outside the be found distributed in high concentrations along the shelf edge and in the Study Area in the Gulf of Mexico and Northeast Channel (Hell Hole). They can also be found in the pelagic the Mediterranean Sea. Moderate Thunnus thynnus No Status Endangered No Status zone over the Scotian Shelf and Slope. Bluefin tuna are pelagic species and can tolerate a wide range of temperatures due to their ability to regulate their own body temperatures. Atlantic Salmon (Outer Bay of Atlantic salmon return to natal rivers to spawn after the completion of Spawning: Occurs outside of the No Status Endangered No Status ocean scale migrations. Adult salmon return to freshwater rivers after a Study Area in freshwater streams Transient Fundy population) feeding stage at sea from May to November and as early as March. Areas throughout Nova Scotia and New Atlantic Salmon (Eastern Cape with rocky bottoms with gravel and cobble is ideal habitat (UNIR 2015b). Brunswick. No Status Endangered No Status Female salmon deposit eggs in gravel nests usually in gravel riffle Transient Breton population) sections of streams in October and November. Fertilization typically Atlantic Salmon (Nova Scotia involves multiple males competing aggressively for access to multiple Southern Upland population) females. This leads to multiple paternities for a given female’s offspring. Salmo salar Spawned-out or spent adults (kelts) return to sea immediately after spawning or remain in freshwater until the following spring (COSEWIC 2010a). Fertilized eggs incubate in nests over the winter, begin to hatch in No Status Endangered No Status Transient April, and remaining in the gravel riverbed for several weeks while living off a large yolk sac. Once the yolk sac has been absorbed, free swimming parr begin to actively feed and remain in freshwater for 1 to 8 years before they begin a behavioural and physiological transformation and migrate to sea as smolts, completing the life cycle. Note: 1 This is based on the analysis of habitat preferences during various life-history stages, distribution mapping, and catch data for each species within the Study Area. 2 High - area overlaps with known concentrations of species (i.e., occurs frequently and in abundance relative to other areas); Moderate - species not concentrated in area but may occur regularly in low abundance or during migration; Low - species occurs infrequently and in low abundance relative to other areas (i.e., based on habitat association and distribution) Sources: DFO 2013a, 2013b, 2016a COSEWIC 2007a, 2008a, 2009a, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2012a, 2012b, Horsman and Shackell 2009, Maguire and Lester 2012, McGregor Geosciences 2015, Simpson et al. 2016

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 50

7.1.2 Potential Interactions

As assessed in the 2006 EA Report, potential interactions from GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on marine fish may occur from vessel traffic, equipment and structure removal, and routine discharges.

7.1.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction

The assessment of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on marine fish in the approved 2002 CSR and the 2006 EA Report remains valid and requires no updating (refer to Sections 6.3.4.4 and 6.3.4.5 of the CSR and Sections 8.4.4.3 and 8.4.4.4 of the approved 2006 EA Report). This includes contamination of fish through discharges and noise disturbance during decommissioning activities. Discharged seawater from the GEP flushing and cleaning program will be captured and treated or disposed onshore until it is confirmed that no liquid hydrocarbons are present and the water can be discharged overboard (at the PFC for onshore to offshore flushing or at the disconnected SSIV interface for offshore to onshore flushing, see Section 2.3.1). Adverse effects from GEP decommissioning activities on marine fish are anticipated to be localized and temporary in nature and will be similar to, or less than, those from construction activities. The EEM work conducted during production (including annual fish habitat surveys, marine water sampling and testing, and fish sampling and testing) has confirmed the original EA predictions of no significant effects from construction and production activities on marine fish. It also confirmed the predicted reef/refuge effect created by the subsea structures (see Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). The abandonment of subsea pipeline and associated protection structures (e.g., concrete mattresses, concrete tunnels, grout bags, rocks and rock filter units) in place will result in a minor positive reef/refuge effect. The removal of the SSIV will remove the reef and refuge effect associated with this structure.

7.1.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment

A significant adverse environmental effect is one that is likely to cause one or more of the following:

 Mortality or serious injury to individuals, or adverse changes to critical habitat of endangered or threatened species at risk;  The abundance of a species is reduced to a level from which recovery of the population is uncertain;  More than one season would be required for a locally depleted population or altered community to be restored to pre-event conditions (e.g., through impact on spawning activity); or  Impairment of the ecological functioning of the fish community.

Given the character and mitigation measures of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities, they are unlikely to cause the decline or change in abundance of distribution of a population over one or more generations such that natural recruitment may not re-establish the population to its original level, or the impairment of the ecological functioning of the fish community. Decommissioning activities are also unlikely to result in a serious injury to or the loss of one or more individuals from an endangered or threatened species, or the loss of its critical habitat; or any substantial change in distribution, migration or behavioural patterns of a SAR.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 51

The modifications assessed in this section have resulted in the same conclusion as the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report with respect to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities; i.e., no significant effects on marine fish are likely.

7.2 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

Marine mammals and sea turtles are considered a VC because new species at risk (SAR) have been identified since the 2006 EA Report.

7.2.1 Baseline Conditions Update

The description of marine mammals and sea turtles contained in the 2002 CSR (Section 6.1.2.3 and 6.1.2.4) and 2006 EA Report (Section 7.1.2.3 and 7.1.2.4) remains valid for this ESA Report except for the designation of some new SAR. Table 7.2.1 lists new marine mammal and sea turtle species at risk since the 2006 EA Report and their current designations (killer whale (Northwest Atlantic/ Eastern Arctic population), loggerhead sea turtle).

Marine mammals and sea turtles SAR previously assessed in the 2002 and 2006 reports include the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), Sowerby’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens), and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Since the 2002 and 2006 reports have been conducted, recovery strategies, action plans, and/or management plans have been created by DFO for the blue whale (Atlantic population), the fin whale (Atlantic population), North Atlantic right whale, northern bottlenose whale (Scotian Shelf population), Sowerby’s beaked whale (Atlantic population), and leatherback sea turtle (Atlantic population). A summary of the items outlined in each of the plans is provided below.

Blue whale

Commercial whale hunting historically carried out in the Atlantic reduced the blue whale population by approximately 70%, with at least 11,000 blue whales killed prior to 1960, including at least 1,500 in eastern Canada (Beauchamp et al. 2009). The current population size of the Northwest Atlantic population is unknown, although it is unlikely that the number exceeds 250 individuals. In addition to historic hunting and natural sources of mortality, there are a total of nine threats to recovery outlined within the species recovery strategy (Beauchamp et al. 2009). Due to the population’s small size, activities affecting even a small number of individuals can have a significant impact on the species’ survival in the Atlantic (Beauchamp et al. 2009). Among all threats, two have the potential to represent a high risk to the species: anthropogenic noise and prey availability. Medium risk threats include persistent marine contaminants, collisions with ships, and disturbance caused by whale-watching activities by tourists and scientist. Low risk threats include physical damage caused by noise, accidental entanglements in fishing gear, epizootic disease, toxic algal blooms, and toxic spills in the ocean. The long-term goal for the species is to reach a total of 1,000 mature individuals for the populations. To reach this goal several recovery measures have been proposed under three broad strategies: research and monitoring, conservation, and public awareness (Beauchamp et al. 2009).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 52

Fin whale

The Atlantic population of fin whales was reduced by commercial whaling during most of the 20th century. Whaling for the species ceased in 1971; since then, sightings have become relatively common (DFO 2017a). There are several factors which threaten the Atlantic population. High risk threats to the species include noise pollution and navigation. Medium risk threats include changes to prey availability, toxic spills, ship strikes, and whaling still occurring in some countries (DFO 2017a). Low risk threats include epizootic disease, entanglements in fishing gear, marine life observation activities, contaminants, and harmful algal blooms. DFO has created a management plan to ensure that anthropogenic threats within Canadian waters do not cause a decline in population numbers or a reduction of the distribution range in Canada. Several measures have been proposed through four approaches including: conservation, stewardship and protection of individuals, education and outreach, and research and monitoring (DFO 2017a).

North Atlantic right whale

Much like other SAR marine mammal populations, right whales where once common in the western Atlantic but have been depleted by commercial whaling (DFO 2014b). Recent estimates suggest that the current population (2016) is approximately 450 animals (DFO 2018a). Since whaling ended, the most obvious threats to the species are vessel strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. Most of the areas heavily used by right whales are in or near major shipping lanes serving ports in the eastern United States and Canada (DFO 2014b). Habitat degradation may also be contributing to the North Atlantic right whale population’s failure to recover more rapidly. Recovery of the species will require significant international coordination and cooperation. Critical habitat for the species has been identified in the Grand Manan Basin in the Bay of Fundy and the Roseway Basin on the southwestern Scotian Shelf (DFO 2014b). DFO has outlined the following recovery objectives and strategies which will need to be implemented to help ensure the species’ success:

 Reduce mortality and injury from vessel strikes;  Reduce mortality and injury from fishing gear interactions;  Reduce injury and disturbance from vessel presence or exposure to contaminants and other forms of habitat degradation;  Monitor population and threats;  Increase understanding of life history characteristics, low reproductive rate, habitat and threats to recovery through research;  Support and promote collaboration for recovery between government agencies, academia, environmental non-government groups, Aboriginal groups, coastal communities and international agencies and bodies; and  Develop and implement education and stewardship activities that promote recovery.

Over the course of June to September 2017, 12 North Atlantic right whales died unexpectedly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (DFO 2018b). As a result, the following actions have taken place:

 July 20, 2017 – DFO closes the snow crab fishery early;  August 11, 2017 – Transport Canada (TC) imposes a mandatory speed restriction of 10 knots in the area for vessels 20 metres or more;  October 5, 2017 – Following six necropsies, experts confirm cause of death to be blunt trauma and chronic entanglement;  November 9, 2017 – Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada hosts roundtable with stakeholders to discuss actions that could help protect right whales;

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 53

 January 3, 2018 – DFO announces new management measures for the 2018 fishing season;  January 11, 2018 – TC lifts the mandatory speed restriction in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and  March 28, 2018 – Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada announces a mandatory speed restriction from April 28 until November 15 and additional fishery management measures in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Northern bottlenose whale

The recovery strategy for the northern bottlenose whale (Scotian Shelf Population) (DFO 2016b) identifies the Gully Marine Protected Area (MPA) and areas with water depths of greater than 500 m in Haldimand Canyon and Shortland Canyon as critical habitat for the species. It has been recognized that the population may always remain relatively small due to natural limiting factors; therefore, the key driver of the recovery strategy is to maintain the Scotian Shelf population and to prevent population decline by reducing threats (DFO 2016b). To achieve this goal, four principal objectives have been identified: (1) improve understanding of northern bottlenose whale ecology, including critical habitat requirements, carrying capacity, breeding, trophic interactions, links with other populations, and sources of mortality, (2) improve understanding of the population size, trend, and distribution, (3) improve understanding of and monitor anthropogenic threats including fishing gear interaction, petroleum development, noise, and contaminants, and develop management measures to reduce threats where necessary, and (4) engage stakeholders and public in recovery action through education and stewardship.

Sowerby’s beaked whale

DFO published a management plan for the Sowerby’s beaked whale in 2017 which identifies several anthropogenic threats to the species including: acute and chronic noise exposure, entanglement, vessel strikes, and contaminant exposure. Exposure to acute noise is the highest concern due to the potential severity of the physiological harm and behavioural disturbances that may be experienced (DFO 2017b). The objectives of the management plan are to maintain a stable population throughout the species range in Atlantic Canadian waters and to quantify and mitigate the effects of identified threats on the population. DFO aims to achieve these goals through the implementation of several conservation measures falling under three broad strategies: research and monitoring, management, and engagement and public outreach (DFO 2017b).

Leatherback sea turtle

The leatherback sea turtle has experienced population decline in recent years with global population estimates of nesting females estimated to have declined by 70% from 1980 to 1995 (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006). Many of the most serious threats to the species do not occur in Canadian waters; therefore, international cooperation will be required for species recovery. Potential threats occurring in Atlantic Canada include entanglement in fishing gear, vessel collision, marine pollution, and oil and gas exploration and development. The recovery strategy outlines a goal to achieve the long-term viability of the leatherback turtle populations frequenting Atlantic Canadian waters. The Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team has outlined supporting objectives in order to meet this recovery goal: (1) understand the threats to leatherbacks in Atlantic Canadian waters, (2) acquire further information to improve the general knowledge of the species and its habitat, (3) take further steps to identify critical habitat so that it may be protected, (4) reduce the risk of harm to leatherback turtles from anthropogenic activities, (5) educate stakeholders and the general public on ways to support recovery, and (6) work collaboratively at an international level to further recovery.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 54

Table 7.2.1 Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Species at Risk Potentially Occurring on the Scotian Shelf Designated Since 2006

Potential for NS Occurrence Common Scientific SARA COSEWIC ESA Distribution and Habitat Reproduction in the Name Name Status Status Status Development Area 1, 2 Marine mammals (Odontocetes) The Northwest Atlantic population of Male killer whales reach killer whales can be found from Baffin sexual maturity at a mean of and Hudson Bays to US coastal waters. 12.8 years, with females Killer whales are characterized as giving birth to their first calf at relatively uncommon or rare and are a mean age of 14.1 years. now only occasionally sighted in the Gulf Calving occurs year-round of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence but is diffusely seasonal, with Killer Whale River estuary. Sighting events from 1785 a peak from the fall through (Northwest to 2012 found that sightings were more to spring. Mating behaviour Atlantic/ Orcinus Special No common from June to September and has been rarely observed in No Status have been more frequent over the last the wild but it is thought, from Low Eastern orca Concern Status Arctic decade potentially due to increased male testosterone population) public awareness and increased observations and calving boating, people and cameras during observations, that breeding is these months. The species has been most frequent in the spring observed preying on harp seals, white- and early summer beaked dolphins, minke whales, beluga whales, humpback whales, auks, bluefin tuna, and herring.

Sea Turtles Immature loggerhead sea turtles occur Loggerhead sea turtles regularly at the edge of the Scotian generally make predictable Shelf and Slope and are routinely found migrations from southern foraging on the Scotian Shelf and Slope breeding grounds in the and Georges Bank. They migrate to Southern US, Caribbean, Atlantic Canadian waters during the Gulf of Mexico, and South Loggerhead Caretta No Endangered Endangered spring months returning south for the America to temperate High sea turtle caretta Status winter. Generally, they are associated foraging grounds in the with the warm waters of the Gulf Northern Atlantic (COSEWIC Stream in Atlantic Canada and 2010d). Nesting occurs on occasionally are found closer to shore beaches and occasionally when warm core rings break off and estuarine shorelines at night intrude over the Scotian Shelf. Recent with females returning to the

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 55

Table 7.2.1 Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Species at Risk Potentially Occurring on the Scotian Shelf Designated Since 2006

Potential for NS Occurrence Common Scientific SARA COSEWIC ESA Distribution and Habitat Reproduction in the Name Name Status Status Status Development Area 1, 2 findings have determined that not all site of their birth to nest. loggerheads leave the area during the Females nest on a 2 to 3- winter months. Telemetry data have year interval laying three to shown that some turtles move east and four clutches of 112 eggs on northeast during the winter. average with 14 days in- between events. Eggs hatch in approximately 7 to 13 weeks.

Note: 1 This is based on the analysis of habitat preferences during various life-history stages, distribution mapping, and catch data for each species within the Study Area. 2 High - area overlaps with known concentrations of species (i.e., occurs frequently and in abundance relative to other areas); Moderate - species not concentrated in area but may occur regularly in low abundance or during migration; Low - species occurs infrequently and in low abundance relative to other areas (i.e., based on habitat association and distribution) Sources: COSEWIC 2008b, 2010, Waring et al. 2015

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 56

7.2.2 Potential Interactions

As assessed in the 2006 EA Report, potential interactions from GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on marine mammals and sea turtles may occur from vessel traffic, equipment and structure removal, and routine discharges.

7.2.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction

The assessment of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on marine mammals and sea turtles in the approved 2002 CSR and the 2006 EA Report remains valid and requires no updating (refer to Sections 6.4.4.3 and 6.4.4.4 of the CSR and Sections 8.5.4.3 and 8.5.4.4 of the approved EA Report). The primary concern related to marine mammals during decommissioning activities is associated with noise disturbance. This was assessed in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report and it was noted that decommissioning activities are expected to be similar to or less than those from construction. Noise generated from construction activities was predicted to be temporary and relatively localized. There is relatively little noise associated with the GEP decommissioning activities (e.g., vessel activity, internal cutting of SSIV piles). Minor positive effects will remain from a reef/refuge effect associated with the abandonment of subsea structures in place (e.g., export pipeline, concrete mattresses, concrete tunnels, grout bags, rocks and rock filter units). The reef effect associated with the SSIV will be removed following decommissioning.

Although discussed in the 2002 CSR and the 2006 EA Report, given recent concern around potential effects to the right whales, additional detail is provided on potential for vessel strikes during decommissioning activities. The greatest potential for collision occurs where shipping lanes traverse traditional areas of whale concentrations and where transit speeds are high (Encana 2002). Historical vessel strike data were examined by Vaderlaan and Taggart (2007) and it was determined that the North Atlantic right whale is the species most affected by vessel strikes because they are slow-moving and have a low profile in the water (Vaderlann and Taggart 2007). Reducing vessel speed has been shown to reduce the number of deaths and severe injures by vessel strike (Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007; Vanderlaan et al. 2008, 2009; van der Hoop et al. 2012). At vessel speeds less than 25.9 km/hour (14 knots) lethal strikes have been infrequently noted, and at speeds less than 18.5 km/hour (10 knots) they are considered rare (Laist et al. 2001). Encana will consult with DFO to confirm applicable vessel speed restrictions prior to decommissioning and abandonment activities.

7.2.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment

A significant adverse effect on marine mammals and sea turtles is defined as a serious injury to or the loss of one or more individuals from an endangered or threatened species, the loss of critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species, or any substantial change in distribution, migration or behavioural patterns from any species. Given the character and mitigation measures of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities, they are unlikely to cause any of these effects.

The modifications assessed in this section have resulted in the same conclusion as the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report with respect to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities; i.e., no significant effects on marine mammals or sea turtles are likely.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 57

7.3 Marine Related Birds

Marine related birds is considered a VC because new SAR have been identified since the 2006 EA Report.

7.3.1 Baseline Conditions Update

The description of marine related birds contained in the 2002 CSR (Section 6.1.2.5) and 2006 EA Report (Section 7.1.2.5) remain valid for this ESA Report except for the designation of some bird SAR. Table 7.3.1 provides information on marine related birds that have been designated as SAR since the 2006 EA, and which have potential to occur in the Study Area. These include: peregrine falcon anatum/tundrius (Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius), red knot rufa subspecies (Calidris canutus rufa), buff-breasted sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis), and red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). Marine related SAR previously assessed in the 2002 and 2006 reports include ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea), roseate tern (Sterna dougallii), Barrows goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), piping plover melodus subspecies (Charadrius melodus melodus), and savannah sparrow princeps subspecies (Passerculus sandwichensis princeps). Since the 2002 and 2006 reports have been conducted, recovery strategies or management plans have been prepared for the peregrine falcon (ECCC 2017), red knot (ECCC 2016), ivory gull (EC 2014a), roseate tern (EC 2010), Barrows goldeneye (EC 2011), Harlequin duck (EC 2007), and piping plover (EC 2012). A summary of key threats, management objectives, and conservation strategies outlined in these management plans/recovery strategies is provided below. Critical habitat for the roseate tern is present on Sable Island (EC 2010) but has not been identified for any of the other SAR within the Study Area.

The management plan for the peregrine falcon identifies conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure that it does not become threatened or endangered. The plan identifies the use of organochlorine pesticides and toxic chemicals as the main threat to this species and has as its objective to maintain a self-sustaining population of peregrine falcon throughout its Canadian range for the next 10 years (ECCC 2017). The broad strategies and conservation measures identified within the plan to achieve the objective are to “reduce threats and assess their relative impacts; conserve and, if possible, provide legal protection of the species’ nesting sites; improve the state of knowledge on northern populations of the species in Canada; encourage the participation of northern communities (aboriginal and non-aboriginal) in conservation activities carried out in northern areas”; and to “regularly assess the Canadian population trend and its productivity” (ECCC 2017). Although currently listed as a species of special concern under Schedule 1 of SARA and as vulnerable under the NS ESA, a recent assessment of the peregrine falcon by COSEWIC has determined that it is now considered not at risk (COSEWIC 2018).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 58

Table 7.3.1 Marine Related Bird Species at Risk Potentially Occurring on the Scotian Shelf Designated Since 2006

Relative Potential for SARA COSEWIC NE ESA Occurrence in Common Name Scientific Name (Schedule 1) Distribution and Habitat Status Status the Status Development Area1 Landbird species with a coastal affinity. Migrates along coastal areas in fall and preys on concentrations of Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Special Not at Risk Vulnerable migrating shorebirds (COSEWIC Low anatum/tundrius anatum/tundrius Concern 2007b); known to occur offshore during migration (Desorbo et al. 2014). Breeds in the Canadian Artic and migrates through Nova Scotia enroute to their wintering grounds in South Red knot rufa Calidris canutus rufa Endangered Endangered Endangered America. Associated with coastal Low subspecies areas with sand or mud flats to obtain food during migration (COSEWIC 2007c). Breeds in the Arctic. Most of the migration to and from wintering grounds in South America passes Buff-breasted Special Special through the interior of North America; Tryngites subruficollis - Low sandpiper Concern Concern some (particularly juveniles) migrate along the Atlantic and pacific coasts during fall migration (COSEWIC 2012c). Breeds in Arctic wetlands near open water features but found in open ocean during migration and winter Special Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus - - months where they concentrate in Moderate Concern areas where prey is forced to the surface by convergence and upwelling (COSEWIC 2014). 1High - area overlaps with known concentrations of species (i.e., occurs frequently and in abundance relative to other areas); Moderate - species not concentrated in area but may occur regularly in low abundance or during migration; Low - species occurs infrequently and in low abundance relative to other areas (i.e., based on habitat association and distribution)

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 59

The recovery strategy for red knot (ECCC 2016) sets the strategic direction to arrest or reverse the decline of the species. Important threats to red knot are identified as residential and commercial development, agriculture and aquaculture, energy production and mining, biological resource use, human intrusions and disturbance, modifications to natural systems (i.e., dams and water management, shoreline stabilization), invasive and other problematic species and genes, pollution, climate change and severe weather (ECCC 2016). The short-term population objective for red knot rufa subspecies in Canada is to halt the national decline before 2025 and the long-term objective is to increase and then maintain the population at or above 1986–1990 levels (100,000– 150,000 individuals) (ECCC 2016). High priority approaches identified to address the threats to the survival and recovery of red knot include initiatives aimed at monitoring and research; habitat and species conservation and management, education and awareness, stewardship, and promoting conservation partnerships (ECCC 2016). Critical habitat for the rufa subspecies is partially identified but does not occur within the spatial boundaries for the assessment of marine related birds.

In 2006, the status of the ivory gull changed from special concern to endangered. The recovery strategy for the ivory gull (EC 2014a) identifies the primary threats to this species as being illegal shooting (primarily during migration along west Greenland), predation at colonies on flat ground, and industrial activities near colonies. Additional potential threats include contaminants, activities (disturbance) by researchers, climate change, and oil pollution at sea (EC 2014a). The long-term goal for the ivory gull in Canada is to maintain its national breeding distribution and to observe an increase to more than 1000 birds. High priority approaches identified to address the threats to the survival and recovery of ivory gull include initiatives aimed at inventory and monitoring, research, habitat protection, population management, and enforcement. Critical habitat for this species is partially identified in the recovery strategy and includes 39 breeding colonies in Nunavut (EC 2014a).

The amended recovery strategy for roseate tern (EC 2010) identifies habitat displacement, predation by Larus gulls and other predators, possible hunting on the wintering grounds, and a shortage of males (at least in some United States colonies) as being important threats to this species. There are approximately 120-150 pairs of roseate terns in Atlantic Canada and these are distributed amongst several breeding sites. The restricted distribution of this population makes it vulnerable to localized threats such as human development, catastrophic weather events such as hurricanes, pollution, and disease (EC 2010 and references therein). The long-term goal of the recovery strategy is to have at least 150 pairs of roseate terns nesting in three or more colonies in Canada. Approaches identified to address the threats to the survival and recovery of roseate tern include initiatives aimed at monitoring the population (size, distribution, movement, and productivity), enhancing nesting habitat, managing additional colonies, identifying critical habitat, protecting habitat, identifying limiting factors at managed colonies, monitoring threats, and improving decision making and planning (EC 2010), Critical habitat for the roseate tern is present in the Study Area in association with Country Island (>40 pairs) and Sable Island (EC 2010), where fewer than six pairs have nested since 2013 (Ronconi et al. 2016).

The management plan for the Barrows goldeneye (EC 2011) identifies logging, the stocking of fishless lakes, and oil spills as the main threats to the eastern population of this species; hunting and sediment contamination are also considered potential threats. The management objective for the eastern population of Barrows goldeneye is to maintain and (if possible) increase its current population size and range (EC 2011). To achieve this objective, the management plan identifies the need to maintain the population at not

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 60

less than 6,800 individuals. Strategies and management activities identified to achieve the objective include actions aimed at the management, conservation and stewardship of the species and its habitat; research and monitoring of the species and its habitat; and outreach and communication (EC 2011).

The management plan for the Harlequin duck (EC 2007) acknowledges that the relative importance of threats to the eastern population varies across its range. The management goal for this species is identified as a maintenance of the wintering population of 3,000 Harlequin ducks in eastern North America for three of five consecutive years. To meet this goal, the plan identifies a series of objectives and actions meant to maintain population levels and protect important habitat. Assessing population numbers is regarded as a high priority of the plan and refining present monitoring programs to ensure they reflect a comprehensive view of the population is a priority. The need for a more complete understanding of the threats to the Harlequin duck is identified in the management plan, including a recommendation that a comprehensive threat assessment be completed (EC 2007).

Despite major conservation efforts across the piping plover’s range, ongoing threats of habitat loss and degradation, predation, and human disturbance continue to create challenges in meeting population objectives for the piping plover melodus subspecies (EC 2012). The long-term objective for the subspecies is to increase the population to 310 pairs within eastern Canada. Broad strategies recommended to help meet this objective include ensuring enough suitable habitat to meet population objectives, reducing predation, reducing human disturbance, minimizing impacts of adverse weather conditions, minimizing impacts of poorly understood mortality factors, addressing key knowledge gaps to recovery, and monitoring the population (EC 2012). Critical habitat for the piping plover (melodus subspecies) is fully identified in the recovery strategy and includes multiple sites along coastal Nova Scotia, none of which are within the Study Area.

7.3.2 Potential Interactions

As assessed in the 2006 EA Report, potential interactions between marine related birds and GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities may occur from the presence of the structures (e.g., night lighting, food, predation by other marine bird species) and from routine or accidental discharges.

7.3.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction

The assessment of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on marine related birds in the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report (refer to Sections 8.6.4.3 and 8.6.4.4 of the 2006 EA Report and Sections 6.3.6.4 and 6.3.6.4 of the 2002 CSR) remains valid and requires no updating. Birds are known to aggregate around offshore structures as a result of night lighting, food, and other visual cues, potentially subjecting them to increased risk of mortality due to physical impacts with structures (e.g., collisions) and predation by other marine bird species (Wiese et al. 2001; Ronconi et al. 2015). In some cases, the presence of human activities and associated noise during decommissioning activities may cause marine related birds to be temporary displaced. Routine and accidental discharges during decommissioning also have potential to directly and indirectly interact with marine related birds. Effects are expected to be similar or less than those from construction activities. The EEM work conducted during construction and production (including stranded bird monitoring on the platform and vessels) has not shown any significant effects on marine birds, as predicted in the original EA. Overall, decommissioning is expected to result in a positive

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 61

change since there will be less noise disturbance compared with operation. In addition to those measures outlined in the 2002 and 2006 reports, monitoring will be conducted for sheens during decommissioning activities.

7.3.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment

Given the character and mitigation measures of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities, they are unlikely to cause a decline or change in abundance of distribution of the population over one or more generations such that natural recruitment may not re-establish the population to its original level, or avoidance of the area becomes permanent. Furthermore, GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities are unlikely to result in a serious injury to or the loss of one or more individuals from an endangered or threatened species, or the loss of its critical habitat; or any substantial change in distribution, migration or behavioural patterns of a SAR.

The modifications assessed in this section have resulted in the same conclusion as the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report with respect to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities; i.e., no significant effects on marine related birds are likely.

7.4 Special Areas

Special areas is selected as a VC because of the identification of new special areas since the 2006 EA Report, in particular, the identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs). Sable Island has also been designed as a National Park Reserve since 2006. In the 2006 EA Report, this VC was referred to as the Sable Island VC; however, it has been revised to special areas VC due to the addition of new special areas.

Special areas include consideration of areas identified for their biological and ecological significance including, but not limited to, protected areas and EBSAs. Special areas are often designated for the protection of sensitive or commercially important species; therefore, this VC is closely linked to the other VCs considered in this assessment. Potential effects on marine fish, marine mammals and sea turtles, and marine-related birds are discussed in Sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, respectively, and are not repeated in this section.

7.4.1 Baseline Conditions Update

The 2006 EA Report was prepared following the marine conservation and planning context of the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative, which concluded in 2012. The former ESSIM Initiative has since been superseded by the Regional Oceans Plan for the Scotian Shelf, Atlantic Coast, and the Bay of Fundy, which “moves beyond the Large Ocean Management Area (LOMA) concept pursued initially through DFO’s Integrated Oceans Management Program and uses the Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy bioregion as its geographic basis” (DFO 2014c). The Regional Ocean Plan was developed by DFO in fulfillment of their responsibilities under the Oceans Act and in consideration of lessons learned following a formal review and evaluation of the ESSIM Initiative and associated ESSIM Plan (DFO 2014c).

From 2014 to 2017, DFO committed to undertake action in four key priority areas to advance its mandate for oceans and coastal management in the Maritimes Region and implement the Regional Oceans Plan

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 62

(Table 7.4.1; DFO 2014d). These actions are subject to regular review, and the full Regional Oceans Plan is also slated for reviewed after its first three years of implementation (i.e., in 2018).

Table 7.4.1 Key Priorities and Action Commitments for Implementation of Regional Oceans Plan (2014-2017)

Key Priority Overview of Key Priority Associated Action Commitments Marine Protected This priority includes a range  Advance MPA network development, including finalizing Area (MPA) of activities to support the strategic objectives, prioritizing conservation features, Network advancement of a bioregional finalizing inventory of existing sites, agreeing on Development MPA network under Canada’s contributory sites, examining socio-economic National Conservation Plan considerations, and developing technical guidance on network design.  Finalize and validate data layers to be used in analysis, including both ecological (e.g., cetaceans, benthic features, EBSAs, etc.) and human use (e.g., fisheries, shipping, and marine energy).  Undertake external engagement through the development of a consultation strategy and participation in various governmental, stakeholder and industry fora. MPA This priority focuses on the  Advance the regulatory process for St. Anns Bank Area of Establishment, ongoing and effective Interest (AOI) for designation as an MPA. Advance Management, and management of existing consultation process and develop an MPA Advisory Monitoring MPAs and Coral and Sponge Committee. Protection Areas  Renew five-year Gully MPA management plan.  Hold Musquash and Gully MPA Advisory Committee meetings.  Promote knowledge and awareness of MPAs through education and outreach activities.  Ensure coordination among departmental sectors for spatial data management, analytical methods, and product development for MPA planning and management.  Maintain ongoing monitoring and implementation reporting for MPAs and Sponge and Coral Conservation Areas.  Advance priorities under the Coral and Sponge Conservation Strategy for Eastern Canada. Environmental A risk and area-based  Support risk-based response planning as part of Canada’s Preparedness and approach to ship-source oil World Class Tanker Safety System, including the Response Planning spill response planning is development of Area Response Plans for Saint John, New being supported under the Brunswick and Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia, and their Government of Canada’s approaches. This work is being done in partnership with World Class Tanker Safety the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada and System. DFO is contributing Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). to the development of Area  Collate and provide departmental data and mapping Response Plans for two products on ecological, economic, human use and cultural priority areas in the Maritimes sensitivities and priorities for each Area Response Plan. Region: (1) Saint John and the Bay of Fundy; and (2)  Develop response plan and protection strategies for the Port Hawkesbury and eastern Musquash Estuary MPA. Nova Scotia and Cape  Maintain and coordinate departmental program for Breton. environmental incident notifications, preparedness, and response, including:

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 63

Table 7.4.1 Key Priorities and Action Commitments for Implementation of Regional Oceans Plan (2014-2017)

Key Priority Overview of Key Priority Associated Action Commitments o supporting lead agencies in responding to environmental incidents (e.g., Coast Guard, ECCC, and CNSOPB), and o developing and applying risk assessment and decision- support tools for environmental response measures. Implementing Where DFO has a mandate  Apply risk-based approaches to determine priority of Oceans and to act, management ocean and coastal management issues and needs for Coastal measures that address departmental action. Management pressures in the marine  Develop operational guidance and site profiles for priority Measures Using a environment are being bioregional EBSAs to inform planning, management, and Risk-based pursued using a risk-based decision-making. Approach approach. This ensures that efforts are directed to the  Develop accessible knowledge products to provide highest priority pressures validated and consistent information for departmental based on a sound advisory and decision-making activities. understanding of ocean and  Liaise and track ocean use developments and coordinate coastal ecosystems and the departmental involvement in development and activity activities occurring within reviews, such as offshore oil and gas exploration and them. Issues related to development, renewable energy, marine terminals, and interactions among different cable installations. marine uses and interests are  Maintain partnership arrangements for the State of the also captured through this Gulf of Maine and State of the Scotian Shelf report series. approach.  Participate in intergovernmental governance processes, including the Regional Committee on Coastal and Ocean Management and associated mechanisms with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the CNSOPB.  Participate in sub-regional ocean and coastal management initiatives.  Advance priorities under the Sustainable Fisheries Framework, including providing support for: o implementation of the Sensitive Benthic Areas Policy o development and maintenance of Integrated Fisheries Management Plans o information and advice for the regional fisheries eco- certification processes Source: DFO 2014d

A description of Sable Island is provided in the 2002 CSR and the 2006 EA Report. Since the 2006 EA Report, the designation of Sable Island has changed to a National Park Reserve and is protected under the Canada National Parks Act. As of April 1, 2012, Parks Canada is responsible for managing access to the island (CNSOPB 2014). Sable Island is located 48 km from the Deep Panuke Development field (Figure 7.4.1).

The 2006 EA Report states that “DFO has established a program to identify [EBSAs] in marine waters throughout Canada. The EBSA approach is a management planning tool only and identification of EBSAs does not imply formal designation or any form of legal protection. However, future MPAs are likely to be

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 64

centered around EBSAs.” Several new EBSAs have been designated on the Scotian Shelf since completion of the 2006 EA Report.

EBSAs are areas with high ecological and biological significance that may require greater than usual degree of risk aversion in the management of activities in these areas (DFO 2014e). They were identified based on a collection of scientific expert opinion and traditional knowledge that was solicited through efforts to support integrated ecosystem-based management efforts on the Scotian Shelf (Doherty and Horsman 2007). Although the classification of an EBSA does not give the area any special legal status, they are considered in a broad range of coastal management and planning processes such as environmental assessments, environmental emergency response, and sustainable fisheries policies (DFO 2014e). Seventeen offshore EBSAs have been identified on the Scotian Shelf and Slope. Of particular relevance to the Deep Panuke Development area are the Emerald Bank, Western Bank, and Sable Bank Complex, Middle Bank and Sable Shoals EBSAs (Figure 7.4.2).

The Deep Panuke Development is located within the Emerald Bank, Western Bank, and Sable Bank Complex EBSA. This EBSA is approximately 17,900 km2 in area. This area was selected as an EBSA because of high larval fish diversity resulting from a gyre (CNSOPB 2014). It is an area of concentration of spawning fish (e.g., gadoids) and a juvenile nursey area for haddock, cod, monkfish, yellowtail, skate, and flounder. The 4W Haddock Box Nursey Areas also falls within this EBSA and has been closed to groundfish otter trawl since 1987 and to all groundfish fishing since 1993 (CNSOPB 2014). The EBSA is an important overwintering area in the slope water (Doherty and Horsman 2007).

The GEP passes through the southwest corner of the Middle Bank EBSA, which is located northwest of Sable Island and was selected as it is an Atlantic cod spawning and nursery area with strong evidence that sub-populations of cod exist in this area (CNSOPB 2014; Doherty and Horsman 2007). It is also an area of abundant American plaice, redfish, silver hake, yellowtail flounder, and witch flounder and possible spawning and/or nursery area for these species (Doherty and Horsman 2007). Fin whales and minke whales have been observed in this area in the summer and fall and is an important seabird habitat.

The Sable Shoals EBSA is located 15.2 km from the PFC and is roughly a 10-km buffer around Sable Island. This EBSA has been selected for several reasons including it is the world’s largest breeding colony of grey seals, with 81% of grey seals born on Sable Island (Doherty and Horsman 2007). The area also has high concentrations on juvenile fish, particularly haddock, but also silver hake, Atlantic cod, and yellowtail flounder (Doherty and Horsman 2007). Sable Island is an Important Bird Area and has significant breeding populations of terns and gulls (see Section 7.3.1).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 65

Figure 7.4.1 Protected Areas

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 66

Figure 7.4.2 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs)

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 67

In addition to the offshore EBSAs, there are also several Atlantic coastal EBSAs. There is one coastal EBSA within the Study Area, near the GEP landfall location. The Country Harbour Islands EBSA consists of three islands outside of Country Harbour (Hastings et al. 2014). As noted in Section 7.3.1, Country Island is critical habitat for the Roseate tern. Other species known to be present in the area includes Leach’s Storm-petrel, scoter spp., goldeneye spp., common eider, merganser spp., and American black duck (Hastings et al. 2014). In addition to the Country Harbour EBSA, the Eastern Shore Island EBSA has recently been designated an Area of Interest (AOI). The Eastern Shore Islands AOI is located 36 km from the GEP, stretching from Clam Bay near Jeddore Harbour to Barren Island near Liscomb Point, and extending 25 km from mainland in to the Scotian Shelf (DFO 2018c). The area has been selected as an AOI due to its rich beds of eelgrass, kelp, and salt marsh, providing important habitats to several marine species (DFO 2018c).

7.4.2 Potential Interactions

As assessed in the 2006 EA Report, potential interactions from GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on special areas include noise disturbance from vessel transit and vessel activities (e.g. SSIV removal) as well as routine or accidental discharges.

7.4.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction

The assessment on special areas in the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report remains valid and requires no updating (refer to Section 6.3.7.4 of the 2002 CSR and Section 8.7.4.3 of the 2006 EA Report). The potential environmental effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on special areas will be similar to or less than those from construction and operation activities, including sound disturbance from vessels transiting through or near special areas, and direct disturbance associated with the removal of subsea structures (e.g. SSIV). Although vessels will transit through or near EBSAs, particularly the Emerald Bank, Western Bank, and Sable Bank Complex, Middle Bank and Sable Shoals, this interaction is not predicted to result in any change that would affect the biological or ecological integrity of these areas. Since the 2006 EA Report, the Emerald Bank, Western Bank, and Sable Bank Complex was designated as an EBSA following the construction of the Deep Panuke Development. Decommissioning activities will occur within this EBSA; however, as discussed in Section 7.2.3, sound produced during decommissioning activities is anticipated to be minimal and will not result in a significant effect on marine fish, marine mammals and sea turtles, and marine related birds.

7.4.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment

Although a newly identified EBSA was designated within the Deep Panuke Development area, GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities are not predicted to result in the alteration of the valued habitat physically, chemically, or biologically, in quality or extent, to such a degree that there is a decline in species diversity of the habitat.

The modifications assessed in this section have resulted in the same conclusion as the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report with respect to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities; i.e., no significant effects on special areas are likely.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 68

7.5 Onshore Environment

The onshore environment is considered a VC because new species at risk (SAR) and decommissioning and abandonment activities (i.e., potential onshore flaring during offshore to onshore GEP flushing and onshore pipeline plugging) associated with the terrestrial environment have been identified since the 2006 EA Report.

7.5.1 Baseline Conditions Update

The description of onshore conditions contained in the 2002 CSR (Section 6.1.3) and 2006 EA Report (Section 7.1.3) remain valid for this ESA Report except for the designation of some SAR since 2006. Table 7.5.1 provides information on SAR which have potential to occur in the Study Area. These include ten birds that could breed in the area or otherwise use it for important life history events (e.g., staging area during migration): peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), Canada warbler (Cardellina canadensis), and evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus). SAR previously assessed in the 2006 report include short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) and rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus). Other terrestrial bird SAR that could occasionally migrate through the area include whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), Bicknell's thrush (Catharus bicknelli), and bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). Bird SAR with strong coastal affinities are discussed in Section 7.3 (Marine Related Birds). Four mammals have potential to occur in the Study Area: little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), and mainland moose (Alces americanus); information on their habitat association and distribution is also included in Table 7.5.1. Although the SAR snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) have been recorded within the region, neither are likely to occur in the Study Area. Similarly, the surrounding landscape also has potential to support vascular and non-vascular plant SAR; however. botanical surveys along the right-of-way (RoW) have not identified plant SAR, therefore further information on plant SAR is not included.

Since the 2002 and 2006 reports have been conducted, recovery strategies or management plans have been prepared for the peregrine falcon (ECCC 2017), short-eared owl (EC 2016a), common nighthawk (EC 2016b), olive-sided flycatcher (EC 2016c), Canada warbler (EC 2016d), rusty blackbird (EC 2014b), little brown myotis, northern myotis, and tri-colored bat (EC 2015). A provincial recovery (NSDNR 2007) and action plan (McNeil 2013) have also been prepared for the mainland moose. A summary of key threats, management objectives, and conservation strategies outlined in these documents is provided below. Critical or core habitat has not been identified for any of the SAR within the Study Area (see Figure 2.6 of the 2002 CSR).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 69

Table 7.5.1 Species at Risk Potentially Occurring Onshore in the Study Area (designated as SAR since 2006)

Relative Potential for SARA Common Scientific COSEWIC NS ESA Occurrence (Schedule Distribution and Habitat Name Name Status Status Onshore in 1) Status the Study Area3 Inhabits a wide range of habitats from Arctic tundra, sea coasts, and prairies to urban centers. Most nest on cliff Peregrine Falco Special ledges or crevices, but some will also use tall buildings falcon peregrinus Not at Risk Vulnerable Low Concern and bridges near good foraging area. Migrates along anatum/tundrius anatum/tundrius coastal areas in fall and preys on concentrations of migrating shorebirds (COSEWIC 2007b).

Breed in Nova Scotia and may be present during the spring, summer, and fall. Prefer open areas, including rocky barrens, old pastures, gravel pits, burnt over Common Chordeiles areas, and forest clearings. Nesting occurs directly on Threatened Threatened Threatened Moderate nighthawk minor the ground, and no actual nest structure is built. Common nighthawks will nest on newly cleared areas (as a result of clearcutting or urbanization) as well as on gravel rooftops (COSEWIC 2007d).

Neotropical migrant that breeds throughout Nova Scotia. Prefers open areas and their associated edges. These include natural forest edges such as are Olive-sided Contopus Threatened Threatened Threatened associated with rivers, lakes, wetlands or burned areas, Moderate flycatcher cooperi and human-made edges, such as may occur in logged areas. Tall snags or trees are an important habitat component used for perching (COSEWIC 2007e).

3 High - area overlaps with known concentrations of species (i.e., occurs frequently and in abundance relative to other areas); Moderate - species not concentrated in area but may occur regularly in low abundance or during migration; Low - species occurs infrequently and in low abundance relative to other areas (i.e., based on habitat association and distribution).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 70

Table 7.5.1 Species at Risk Potentially Occurring Onshore in the Study Area (designated as SAR since 2006)

Relative Potential for SARA Common Scientific COSEWIC NS ESA Occurrence (Schedule Distribution and Habitat Name Name Status Status Onshore in 1) Status the Study Area3 Use a variety of forested habitats during the breeding season in Nova Scotia, including deciduous, mixed wood, and less commonly, coniferous forest. They are usually associated with edge habitats in mature and Eastern wood- Contopus Special Special Vulnerable intermediate-age forests (COSEWIC 2012d). In the Low pewee virens Concern Concern Maritime provinces, they tend to be associated with marshes, lakes, ponds, and rivers, and are negatively associated with harvested areas, urban areas, and roads (M. Campbell unpubl. data in COSEWIC 2012d). Nest throughout North America, primarily in association with human structures such as open barns, garages, sheds, bridges, and road culverts. Nesting and foraging sites are typically associated with open habitats such as Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Threatened Threatened Endangered Low farmlands, wetlands, and road rights-of-way. During migration, barn swallows often gather over marshes or lakes, where concentrations of flying insects are high (COSEWIC 2011). Breeds in colonies and excavates nesting burrows in the eroding banks of coastal cliffs and other steep vertical soft soil faces, such as gravel pits. Large Bank swallow Riparia riparia Threatened Threatened Endangered Low wetlands are used as communal nocturnal roost sites during post-breeding, migration, and wintering period (COSEWIC 2013a) Breeds in Nova Scotia and throughout Canada, and winters in South America. During the breeding season, Cardellina Canada warblers require habitat with a well-developed Canada warbler Threatened Threatened Endangered Moderate canadensis shrub layer and structurally complex forest floor, which is generally most abundant in moist, mixed forest or riparian shrub forest (COSEWIC 2008d).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 71

Table 7.5.1 Species at Risk Potentially Occurring Onshore in the Study Area (designated as SAR since 2006)

Relative Potential for SARA Common Scientific COSEWIC NS ESA Occurrence (Schedule Distribution and Habitat Name Name Status Status Onshore in 1) Status the Study Area3 Widely distributed across Canada’s forests. During the breeding season it is most typically associated with open, mature mixedwood forests, where fir species and/or white spruce are dominant, and spruce budworm Evening Coccothraustes Special - Vulnerable is abundant. At other times of the year, evening Moderate grosbeak vespertinus Concern grosbeaks largely depend on conifer seed crops in the boreal forest, but they are also attracted to ornamental trees that produce seeds or fruit, and sunflower seeds within bird feeders (COSEWIC 2016).

Little brown Myotis All three species of resident bats rely on underground Endangered Endangered Endangered Moderate myotis lucifugus openings in the winter for hibernation, which include natural caves and abandoned mines, but they require very specific humidity and temperature conditions for hibernation. Summering areas may be hundreds of Myotis Northern myotis Endangered Endangered Endangered kilometres from hibernaculum. Females establish Moderate septentrionalis summer maternity colonies, often in buildings (mainly Myotis lucifugus), or large-diameter trees. Foraging occurs over water (mainly M. lucifugus, P. subflavus), Perimyotis along waterways, forest edges, and in gaps in the forest Tri-colored bat Endangered Endangered Endangered Low subflavus (mainly M. septentrionalis). Large open fields or clearcuts are generally avoided (COSEWIC 2013b).

Known to occasionally occur in the general vicinity of the Study Area (AMEC 2013). The habitat requirements of the mainland moose are complex as they require a mosaic of forested and wetland environments that provide food, shelter, and appropriate thermal conditions (Parker 2003; NSDNR 2007; McNeil 2013). Alces Moose - - Endangered They primarily feed on twigs, stems and foliage of Moderate americanus young deciduous trees and shrubs, as are typically abundant in forest landscapes subject to recent disturbance by fire, wind, disease, or timber harvesting activities. Moose shift their habitat use seasonally: during warmer months they prefer areas interspersed with wetlands that allow access to aquatic vegetation

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 72

Table 7.5.1 Species at Risk Potentially Occurring Onshore in the Study Area (designated as SAR since 2006)

Relative Potential for SARA Common Scientific COSEWIC NS ESA Occurrence (Schedule Distribution and Habitat Name Name Status Status Onshore in 1) Status the Study Area3 and refuge from high temperatures and biting insects (Parker 2003). Landscapes which support recently disturbed mixedwood forests for food and adjacent mature conifer cover for escape and shelter are preferred in winter, and forests with dense canopy closure are favored during severe winters (Bowyer et al. 2003). The specific spatial and temporal habitat preferences and limiting factors for the mainland moose are poorly understood (McNeil 2013); but a recent study suggested that they are vulnerable to thermoregulatory stress during warm weather (Broders et al. 2012). During such conditions, they may rely on mature forest that provides adequate cover; however, such stands are increasingly uncommon in the province as a result of forest harvesting practices (NSDNR 2007).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 73

The management plan for the peregrine falcon identifies conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure that it does not become threatened or endangered. The plan identifies the use of organochlorine pesticides and toxic chemicals as the main threat to this species and has as its objective to maintain a self-sustaining population of peregrine falcon throughout its Canadian range for the next 10 years (ECCC 2017). The broad strategies and conservation measures identified within the plan to achieve the objective are to “reduce threats and assess their relative impacts; conserve and, if possible, provide legal protection of the species’ nesting sites; improve the state of knowledge on northern populations of the species in Canada; encourage the participation of northern communities (aboriginal and non-aboriginal) in conservation activities carried out in northern areas”; and to “regularly assess the Canadian population trend and its productivity” (ECCC 2017). Although currently listed as a species of special concern under Schedule 1 of SARA and as vulnerable under the NS ESA, a recent assessment of the peregrine falcon by COSEWIC has determined that it is now considered not at risk (COSEWIC 2018).

The management plan for the short-eared owl (EC 2016a) identifies threats to this species as being habitat loss and degradation, activities and events that result in increased mortality risk to individuals, nests and eggs (e.g., agriculture, urban/commercial development, energy production, mining), and climate change. Habitat loss and degradation on its wintering grounds are considered the most important threats. Habitat loss and degradation on its breeding grounds in southern Canada, and pesticide use, are considered secondary threats (EC 2016a). The short-term management objectives for the short-eared owl are to “stabilize or increase the population trend over the 2015-2025 period and maintain the area of occupancy at 1,500,000 km2” (EC 2016a). The long-term objective for this species is “ensure a positive 10-year population trend starting in 2025, while promoting an increase in the area of occupancy, including the gradual recolonization of areas in the southern portion of the Canadian range”. General strategies identified to achieve the management objectives include conservation and management of the short-eared owl and its suitable habitat across its range; conducting surveys, monitoring and research on the species, its habitats and threats across its range; and promoting awareness and partnerships related to conservation priorities (EC 2016a).

The recovery strategy for this common nighthawk (EC 2016b) identifies the reduction of food sources as a likely important contributor to population declines of this species, although data on the relationship between specific threats and declines are limited. Reductions in the loss of available habitat (caused by fire suppression, intensive agriculture, and declines in the number of gravel rooftops) may also be an important factor, with other possible threats being climate change and severe weather, accidental mortality, pollution, and problematic native and invasive non-native species (EC 2016b). The short-term objective for this species in Canada is to halt the national population decline by 2025 and to ensure that it does not decline by more than 10% until that time. The long-term objective is for its national population to experience a positive trend in growth for the ten-year period following 2025 (EC 2016b). A distribution objective of maintaining the current extent of occurrence in Canada has also been identified. High priority approaches identified to address the threats to the survival and recovery of common nighthawks include initiatives aimed at monitoring and research, habitat and species conservation and management, education and awareness, stewardship, and developing conservation partnerships (EC 2016b).

The causes of the decline of the olive-sided flycatcher is uncertain and their relative importance is likely to vary across the species range, but potential threats include reduced availability of insect prey, fire

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 74

suppression, deforestation and land conversion in nonbreeding habitat, forest harvesting and silviculture, energy and mining exploration and extraction, and residential and commercial development (EC 2016c). The short-term objective for this species in Canada is to halt the national population decline by 2025 and to ensure that it does not decline by more than 10% until that time. The long-term objective is for its national population to experience a positive trend in growth for the ten-year period following 2025 (EC 2016c). A distribution objective of maintaining the current extent of occurrence in Canada has also been identified. High priority approaches identified to address the threats to the survival and recovery of the olive-sided flycatcher include initiatives aimed at monitoring and research, habitat and species conservation and management, law and policy, education and awareness, stewardship, and developing conservation partnerships (EC 2016c).

The recovery strategy for the Canada warbler (EC 2016d) identifies potential threats to this species as “land conversion of breeding and nonbreeding habitat, forest harvesting and silviculture, removal of shrubs, energy and mining exploration and extraction, overbrowsing, reduced availability of insect prey, and collisions with windows”. The reasons for the decline of the Canada warbler are unclear but loss of primary forest on the wintering grounds in South America is considered a potential cause (EC 2016d). The short- term objective for this species in Canada is to halt the national population decline by 2025 and to ensure that it does not decline by more than 10% until that time. The long-term objective is for its national population to experience a positive trend in growth for the ten-year period following 2025 (EC 2016d). A distribution objective of maintaining the current extent of occurrence in Canada has also been identified. High priority approaches identified to address the threats to the survival and recovery of the olive-sided flycatcher include initiatives aimed at monitoring and research, habitat and species conservation and management, law and policy, education and awareness, stewardship, and developing conservation partnerships (EC 2016d).

Known threats to the rusty blackbird occur primarily in their winter range and include habitat conversion and blackbird control programs in the United States (EC 2014b). Other potential threats to this species include the conversion of boreal wooded wetlands in its breeding and migratory range, forest clearing, changes to surface hydrology, pollution (i.e., mercury contamination) and wetland acidification, climate change and drying of wetlands, altered predator and competitor species relationships, disease, and parasites. Management objectives for the rusty blackbird is to stop the population decline and to then increase the population through a positive trend in growth for a ten-year period (EC 2014b). General strategies identified to achieve the management objectives include addressing key knowledge gaps in population and habitat requirements, identifying and better understanding threats to rusty blackbird throughout its range, facilitating stewardship and threat mitigation, and encouraging and participating in collaborative conservation initiatives (EC 2014b).

The little brown myotis, northern myotis, and tri-colored bat were emergency listed as endangered on Schedule 1 of the federal SARA in 2014 because of sudden and dramatic declines in their populations as a direct result of white-nose syndrome (EC 2015). Additional threats to these species include habitat loss and degradation (e.g., destruction or degradation of hibernacula, maternity roosts, and foraging areas), disturbance or harm (e.g., interactions with wind turbines, intentional harm, recreational or scientific disturbance, and industrial disturbance), pollution, and climate change (EC 2015). In areas already affected by white-nose syndrome (such as Nova Scotia), the importance of these other threats is intensified because the death of a small number of the remaining individuals has potential to have an important influence the

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 75

population’s survival, recovery, and (potential) development of resistance to the fungus associated with white-nose syndrome. In areas affected with white-nosed syndrome, the short-term population objective for the three species of bats is to maintain, and where feasible increase, the populations compared to its 2015 levels. The long-term objective is for a self-sustaining, resilient, and redundant population of the bats to be established. The distribution objective for the bat species is to restore/maintain to the extent of occurrence prior to the onset of white-nose syndrome (EC 2015). High priority approaches identified to address the threats to the survival and recovery of the bats species include initiatives aimed at monitoring and surveys, research, habitat and species conservation and management, law and policy, education and awareness, stewardship, and developing conservation partnerships (EC 2015).

The endangered status of the mainland moose reflects its small and declining size, which is the result of several complex, poorly understood, but interrelated factors (McNeil 2013). The potential threats and limiting factors that face the mainland moose include disease, habitat loss, fragmentation from development and forestry practices, poaching, vehicular collisions, climate change, and deficiencies in trace elements and/or elevated levels of toxic heavy metal uptake resulting from acidification (NSDNR 2007). The importance of each of these factors, how they interact with one another, and how they vary across different geographic regions of the province is largely unknown, but threats to habitat may be increasingly important (McNeil 2013). The stated goal of the provincial recovery plan for the mainland moose (NSDNR 2007) is to “maintain the population of mainland moose in Nova Scotia within their current range”. The identified recovery objectives are to: 1) maintain and enhance the current population and distribution; 2) mitigate threats that limit recovery; 3) initiate research to address priority knowledge gaps; and 4) maintain and enhance habitat. The action plan (McNeil 2013) identifies five tasks to fill knowledge gaps and begin to work towards recovery. These include: 1) provide reliable data on the distribution, abundance and population structure of mainland moose in Nova Scotia; 2) develop tools to support decisions in forest management planning at multiple spatial scales for moose habitat requirements; 3) undertake studies on threats and limiting factors to enable an understanding of the causes of moose population decline; 4) provide and implement management strategies leading to the recovery of the moose population; and 5) raise public awareness, build partnerships and encourage stewardship of mainland moose.

7.5.2 Potential Interactions

Potential interactions from GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities with onshore wildlife may occur from the removal of above-ground onshore facilities and the abandonment of the buried onshore structures in place (e.g., collision, noise, physical disturbance or changes to hydrology). The installation of grout plugs (or equivalent) was identified as a mitigative measure since the 2006 EA Report. An additional decommissioning detail added since 2006 is the potential recovery of residual gas during the option for offshore-to-onshore GEP flushing and flaring or cold venting with a small portable flare stack. Accidental events during decommissioning and abandonment activities have potential to interact with the onshore environment through forest fires and spills of fuel, lubricants, or hydraulic fluid.

7.5.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Predictions

The assessment of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on the onshore environment in the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report (refer to Sections 8.8.4.3 and 8.8.4.3 of the 2006 EA Report and Sections 6.3.8.3 and 6.3.8.4 of the 2002 CSR) remains valid, with the exception of additional potential

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 76

effects from the option to flare the residual gas during onshore GEP flushing, if that option is selected. The effects of decommissioning activities will primarily be short-term sensory disturbance to wildlife and physical alteration to targeted areas within the Study Area.

The onshore pipeline RoW was re-vegetated after construction in 2010 and has been allowed to return to a natural state, thereby reducing the influence of the Development on wildlife habitat availability and usage. Grout plugs (or equivalent) will be installed at the Highway 316 crossing and the Sable Road crossing to reduce the extent of disturbance and to prevent ground subsidence and unnatural drainage of wet areas as the pipeline corrodes and weakens. In addition, if the pipeline is flushed from onshore to offshore, a temporary laydown area will be created near landfall to accommodate the pipeline flushing equipment. Excavation required for these activities will result in physical disturbance to the terrestrial environment, however, the disturbance will be localized, short-duration, outside of wetlands, and in areas that have been excavated before. Standard erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented and monitored through onsite environmental inspections. Following decommissioning of the onshore facilities, the GEP terminus site and adjacent parking lot, beach valve station, as well as all newly excavated areas (i.e., for grout plug installation and temporary laydown area) will be restored and re-vegetated with native species seeds/transplants. Required post-abandonment monitoring for the onshore site will be provided in the onshore EPP/EEMP. Following decommissioning and abandonment, the absence of aboveground facilities, re-vegetation and lack of human disturbance in the onshore pipeline RoW may cause areas previously abandoned by wildlife to be reused.

Onshore flaring during decommissioning for the option for offshore-to-onshore GEP flushing may attract migratory birds and result in increased mortality risk through incineration. A number of factors influence the potential severity of bird interactions with flares, including the time of year, location, height, light and cross- sectional areas of the obstacle, and weather conditions (Weir 1976; Wiese et al. 2001). Potential effects are greatest during the night when migrating birds may be attracted to the lighting, particularly when large numbers of birds fly relatively low as a result of unfavorable weather conditions. During conditions of drizzle and fog, moisture droplets in the air refract light and greatly increase the illuminated area, thus enhancing attraction. Mortality risk with flares and other lighted structures may also be higher in the latter part of the night as most nocturnal migrants climb to their migrating height soon after takeoff and then undertake a gradual descent shortly after midnight (Weir 1976). If the option for offshore-to-onshore GEP flushing is selected and recovered residual gas is flared (and not cold vented), a small portable flare stack (5-10 m) will be used and the duration of flaring will be less than a week. This activity is unlikely to cause important effects to birds; however, a combination of nocturnal flaring and inclement weather conditions during peak migration periods could result in a potential for a bird mortality event. If this unlikely situation were to occur, personnel at the site would take action to discontinue flaring activity.

7.5.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment

Given the character and mitigation measures of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities, they are unlikely to cause a decline or change in abundance or distribution of a population over one or more generations such that natural recruitment may not re-establish the population to its original level, or avoidance of the area becomes permanent. Furthermore, decommissioning activities are unlikely to result in a serious injury to or the loss of one or more individuals from within a population of a species having

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 77

special conservation status, or any substantial change in distribution, migration or behavioural patterns; or the loss of critical habitat. Of exception, a combination of nighttime flaring and inclement weather conditions during peak bird migration periods have the potential to result in a significant effect to migratory birds if it resulted in mortality to species with special conservation status. Accidental events during decommissioning activities are unlikely to affect regional populations of rare or sensitive species or critical habitat within the onshore environment and are not likely to be significant.

The modifications assessed in this section have resulted in the same conclusion as the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA with respect to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities; no significant effects on the onshore environment are likely.

7.6 Indigenous4 and Commercial Fisheries

Given the location of the activities proposed for decommissioning and abandonment of Deep Panuke, potential impacts on fisheries, fish and fish habitat have been identified as one of the primary concerns of Indigenous groups and stakeholders to date. Fisheries are an important component of the socio-economic environment in Nova Scotia. The potential interactions between the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and fisheries in the development area remain the same as described in the 2006 EA Report; however, further analysis is required for updated fisheries data since the preparation of the 2006 EA Report (especially mobile fishing gear) and updated pipeline span status data. In the 2006 EA Report, this VC was referred to as the Commercial Fisheries and Aquaculture VC. This has been updated to Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries to include Indigenous fishing (including commercial communal and food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) fisheries) activity in the Deep Panuke Development area because the assessment of adverse effects and mitigation are closely related to commercial fishing activity.

7.6.1 Baseline Conditions Update

7.6.1.1 Indigenous Peoples

The following section describes the current known use of lands, waters, and resources by Indigenous groups in the Maritimes for traditional purposes. This may change in the future. As described in Section 5.1, Indigenous groups that have the potential to interact with decommissioning and abandonment activities include the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia, the Mi’gmaq of New Brunswick, the Wolastoqey of New Brunswick, and the Mi’kmaq of Prince Edward Island. The land of the Mi’kmaq (known as Mi’kma’ki) includes the four Atlantic provinces and northern Maine and is held in communal ownership with the belief that the Mi’kmaq were, and continue to be, the caretakers of the land (Denny et al. 2015). They would often move between districts, living a nomadic existence that ensured renewal of the land and gifts (Denny and Fanning 2016). Indigenous communities have developed an intimate understanding of the natural world and the relationships between living and non-living to ensure co-existence and survival for humans and animals (Denny et al. 2015; Denny and Fanning 2016). The collection and preservation of traditional knowledge is important and is not only information about species or habitats, but the collective knowledge derived from

4 Indigenous Fisheries refers to fisheries carried out under a licence issued by Fisheries and Oceans Canada pursuant to the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations (fishing for food, social and ceremonial purposes). Commercial communal licences are provided to Indigenous communities to participate in the general commercial fishery, pursuant to the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 78

a lifetime of observing and interacting within the natural environment (Denny and Fanning 2016). They were, by nature, sustainable users rather than conservationists unless it was necessary to do so (Denny and Fanning 2016).

A Mi’kmaq Ecological Knowledge Study (MEKS) was completed in 2008 (MGC 2008) prior to the construction and operation of the Deep Panuke Development. The MEKS considered the land and water that the development used and identified the Mi’kmaq traditional use activity that has, or is currently taking place in this area. As described in the MEKS, the Study Area for the Deep Panuke Development would have been used by the Mi’kmaq and settled on as part of their lifestyle pattern and traditional land use activities. Onshore traditional activity included deer hunting and rabbit, partridge and porcupine harvesting (MGS 2008). Other hunting activities that were identified in the area, although occurred less frequently, included the hunting of duck, goose, pheasant, muskrat, and fox (MGC 2008). Plant species harvested included blueberry, flagroot, strawberry, apples, sweetgrass, raspberry, alder, and gooseberries. During decommissioning activities, onshore facilities will be removed and will be restored in accordance with applicable regulations. Following decommissioning, re-vegetation and lack of human disturbance may cause areas previously abandoned by wildlife to be reused. Given the primary interactions with the marine environment during decommissioning activities, the following baseline discussion is therefore focused on traditional and commercial communal fisheries.

Indigenous Fisheries

Indigenous communities in the Maritimes provinces assert both Aboriginal rights5 and treaty rights6. Aboriginal rights are the inherent rights of the Aboriginal people of Canada that came from prior use and historical occupation of the lands and waters of what is now known as Canada (Denny and Fanning 2016). Aboriginal and treaty rights are protected under the Constitution Act, 1982 (Section 35), and this has been affirmed in various Supreme Court of Canada decisions, such as the Sparrow decision (1992) and the Marshall decision (1999). The right to fish for food, social and ceremonial (FSC) purposes is an Aboriginal right, and the right to fish for a moderate livelihood is a treaty right (Denny and Fanning 2016).

Traditional fisheries include those harvesting activities to collect resources that provide nourishment, or for use in traditional ceremonies and social events. Fishing for FSC purposes has priority over commercial and recreational fisheries, with its importance extending beyond a food source. The traditional harvest of natural resources, such as fish, also has a relationship to socio-economic, human health, and cultural values. It is believed that the land, and resources within are not commodities to be bought and sold, but considered gifts from the Creator (MELC 2014).

Traditional fisheries include those harvesting activities to collect resources that provide nourishment, or for use in traditional ceremonies and social events. Fishing for FSC purposes has priority over commercial and

5 Aboriginal rights refer to any activity which has an element of a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right. They generally refer to the right to exercise traditional activities, such as fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering for food, social and ceremonial purposes (including spiritual and cultural use). R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507, para 46.

6 The Peace and Friendship Treaties include the rights to hunt, fish and gather in order to obtain a moderate livelihood. R. v. Donald Marshall (1999).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 79

recreational fisheries, with its importance extending beyond a food source. The FSC fishery is also related to socio-economic, human health, and cultural values. It is believed that the land, and resources within are not commodities to be bought and sold but considered gifts from the Creator (MELC 2014).

Also, following the Marshall decision, the Marshall Response Initiative was implemented in 2000 (replaced by the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative in 2007) to create specific commercial-capacity, communally-owned fisheries in First Nations communities in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and parts of the Gaspe region of Quebec, and, to increase sustainable economic development and employment opportunities (BP 2016). Capacity building through this initiative includes transferring retired licences, buying new licences, acquiring equipment and boats, harvest and management training, business planning and operation (onshore and offshore).

The Maritimes Indigenous communities which participate in commercial communal fisheries have invested substantial resources to build their fishing businesses, with 1,529 Indigenous people employed by commercial communal fisheries, according to 2015 employment figures (BP 2016). This has created direct employment benefits of $40 million in the Atlantic region, and an overall value of $100 million to the Indigenous fishery (BP 2016). Commercial communal fisheries make up a large percentage of sole-source revenue for many communities, used to fund community ventures, social programs, and benefits. Potential impacts to commercial communal fisheries, therefore, are much broader than direct economic impacts -- extending to social and cultural programs and practices (BP 2016).

As previously explained, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issues two types of communal fishing licences to Indigenous groups under the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations, which allow fishing for either FSC or commercial purposes. These licences are held under the name of the Indigenous community and not under the name of a specific individual. Details of the FSC and commercial communal fisheries are provided below. To obtain baseline information on Indigenous fishing activity and licences and use of species which may be affected by the decommissioning and abandonment activities, publicly available information was reviewed, information was gathered during engagement activities (refer to Section 5), applicable offshore environmental assessments completed for projects on the Scotian Shelf were reviewed, and licencing data were obtained from DFO Maritimes Region and DFO Gulf Region. The licencing data from DFO indicate permitted fisheries by Indigenous community but do not necessarily imply actual fishing activity. Table 7.6.1 identifies the Indigenous groups that fall within the DFO Maritimes Region and DFO Gulf Region.

Table 7.6.1 Identified Indigenous Groups within the DFO Maritimes and Gulf Regions

Maritimes Region Gulf Region Acadia First Nation Abegweit First Nation Afton (Paq’tnkek) First Nation Buctouche First Nation Annapolis Valley First Nation Eel River Bar First Nation Apaqtukewag Fishery Elsipogtog First Nation Bear River First Nation Esgenoôpetitj First Nation Chapel Island (Potlotek) Band Council Indian Island First Nation Eskasoni First Nation Lennox Island First Nation Fort Folly First Nation Native Council of PEI

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 80

Table 7.6.1 Identified Indigenous Groups within the DFO Maritimes and Gulf Regions

Maritimes Region Gulf Region Glooscap First Nation NB Aboriginal Peoples Council Kingsclear First Nation Pabineau First Nation Membertou Band Council Pictou Landing First Nation Millbrook First Nation Tobique First Nation Mime’j Seafoods Ltd. (NCNS) NB Aboriginal Peoples Council Oromocto First Nation Shubenacadie (Sipekne’katik) Band Saint Mary’s First Nation Tobique First Nation Wagmatcook First Nation Waycobah (We’koqma’q) First Nation Woodstock First Nation

Food, Social, and Ceremonial (FSC) Fisheries

Within the DFO Maritimes Region, there are 11 Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq communities, and six New Brunswick Indigenous communities that hold FSC licences in the Scotian Shelf area. The NCNS also holds FSC licences in the area. A Traditional Use Study (TUS) was completed for the Scotian Basin Exploration Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement in 2016. The Regional Assessment Area identified for the Scotian Basin TUS covers the Scotian Shelf, within which the Deep Panuke Development area falls. The TUS noted that there are 44 species (34 fish species and 10 invertebrate species) harvested for FSC purposes by First Nations throughout Nova Scotia (BP 2016). Only seven of the fish species and three of invertebrate species were noted to be harvested within the Scotian Basin Regional Assessment Area, including American eel, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic mackerel, brown trout, flounder, gaspereau, tuna, American lobster, clams, and scallops (MGS and UINR 2016). As noted in the 2008 MEKS (MGC 2008), fishing activities for traditional use are pursued for FSC purposes in the Deep Panuke Development area. Species that are currently fished for FSC in the Deep Panuke Development area include salmon, eel, trout, haddock, flounder, and some shellfish (MGC 2008). This may change in the future.

Indigenous communities in the DFO Gulf Region do not hold FSC licences within Scotian Shelf area (BP 2016); however, it is important to note that these communities may harvest species that migrate through the Deep Panuke Development area such as the American eel (migrate along the Scotian Shelf from March to July) and Atlantic salmon (migrate along the Scotian Shelf from March to November).

During engagement activities (see Section 5.4), two species were noted as having particular traditional importance: the American eel and the Atlantic salmon, although it was expressed that all species and resources are important to Indigenous peoples. Life histories for these species is provided in Section 7.1.1. As discussed in Table 7.1.1, both species have the potential to migrate through the Deep Panuke Development area.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 81

The lifecycle of American eels begins in the Sargasso Sea and as tiny larvae, they drift for months in the sea to the Bras d’Or Lakes where they are called glass eels because they are transparent (UINR 2015a). They move to freshwater, living in rivers, ponds, and lakes, where they gain colour to become elvers. As they grow for up to 25 years in the freshwater environment, they become yellow eels, and then silver eels before migrating back to the Sargasso Sea to spawn and die (UINR 2015a). The Mi’kmaq have shared a cultural and spiritual relationship with American eel (or Katew as it is known to the Mi’kmaq), which are used as an important food source, an ingredient in medicines, and for ceremonial purposes (UINR 2015a). Katew were often the main source of food during winter, consumed three times a day for days to weeks (Denny 2014). The Mi’kmaq practiced “take what is needed” ethics, not wasting or over-exploiting the eel (Denny 2014). All parts of the Katew are used, including skins for boot/moccasin soles, ties, binding, and medicine, tails as bait, fat to cook other foods, and oils to treat ear infections (UINR 2015a). The eel is available year-round in the freshwater environment and is a dependable important source of food (Denny 2014).

Salmon spend most of their lives in brooks and rivers, with a rocky bottom of gravel and cobble being ideal habitat (UINR 2015b). Salmon (or Plamu as it is known to the Mi’kmaq) are an important food source for the Mi’kmaq, mostly caught using rods, spear, snare, seines, or weirs. Plamu were historically a staple, dependable and predicable food source (Denny and Fanning 2016). Rivers where salmon were fished were shared among families, and sometimes other tribes, and fished on a rotational basis (Ladner 2005, Marshall 2014 in Denny and Fanning 2016). However, due to the decline in salmon, they are generally reserved for special occasions such as feasts, powwows, and other celebrations where the serving of a large fish like salmon is preferred (UINR 2015b; Denny and Fanning 2016). The experience of the salmon harvest is important to the Mi’kmaq; it is part of their culture as many Mi’kmaq grew up harvesting Plamu with family, learning the harvesting practices and about sustainability (UINR 2015b). Mi’kmaq use all parts of the salmon, with little to no waste and any unusable parts would be buried so that the spirit and body of the salmon would be recycled (UINR 2015b; Denny and Fanning 2016). Netukulimk, the traditional Mi’kmaq concept of conservation, was and continues to be the guiding principle to harvesting salmon, with fishers governing themselves in accordance with their interactions and relationships with their environment (Giles et al. 2016 in Denny and Fanning 2016).

Commercial Communal Fisheries

The Deep Panuke Development area falls within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd, and 4Wk. Table 7.6.2 summarizes data provided by DFO Maritimes Region and includes the species and location of licence areas by group for licences that overlap with the Deep Panuke Development area. Table 1 in Appendix D provides a complete list of licences held by the Maritimes Indigenous groups. There are 22 Indigenous groups that hold commercial communal fishing licences issued by the DFO Maritimes. This includes licences for groundfish, lobster, sea scallop, snow crab, Jonah crab, herring, mackerel, quahog, tuna, sea urchins, shrimp, swordfish, and squid. While these Indigenous groups may hold a licence to fish, not all Indigenous groups choose to fish those licences at the present time.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 82

Table 7.6.2 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities within the Deep Panuke Development Area

Licence Area Description Indigenous Group / Species Fished Bolded text indicates licences overlapping Deep Panuke Development area ACADIA FIRST NATION Groundfish, unspecified Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring Herring Fishing Area (HFA) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Mackerel Mackerel Fishing Area (MFA) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Tuna, unspecified NAFO 4VSWX, 5Z ANNAPOLIS VALLEY FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 APAQTUKEWAG FISHERIES Snow Crab Crab Fishing Area (CFA) 24 BEAR RIVER FIRST NATION Tuna, Unspecified NAFO 4VSWX, 5Z POTLOTEK (CHAPEL ISLAND) BAND COUNCIL Snow Crab CFA 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE ESKASONI FIRST NATION Snow Crab CFA 23, 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 FORT FOLLY FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE GLOOSCAP FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4X, 5Y, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Mackerel MFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Unspecified NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE KINGSCLEAR FIRST NATION Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 83

Table 7.6.2 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities within the Deep Panuke Development Area

Licence Area Description Indigenous Group / Species Fished Bolded text indicates licences overlapping Deep Panuke Development area MEMBERTOU BAND COUNCIL Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4T, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Mackerel MFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Tuna, Unspecified NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE MILLBROOK FIRST NATION Snow Crab CFA 23, 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Hagfish (Slime eel) NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Unspecified NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE MIME'J SEAFOODS LTD. (NCNS) Snow Crab NAFO 4X, CFA 24 Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE NB ABORIGINAL PEOPLES COUNCIL Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 OROMOCTO FIRST NATION Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 SIPEKNE’KATIK (SHUBENACADIE) BAND COUNCIL Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE ST. MARY'S FIRST NATION Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE TOBIQUE FIRST NATION Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 WAGMATCOOK FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE WAYCOBAH (WE’KOQMA’Q) FIRST NATION Snow Crab CFA 23, 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 84

Table 7.6.2 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities within the Deep Panuke Development Area

Licence Area Description Indigenous Group / Species Fished Bolded text indicates licences overlapping Deep Panuke Development area Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE WOODSTOCK FIRST NATION Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 NAFO Divisions 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, Swordfish 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Source: Data courtesy of DFO

Within the DFO Gulf Region, there are several Indigenous groups with commercial communal licences in the Study Area. As shown in Table 7.6.3, most of these licences for fishing within the Deep Panuke Development area (which falls within NAFO Division 4W) are for tuna.

Table 7.6.3 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Gulf Region for Indigenous Communities within the Deep Panuke Development Area

Licence Area Description Bolded text indicates licences overlapping Deep Panuke Aboriginal Organization / Species Fished Development area TOBIQUE FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs, 4X, 5 PABINEAU FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs, 4X, 5 ESGENOÔPETITJ FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 ELSIPOGTOG FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 INDIAN ISLAND FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 NB ABORIGINAL PEOPLES COUNCIL Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 BOUCTOUCHE FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 EEL RIVER BAR FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 PICTOU LANDING FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 ABEGWEIT FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 LENNOX ISLAND FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 85

Table 7.6.3 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Gulf Region for Indigenous Communities within the Deep Panuke Development Area

Licence Area Description Bolded text indicates licences overlapping Deep Panuke Aboriginal Organization / Species Fished Development area NATIVE COUNCIL OF PEI Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 GLOOSCAP FIRST NATION (MARITIMES REGION) Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 ST. MARY'S FIRST NATION (MARITIMES REGION) Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 Source: Data courtesy of DFO

As noted in the 2008 MEKS completed for the Deep Panuke Development, since 1999, following the Marshall decision, the Mi’kmaq fish or have fished commercially in the Deep Panuke Development area (MGC 2008). Species commercially harvested includes lobster, snow crab, swordfish, tuna, shrimp, scallop, and urchin. Other key species harvested include mackerel and herring, with mackerel harvesting primarily occurring in the inshore waters, and herring harvesting occurring in the offshore waters (MGC 2008). As noted in the TUS, there are 25 species being fished by Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq First Nation communities under commercial communal licences within the Scotian Shelf area (BP 2016). The Native Council of Nova Scotia (NCNS) also holds commercial communal licences which allows them to harvest approximately 11 species (including by-catch species) (Table 7.6.3).

First Nation communities in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island also harvest species on the Scotian Shelf, with licences administered through DFO Gulf Region. The key species harvested by these communities within the 4W NAFO Division is tuna (known to the Mi’kmaq as Amlamupej). The bluefin tuna is an important commercial activity for many First Nations in Atlantic Canada which is of benefit to the fishermen and their community (PEI Fishermen’s Association 2012). Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick (WNNB) have identified the bluefin tuna as an important species for which fisheries are located primarily inshore and within shallower water along the Scotian Shelf and further offshore beyond the Scotian Shelf (BP 2016).

7.6.1.2 Commercial Fisheries

The Scotian Shelf is dominated by commercial fisheries activity, including groundfish, pelagic and shellfish fisheries. Data on commercial fisheries were obtained from DFO and based on the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Unit Areas. The Deep Panuke Development area falls within NAFO Units 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd, and 4Wk. Figures 1 to 11 in Appendix E provide the locations of catch for the offshore and nearshore commercial groundfish, pelagic and shellfish fisheries in the area of the Deep Panuke Development for the years 2010 to 2014. Inclusion of 2014 catch data is pending from DFO (Table 7.6.4). The geographic data associated with the catch do not necessarily represent the actual location of catch but may represent an average location that has a start point or an end point for the given fishing effort or gear (e.g., set longlines or trawls). Landings data for these NAFO Unit Areas are provided in Table 7.6.4.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 86

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) NAFO Unit 4Wd Alewife/Gaspareau 870 540 520 832 135 114 270 108 Catfish 0 0 0 0 38 17 0 0 (Striped/Wolffish) Clam, Soft-Shell 13,227 28,565 0 0 34,627 74,382 25,018 53,144 Cod, Atlantic 456 692 0 0 633 1,293 1,831 2,747 Crab, Atlantic Rock 3,971 81 7,427 103,846 8,954 9,637 5,694 6,311 Crab, Jonah 658 13 0 0 29 41 540 743 Crab, Queen/Snow 1,199,051 4,768,687 435 695 1,895,444 9,415,585 2,171,709 8,697,580 Cusk 238 204 0 0 7 7 58 53 Eels 4,469 18,573 3,063 17,895 4,191 30,607 1,447 14,127 Elvers 2 2,961 59 162,608 18 98,742 98 273,539 Haddock 3 4 9 18 264 220 Hagfish/Slime Eel 0 0 16,117 16,762 0 0 31,847 35,703 Hake, White 0 0 0 0 41 47 0 0 Halibut – Atlantic 7,089 71,687 7,427 103,846 21,872 250,790 36,136 450,641 Lobster 2,623,900 23,075,858 2,233,040 23,534,451 2,490,323 26,682,135 2,101,691 20,967,239 Mackerel 5297 4,552 2,302 2,762 164,546 249,097 11,230 10,830 Redfish 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 4 Scallop, Sea 26,785 36,369 16,189 24,809 18,218 41,559 23,370 61,207 Shark, Blue 27 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shark, Porbeagle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shrimp, Pandalus 1,520,300 2,674,307 1,035,879 2,274,519 872,090 1,870,933 1,138,049 2,460,030 Borealis Shrimp, Pandalus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400,111 3,415,775 Montagui

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 87

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) Smelts 41 61 120 189 18 30 60 94 Tuna, Bluefin 16,606 395,751 13,649 327,507 12,440 305307 12,844 281,248 Turbot/Greenland 0 0 435 695 228 382 1,011 2,055 Halibut Winter Flounder 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 228 TOTAL 5,422,990 31,078,922 3,336,662 26,571,41 5,523,862 39,030,722 6,963,424 36,733,626 NAFO Unit 4We Catfish (Striped 7 3 0 0 11 7 3 1 /Wolffish) Cod, Atlantic 10 18 412 799 365 749 504 768 Crab, Atlantic Rock 0 0 0 0 232 205 0 0 Crab, Queen/Snow 3,828,007 14,936,509 3,418,930 21,147,718 2,637,915 13,124,547 2,435,308 7,328,977 Cusk 1 1 67 70 81 82 130 136 Greysole/Witch 0 0 20 21 3 3 23 136 Haddock 1 2 12 21 28 58 618 866 Hagfish/Slime Eel 16,821 2 0 0 15,684 15,842 49,996 57,243 Hake, Red 0 0 4 4 2 3 0 0 Hake, Silver 0 0 1,853 1,336 2,070 1,325 0 0 Hake, White 71 106 785 853 1,409 1,549 105 140 Halibut – Atlantic 11,152 120,492 20,656 272,306 34,015 409,574 42,520 567,898 Mackerel 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 0 Monkfish (American 0 0 41 114 0 0 1 0 Angler) Pollock 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 Redfish 0 0 0 0 3 1 59 48 Scallop, Sea 0 0 339 523 164,113 344,662 0 0

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 88

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) Sculpin 0 0 0 0 121 134 53 45 Sea Cucumber 802,641 321,057 793,042 323,361 927,747 445,268 802,438 393,191 Shrimp, Pandalus 1,346,748 2,338,286 1,308,624 2,517,403 1,124,388 2,297,310 655,552 1,101,699 Borealis Tilefish 23 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuna, Bluefin 102 2,673 0 0 0 0 196 3,861 Turbot/Greenland 26 50 357 469 266 463 290 587 Halibut Winter Flounder 0 0 0 0 7 14 51 72 Yellowtail Flounder 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 TOTAL 6,005,611 17,719,264 5,545,152 24,265,008 4,908,460 16,641,786 3,987,863 9,455,683 NAFO Unit 4Wf Cod, Atlantic 154 272 64 119 53 77 83 121 Crab, Queen/Snow 411,506 1,590,640 142,349 794,092 195,780 985,493 239,776 1,107,957 Cusk 0 0 135 114 0 0 133 115 Greysole/Witch 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 11 Haddock 409 518 0 0 0 0 139 210 Hagfish/Slime Eel 0 0 33,726 35,050 139,961 143,142 0 0 Hake, Red 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 Hake, Silver 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,228 3,044 Hake, White 0 0 593 503 0 0 238 233 Halibut – Atlantic 1,452 15,136 1,055 13,299 3,096 35,240 4,062 50,725 Herring, Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 5 Pollock 11 12. 0 0 0 0 3 3 Redfish 0 0 28 22 0 0 0 0

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 89

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) Scallop, Sea 17,286 22,724 0 0 20,940 43,978 171,571 452,506 Sculpin 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 42 Sea Cucumber 567,942 227,177 833,875 340,222 600,070 291,037 655,786 321,306 Shark, Mako 0 0 113 203 350 641 240 440 Shrimp, Pandalus 0 0 25,348 51,452 1,645 2,353 1,952 3,238 Borealis Swordfish 2114 17,201 930 6,250 813 5,437 12,633 99,408 Tuna, Albacore 64 86 0 0 0 0 306 674 Tuna, Bigeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 Tuna, Bluefin 592 12,278 0 0 0 0 281 4,600 Turbot/Greenland 0 0 0 0 41 72 5 11 Halibut Whelk 0 0 0 0 292 291 8 0 White Marlin 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Yellowtail Flounder 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 15 TOTAL 1,001,530 1,886,044 1,038,216 1,241,325 963,041 1,507,760 1,091,560 2,044,680 NAFO Unit 4Wh Alewife/Gaspareau 15,744 9,761 13,518 12,325 22,232 5,248 30,195 12,396 American Plaice 0 0 0 0 7 14 0 0 American Shad 0 0 75 28 197 286 444 630 Argentine 39 20 0 0 0 0 35 7 Catfish (Striped 17 20 11 10 6 0 0 /Wolffish) Cod, Atlantic 1,905 3,081 1052 1,919 770 1,320 448 661 Crab, Jonah 0 0 0 0 154 210 0 0 Crab, Queen/Snow 14,359 55,051 10,179 70,027 9,542 47,328 0 0

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 90

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) Cusk 335 292 346 360 212 206 0 0 Dogfish 144 55 66 25 74 11 63 34 Flounder, Unspecified 328 576 195 325 139 242 44 60 Greysole/Witch 7,184 10,688 7,718 2,331 15,010 6,850 7,861 7,719 Groundfish, 370 462 198 5 84 1 418 4 Unspecified Haddock 704 978 562 1,003 3,088 5,230 5,888 8,239 Hagfish/Slime Eel 485,129 13,952 80,067 83,149 136,213 137,761 540,188 610,173 Hake, Red 24,984 1,080 53,151 50,962 82,950 46,728 72,763 43,110 Hake, Silver 1,655,344 1,200,648 2,248,373 1,607,843 4,534,000 3,086,909 2,576,421 1,883,915 Hake, White 1,460 1,600 1,427 1,782 1,360 1,454 1,774 1,934 Halibut – Atlantic 44,754 446,592 28,331 351,519 20,105 254,160 21,058 282,282 Herring, Atlantic 84,301 18,647 86,869 25,229 45,046 15,696 180,865 71,642 Mackerel 263 123 32 39 2,652 3,789 2,774 1,918 Mahi Mahi/Dolphinfish 0 0 0 0 49 283 0 0 Monkfish (American 270 347 7,721 10,051 116 159 623 487 Angler) Pollock 2,164 2,335 5,746 5,530 3,774 3,763 3,372 3,048 Redfish 10,970 7,828 11,581 7,950 21,067 13,664 12,940 11,540 Scallop, Sea 169,102 222,296 92,938 143,115 129,323 273,825 41,929 110,914 Sculpin 12 22 0 0 14 15 552 42 Shark, Mako 76 139 25 45 1,569 2,894 182 356 Shark, Porbeagle 1,994 2,748 309 365 1,485 1,448 1,857 1,734 Shark, Unspecified 74 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skate 3 1 0 0 0 0 20 16

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 91

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) Squid, Illex/Shortfin 5,310 85 4,413 59 10,168 704 Squid, Loliog/Longfin 0 0 0 0 642 111 Squid, Unspecified 0 0 155 1 0 0 1,556 196 Swordfish 18,498 160,712 3,066 19,865 189,148 1,329,186 90,757 664,438 Tuna, Albacore 0 0 0 0 213 351 0 0 Tuna, Bigeye 0 0 0 0 264 2,132 0 0 Tuna, Bluefin 4,124 103,123 1,258 32,276 8,791 203,314 4,578 70,579 Tuna, Unspecified 0 0 0 0 90 1,079 0 0 Tuna, Yellowfin 0 0 0 0 103 849 0 0 Turbot/Greenland 53 81 19 30 53 83 0 0 Halibut Whelk 0 0 0 0 46 45 1 0 White Marlin 0 0 0 0 22 53 0 0 Winter Flounder 0 0 0 0 59 112 0 0 Yellowtail Flounder 0 0 0 0 73 10 163 162 TOTAL 2,550,014 2,263,426 2,659,410 2,428,170 5,240,914 5,447,527 3,599,769 3,788,236 NAFO Unit 4Wk Alewife/Gaspareau 37,781 27,912 35,825 32,495 46,889 29,627 53,172 30,102 American Plaice 0 0 0 0 11 22 0 0 American Shad 1,172 1,641 975 1,821 48 70 92 130 Argentine 31 2 0 0 0 0 49 11 Catfish (Striped 256 76 70 39 55 30 41 18 /Wolffish) Clam, Bar 50 115 934 1,281 454 998 0 0 Clam, Soft-Shell 30,081 65,157 149,240 329,106 11,987 261,883 166,270 381,189

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 92

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) Clam, Unspecified 1,579 3,129 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cod, Atlantic 18,252 29,992 10,714 15,773 9,259 15,739 7,437 11,351 Crab, Atlantic Rock 7,858 883 5,760 5,772 5,333 5,004 4,496 5,502 Crab, Jonah 1,937 38 11,122 12,673 1,419 1,760 1,733 2,389 Crab, Queen/Snow 22,123 88,826 163,842 1,117,398 172,223 855,363 25,025 77,370 Cusk 4,394 3,801 3,864 3,707 4,434 3,839 5,793 5,445 Dogfish 254 129 91 35 171 68 256 53 Eels 88 305 7,300 38,618 5,637 40,370 2 12 Elvers 85 117,388 488 539,251 699 3,794,247 944 5,426,808 Fins, Fish Unspecified 64 977 1 16 0 0 2 35 Flounder, Unspecified 144 233 111 190 29 53 35 48 Greysole/Witch 17,418 22,862 9,125 3,089 9,298 6,031 14,724 14,464 Groundfish, 41 41 428 18 67 1 261 31 Unspecified Haddock 3,153 4,348 1,658 2,853 4,980 9,745 10,772 16,671 Hagfish/Slime Eel 47,781 12 112,664 117,172 0 0 175,783 194,710 Hake, Red 54,114 2,620 51,987 47,731 42,536 28,648 96,203 52,708 Hake, Silver 3,302,244 2,366,583 2,703,211 1,956,736 2,499,895 1,713,663 2,681,818 1,965,38 Hake, White 58,800 66,739 18,867 22,279 6,174 6,443 4,468 4,814 Halibut – Atlantic 62,155 588,995 65,586 794,420 65,607 766,502 97,834 1,343,636 Herring, Atlantic 9,442,692 2,141,308 11,110,824 3,049,845 1,677,634 677,843 2,529,260 1,112,593 Lobster 1,256,451 10,761,699 1,333,070 13,579,377 1,524,721 16,437,878 1,298,028 1,343,636 Mackerel 63,532 55,677 12,330 15,059 6,800 8,800 2,312 1,619 Monkfish (American 484 725 303 406 103 113 526 380 Angler)

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 93

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) Pollock 127,384 139,113 35,452 32,970 29,942 31,798 11,464 10,758 Redfish 462,237 321,168 609,395 470,715 510,426 295,720 1,083,005 918,572 Scallop, Sea 2,321 3,139 1,851 2,853 1,745 3,936 2,770 7,177 Sculpin 103 12 41 48 22 25 0 0 Sea Urchins 6,900 0 0 0 3,731 10,780 3,674 12,933 Shark, Blue 27 17 0 0 102 66 19 13 Shark, Mako 2,451 6,509 635 1,27 2,835 4,665 423 1,341 Shark, Porbeagle 23,399 35,691 4,485 6,888 4,714 4,584 2,607 2,387 Shark, Unspecified 349 314 0 0 72 151 0 0 Skate 13 4 16 0 0 0 110 92 Smelts 23 34 123 194 248 389 86 136 Squid, Illex/Shortfin 4,428 246 8,674 146 3578 206 3,054 261 Squid, Loligo/Longfin 0 0 0 0 153 34 0 0 Squid, Unspecified 0 0 905 23 0 0 1,439 121 Striped Bass 33 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swordfish 150,946 1,158,749 89,918 581,705 149,320 950,892 109,587 855,151 Tuna, Albacore 61 263 0 0 807 2,027 424 823 Tuna, Bluefin 34,723 622,848 21,309 462,117 40,165 885,752 32,101 588,444 Tuna, Yellowfin 35 271 0 0 239 337 0 0 Turbot/Greenland 290 356 112 153 143 272 91 186 Halibut White Marlin 0 0 0 0 26 60 0 0 Winter Flounder 0 0 18 0 27 52 0 0 Wolffish, Unspecified 0 0 34 19 0 0 0 0 Yellowtail Flounder 0 0 5 6 23 0.07 0 0

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 94

Table 7.6.4 Landed Value of Fisheries Harvest within NAFO Unit Areas 4Wf, 4We, 4Wh, 4Wd and 4Wk*

2010 2011 2012 2013 Species Value Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight (kg) Weight (kg) ($CAD) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) (kg) ($CAD) TOTAL 15,250,737 18,640,984 16,583,363 23,246,270 6,844,781 26,856,480 8,428,190 14,389,503

Source: Data provided courtesy of DFO. * Inclusion of 2014 data is pending from DFO

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 95

Within these NAFO areas, invertebrate species, particularly lobster and snow crab, had the largest landing values, though they represented a smaller amount of the total landing weight. As shown on Figure 1 in Appendix E, lobster harvesting is focused in the inshore areas, with some harvesting occurring near the Deep Panuke GEP. Offshore lobster harvesting occurs near Georges Basin, and is outside of the Deep Panuke Development area. Figure 2 in Appendix E illustrates the area of snow crab harvesting. As observed in this figure, harvesting generally occurs to the east of the GEP, with some harvesting occurring near the GEP approximately 30 km from shore (near KP 30).

Other invertebrate fisheries in the NAFO areas include soft-shell clam, Jonah crab, rock crab, sea scallop, sea cucumber, and shrimp. As shown in Figure 7.6.1, mobile gear fishing activity for invertebrates (clams, sea scallops, and sea cucumber) in the NAFO 4W region based on DFO Fisheries Observer Program data (2007-2017) occurs along the Western Bank and Middle Bank, with a few trawl areas near the GEP. Based on sea cucumber fishing areas (see Figure 3 in Appendix E), the trawl areas near the GEP in Figure 7.6.1 are likely from sea cucumber harvesting; the GEP falls within the sea cucumber zone 1 fishing area. As shown in Figures 4 and 5 in Appendix E, sea scallop and crab landing data are not available along most of the GEP due to privacy-screened areas (i.e., areas with less than five licences). Clams fished offshore on the Scotian Shelf also do not appear to be in the area of the GEP (Figure 6 in Appendix E).

Within NAFO Area 4W, the groundfish fishery is open year-round with the most intensive fishing occurring from July to September, based on the seasonal movement of fish species. Most fishing vessels use trawls and longlines, with longlines used predominantly on the shelf edge and deepwater channels (BP 2016). Key groundfish fisheries near the Deep Panuke Development area includes silver hake, Atlantic redfish, and halibut. As shown in Figure 7.6.2, mobile gear fishing activity for groundfish (including Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, flatfishes, silverhake, and red fish) in the NAFO 4W region based on the Observer Program data (2007-2017) occurs throughout the Scotian Shelf, with a focus in the Emerald Basin and Western Bank areas; there is minimal direct overlap with the Development. This corresponds to the groundfish landing from 2010-2014 in Figure 7 in Appendix E. As indicated by Table 7.6.4 and Figure 8 in Appendix E, wolffish harvesting is limited within these NAFO Unit Areas; however, privacy screening occurs near the Deep Panuke Development area.

Within NAFO Area 4W, the pelagic fishery is open year-round with the most intensive fishing occurring during the summer and fall, though the main swordfish fishery is from June to November (BP 2016). Fishing vessels generally use pelagic (floating) longline, though bluefin tuna and swordfish are also angled or fished with electric harpoons (BP 2016). Key pelagic fisheries in the vicinity of the Deep Panuke Development area include swordfish (Figure 9 in Appendix E) and tuna (Figures 10 and 11 in Appendix E) though there is no direct overlap with the Development. As shown on Figure 12 in Appendix E, large pelagic harvesting generally occurs west of the GEP, as well as to the south along the Scotian Shelf break. Atlantic herring represent the largest quantity in landing weight (kg) within these NAFO areas.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 96

Figure 7.6.1 Mobile Gear Fishing Activity for Invertebrates in the 4W Region

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 97

Figure 7.6.2 Mobile Gear Fishing Activity for Groundfish in the 4W Region

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 98

7.6.2 Potential Interactions

Potential interactions between Indigenous and commercial fisheries and GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities may occur from the presence of vessels, abandoned structures in place, or from accidental discharges.

7.6.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction

In general, the assessment of potential effects from GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on Indigenous and commercial fisheries in the approved 2006 EA Report remains valid (refer to Section 9.3.4 of the approved 2006 EA Report); however, based on the availability of new information (i.e., updated fisheries data, Indigenous fisheries data, and GEP spans data) additional details are provided.

The potential environmental effects of the proposed GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on Indigenous and commercial fisheries are expected to be similar to, or less than, those from construction and operation activities. Offshore decommissioning activities will occur within the existing safety zone around the PFC so there will be no new obstructions or disruptions to the activities of fish harvesters. During decommissioning activities, there will be regular communication with Indigenous groups and commercial fish harvesters. Following decommissioning and abandonment activities, the safety zone will be removed, and the area will be re-open to Indigenous and commercial fishing activity. Notices to Shipping and/or Notices to Mariners will be issued, as applicable, to inform fisheries operating in the area of Encana’s decommissioning activities.

As discussed in Section 7.1.3, GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities are not anticipated to result in adverse effects to marine fish. This includes potential effects to traditionally and commercially fished species. It is possible that species migrating through the area such as the American eel, Atlantic salmon, and bluefin tuna would attempt to avoid a small area around the vessels during decommissioning activities; however, this would not be expected to interfere with broader migration patterns.

The risk of hooking or snagging mobile fishing gear on the abandoned GEP is minimal. Half of the GEP was trenched (highlighted in red in Figure 7.6.3). The GEP was surveyed following construction and six major spans were identified in the untrenched section (highlighted in blue in Figure 7.6.3). All spans were remediated with rock placement in 2011; however, one span could only be partially remediated with rock because of the close proximity to the SOEP pipeline. The amount of slope required for the rock pile would have partially covered the SOEP pipeline. The span is located at KP 26.3 from shore (see Figure 7.6.3) in water depths of 100 m, has a maximum gap height of 2 m, and consists of three gaps with lengths of 9.7 m, 5.8 m, and 17.5 m (see Figure 7.6.4). Based on the 2010 to 2014 DFO landings data, the main fishery in this area is snow crab. The snow crab fishery uses pots to harvest the species; therefore, it is unlikely snagging will be a concern. There is the potential, however, for new species of commercial interest that could develop in the area in the future. As shown on Figure 7.6.5, the span is in an area with rough bottom topography and rocky outcrops with 10 to 20 m cliffs/caverns. Therefore, towing mobile bottom fishing gear would likely be avoided in this area, resulting in a low risk of fishing gear entanglement. SPANS has confirmed that based on this information, there is little point in further mitigation of the pipeline span at KP 26.3. As mentioned in Section 7.6.1.2, the only mobile bottom gear fishery occurring in the immediate vicinity of the Deep Panuke assets is the sea cucumber fishery in Zone 1 (where the pipeline is trenched),

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 99

as well as some minimal groundfish trawling activity. Sea cucumber dredges and trawling gear are expected to be able to fish on top of the Deep Panuke subsea assets once they have been abandoned in place. It is expected that the abandoned assets will create additional habitat for sea cucumbers. There is no pelagic fishing activity within the Deep Panuke Development area, and pelagic fishing gear would not interact with abandoned subsea assets.

Once decommissioning is complete, the relevant Canadian hydrographic marine navigational charts will be updated to indicate that the safety zone has been removed and the gas export pipeline has been abandoned. With respect to compensation for loss or damage to fishing or aquaculture gear or vessels, Encana will adopt the CNSOPB Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Related to Offshore Petroleum Activity (C-NLOPB and CNSOPB 2017). Encana will compensate and indemnify licensed participants in the fishing industry to the extent that Deep Panuke activities may cause them damage or loss including consequential damages during normal fishing operations. This includes damage or loss caused by the export pipeline, or by other Encana activities carried out beyond the Deep Panuke Safety Zone. Encana will cover possible losses to the fishing industry resulting from any equipment Encana has on the ocean floor (during normal fishing operations) as long as the equipment is there, i.e., effectively in perpetuity for the pipeline. It is not expected that new major spans could form over time since such spans are created by topography (i.e., pipeline laid over a boulder or rough terrain, see KP 26.3 span on Figure 7.6.4); not as a result of sediment movement during storm events for example. This was confirmed by regular surveys of the GEP since construction in 2009. A post-abandonment monitoring program will be implemented using subsea ROV surveys. Likely monitoring will occur right after decommissioning (”as-left” survey) and one year following abandonment, with additional monitoring possible if unexpected changes are observed during the one-year survey.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 100

Figure 7.6.3 KP-26.3 Span Location

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 101

Figure 7.6.4 KP-26.3 Span Dimensions

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 102

Figure 7.6.5 KP-26.3 Span Topography

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 103

7.6.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment

A significant adverse effect on Indigenous and commercial fisheries is one that is likely to cause any one or more of the following:  exclusion of fishery license holders from 10% or more of the fishable area for the targeted species for all or most of the fishing season  exclusion of 10% or more of the vessels in a fishery from the fishable area of the targeted species for all or most of the fishing season  a measurable reduction in revenues and/or profitability due to a decrease in the catchability of target species in 10% or more of the fishable area for the targeted species  a measurable reduction in revenues and/or profitability of aquaculture lease holders due to a decrease in productivity of the lease area or due to restrictions on the use of the lease area  uncompensated damage to aquaculture equipment, fishing gear or vessels

Given the character and mitigation measures of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities, they are unlikely to cause any of these effects. Following decommissioning and abandonment activities, the safety zone will be removed, and the area will be re-open to Indigenous and commercial fishing activity.

The modifications assessed in this section have resulted in the same conclusion as the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA with respect to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities; i.e., no significant effects on Indigenous and commercial fisheries are likely. As noted in Section 7.1 (Marine Fish), decommissioning activities are also unlikely to affect the fishery resource.

7.7 Other Ocean Users

Other ocean users may be involved in various undertakings near the Deep Panuke Development during decommissioning, including offshore oil and gas exploration and development, submarine cable projects, marine transportation (e.g., commercial shipping vessels, cruise ships and other vessels used for recreational or tourist purposes, and scientific research vessels), and military activities. Other ocean users have been selected as a VC due to updated information on submarine cables and oil and gas activity identified since the preparation of the 2006 EA Report.

The other ocean users VC in the 2006 EA Report also assessed potential effects on offshore marine conservation and planning under the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean Management (ESSIM) Initiative, which concluded in 2012. This aspect of the assessment has been updated in Section 7.4 (Special Areas), in consideration of the Regional Oceans Plan that has since superseded the ESSIM Initiative.

Potential effects on offshore and nearshore Indigenous and commercial fisheries, as well as marine fisheries research, are addressed in Section 7.6 (Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries).

7.7.1 Baseline Conditions Update

With the exception of the following updates to Section 7.2.4.2 (Submarine Cables) and Section 7.2.4.4 (Oil and Gas Activity) of the 2006 EA Report, the description of other ocean users presented in Section 7.2 of the approved 2002 CSR and Section 7.2.4 of the approved 2006 EA Report generally remains valid for the purposes of this ESA and does not require further updating.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 104

7.7.1.1 Submarine Cables

In 2015, Hibernia Networks completed installation of the Hibernia Express submarine fiber optic telecommunications cable connecting Halifax, Nova Scotia to the United Kingdom. The Hibernia Express cable was surface-laid across the offshore GEP for the Deep Panuke Development and is currently the only active submarine cable known to cross the GEP. The cable crossing is located approximately at KP 44 along the GEP.

7.7.1.2 Oil and Gas Activity

The Sable Offshore Energy Project (SOEP) consists of seven offshore platforms in five different fields, with 21 wells (ExxonMobil n.d.[a]), located approximately 200 km off the coast of Nova Scotia (approximately 45 km east from the area of the Deep Panuke Development). The offshore platforms are connected by pipelines to two onshore plants (i.e., the Goldboro Gas Plant in Guysborough County, Nova Scotia, and the Point Tupper Fractionation Plant in Richmond County, Nova Scotia) (ExxonMobil n.d.[a]). SOEP is currently in a stage of naturally declining production and will therefore be decommissioned and abandoned (NEB 2018).

ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. (ExxonMobil) began planning for SOEP decommissioning in 2012 and initiated well plugging and abandonment activities in 2017 (ExxonMobil n.d.[b]). The following additional SOEP decommissioning activities are planned to be carried out between 2018 and 2022 (ExxonMobil 2017):

• Facilities transition (de-inventorying and removals preparation) • Abandonment of onshore and offshore pipelines • Dismantlement and removal of offshore platform (topsides and jackets) • Dismantlement and removal of onshore plants at Goldboro and Point Tupper • Materials salvage, disposal, and recycling

Additional details regarding ExxonMobil’s proposed SOEP decommissioning activities are provided in Section 8.1 (Cumulative Effects).

7.7.2 Potential Interactions

Potential interactions GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and other ocean users may occur from the presence of vessels or from accidental discharges. No interaction is anticipated with respect to the active Hibernia Express submarine telecommunications cable that crosses the Deep Panuke offshore GEP, since the cable crossing is not located near an area of pipeline spanning and the pipeline will simply be abandoned in place after it is depressurized, flushed, and filled with seawater.

7.7.3 Analysis, Mitigation, and Residual Effects Prediction

The assessment of potential effects on other ocean users in the approved 2006 EA Report remains valid and requires no updating (refer to Section 9.4.4.3 of the approved 2006 EA Report). The potential environmental effects of the proposed GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on other ocean users are expected to be similar to, or less than, those associated with construction and operation activities. Offshore decommissioning activities will occur within the existing safety zone around the PFC so there will be no new obstructions or disruptions to the activities of other ocean users.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 105

Notices to Shipping and/or Notices to Mariners will be issued, as applicable, to inform other vessels operating in the area regarding Encana’s decommissioning activities. GTT Communications (formerly Hibernia Networks), the owner of the submarine cable that crosses the GEP, will continue to be notified regarding proposed decommissioning activities. These stakeholder notifications will be documented in Encana’s Application for Leave to Abandon the pipeline, as required by the NEB process, since applications for leave to abandon under section 74(1) of the National Energy Board Act must provide evidence that “all landowners and other persons potentially affected [by the abandonment] are sufficiently notified and have their rights protected” (NEB 2017).

Once decommissioning is complete, the relevant Canadian hydrographic marine navigational charts will be updated to indicate that the safety zone has been removed and the GEP has been abandoned.

7.7.4 Summary of Residual Environmental Effects Assessment

A significant adverse effect on other ocean users is determined against the established significance evaluation criteria with respect to a reduction in the opportunities for other ocean users, or a reduction in the level of safety, service, or protection currently in the Deep Panuke area that is unacceptable to the relevant regulatory authorities. A significant adverse effect on other ocean users would also occur if the project is inconsistent with intended marine use as designated through the regulatory oceans and coastal management planning process.

Potential adverse effects on other ocean users from GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities can be effectively mitigated through the issuance of Notices to Shipping and/or Notices to Mariners and updating Canadian hydrographic marine navigational charts following removal of the safety zone and abandonment of the GEP.

Following decommissioning activities, the safety zone will be removed and the area will re-open to navigation.

The modifications assessed in this section have resulted in the same conclusion as the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA with respect to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities; i.e., no significant effects on other ocean users are likely.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 106

8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

This section identifies past, present, and likely future (i.e., certain or reasonably foreseeable) projects or activities with residual environmental effects that could interact cumulatively with the residual environmental effects of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and the significance of those cumulative environmental effects on VCs.

Cumulative effects associated with past projects and activities were previously assessed in the approved 2002 CSR and the approved 2006 EA Report. The identification and description of relevant past, present, and future projects and activities has been updated for this ES. The cumulative effects assessment has also been updated, where applicable, based on the updated VC-specific residual effects assessments in Section 7 of this report.

8.1 Scoping of Cumulative Effects Assessment

The cumulative effects assessment considers all seven of the VCs for which GEP decommissioning and abandonment-related environmental effects were assessed, as residual environmental effects were predicted for each VC (refer to Section 7). These seven VCs are: marine fish; marine mammals and sea turtles; marine related birds; special areas; onshore environment; Indigenous and commercial fisheries; and other ocean users.

The specific spatial and temporal boundaries that are presented in each respective VC assessment chapter in Section 8 and Section 9 of the approved 2006 EA Report (i.e., updates to the spatial and temporal boundaries previously presented for each VC in the approved 2002 CSR) remain applicable for the assessment of cumulative effects for each VC. The Study Area for the cumulative effects assessment is consistent with the Study Area defined in Section 1.1 of the approved 2002 CSR (Volume 4).

A scoping exercise has been conducted to identify other past, present, and future projects and activities that:

 have been, are being, and are likely to be carried out in the Study Area (updated from the previous 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report); and

 have potential to result in residual environmental effects that may interact cumulatively with (i.e., overlap spatially and temporally with) the residual environmental effects of the decommissioning of the Deep Panuke Development.

Table 8.1.1 provides updated descriptions of the past, present, and likely future projects that were included in the scope of the cumulative effects assessment in the 2006 EA Report and indicates whether they remain relevant for inclusion in the scope of the updated cumulative effects assessment. Table 8.1.1 also describes additional projects and activities that have been identified in the Study Area since the 2006 EA Report and considers their relevance to the cumulative effects assessment. Past seismic and seabed surveys are not included in the cumulative effects assessment since residual effects from seabed surveys are temporary and do not generally last beyond cessation of the survey. Therefore, although residual effects from past seismic and seabed surveys in the Study Area may overlap spatially with residual effects from the GEP

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 107

decommissioning and abandonment activities, there is no temporal overlap of residual effects that would necessitate consideration in the cumulative effects assessment.

Table 8.1.1 Updates to Past, Present, and Future Projects included in the Scope of the Cumulative Effects Assessment in the 2006 EA Report

Project Overview and Consideration of Relevance for Project Proponent Inclusion in Updated Cumulative Effects Assessment Updates to Projects Previously Identified in 2006 EA Report Cohasset-Panuke Encana The description of the Cohasset-Panuke Project provided in Section 6.5 Project of the 2006 EA Report generally remains valid. The only update since the 2006 EA Report is that environmental follow-up work was completed in 2009. The Cohasset-Panuke Project has not substantially changed in nature or extent since the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report. Therefore, the assessment of cumulative effects on each VC in the approved 2006 EA Report remains valid and requires no updating with respect to the Cohasset-Panuke Project (refer to Section 8.9 of the 2006 EA Report). Sable Offshore ExxonMobil SOEP is currently in a stage of naturally declining production and will Energy Project be decommissioned and abandoned (NEB 2018). ExxonMobil began (SOEP) planning for SOEP decommissioning in 2012 and initiated well plug and abandonment activities in 2017 (ExxonMobil n.d.[b]). The following additional SOEP decommissioning activities are planned to be carried out between 2018 and 2022 (ExxonMobil 2017):  facilities transition (de-inventorying and removals preparation);  abandonment of onshore and offshore pipelines;  dismantlement and removal of offshore platform (topsides and jackets);  dismantlement and removal of onshore plants (i.e., Goldboro Gas Plant and Point Tupper Fractionation Plant); and  materials salvage, disposal, and recycling. On March 29, 2018, ExxonMobil submitted an Application for Leave to Abandon its NEB-regulated facilities. In the application (ExxonMobil 2018), ExxonMobil formally requests approval from the NEB to:  abandon the Goldboro Gas Plant, including removal of above- ground infrastructure (e.g., slug catcher) and removal of underground infrastructure (e.g., septic tank) with the exception of water wells, which will be abandoned in place; and  abandon the 26” (approximately 66-cm) gathering pipeline that runs approximately 200 km from the Thebaud platform to the Goldboro Gas Plant, including removal of above-ground infrastructure associated with the onshore section of the pipeline. The offshore pipeline will be internally flushed, filled with seawater, and left in place with ends capped. Unburied segments of the abandoned offshore pipeline that are deemed commercial hazards will be mitigated through removal or burial (e.g., concrete mattresses, rock, or grout bags).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 108

Table 8.1.1 Updates to Past, Present, and Future Projects included in the Scope of the Cumulative Effects Assessment in the 2006 EA Report

Project Overview and Consideration of Relevance for Project Proponent Inclusion in Updated Cumulative Effects Assessment Based on the scoping considerations presented in Table 8.1.2 (below), SOEP decommissioning is included in the scope of the updated cumulative effects assessment. Maritimes & Maritimes & The description of M&NP provided in Section 6.5 of the 2006 EA Northeast Energy Northeast Report generally remains valid and requires no updating. Pipeline (M&NP) Pipeline Canada M&NP has not substantially changed in nature or extent since the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report. Therefore, the assessment of cumulative effects on each VC in the approved 2006 EA Report remains valid and requires no updating with respect to M&NP (refer to Section 8.9 of the 2006 EA Report). Keltic Keltic The Keltic/Maple Project was never executed and will not proceed; it is Petrochemicals and Petrochemicals therefore excluded from the scope of the updated cumulative effects Maple LNG Project Inc. (Keltic) and assessment. (Keltic/Maple Maple LNG Ltd. Project) (Maple LNG) Additional Projects and Activities Identified Since the 2006 EA Report Hibernia Express GTT In 2015, Hibernia Networks completed installation of the Hibernia Fiber Optic Communications Express submarine fiber optic telecommunications cable connecting Telecommunications (formerly Hibernia Halifax, Nova Scotia to the United Kingdom. The Hibernia Express Cable Networks) cable was surface-laid across the offshore GEP for the Deep Panuke Development (at approximately KP 44) and the SOEP gathering pipeline. It is currently the only active submarine cable known to cross these pipelines. Based on the scoping considerations presented in Table 8.1.2 (below), the presence and operation of the Hibernia Express cable is included in the scope of the updated cumulative effects assessment. Scotian Basin BP The Scotian Basin Project is a deep-water exploration drilling program Exploration Drilling approximately 230 km southeast of Halifax, Nova Scotia, within the Project (Scotian area of BP’s offshore ELs 2431, 2432, 2433, and 2434 in the Scotian Basin Project) Basin. Up to seven exploration wells will be drilled in phases over the term of the licences, from 2018 to 2022 (BP 2016). BP has contracted the West Aquarius, a dynamically-positioned semi- submersible MODU operated by Seadrill, to drill the initial exploration well in the spring of 2018, pending regulatory approval (BP 2017). On April 21, 2018, BP received an Approval to Drill a Well from the CNSOPB that authorized the commencement of drilling operations for BP’s Aspy D-11 exploration well (CNSOPB 2018a). As of April 26, 2018, the status of BP’s Aspy D-11 exploration well is that drilling operations (e.g., drilling; running, cementing and pressure testing of casing/liners; routine equipment testing, logging, coring, and testing; and other standard drilling practices) have commenced (CNSOPB 2018b). Based on the scoping considerations presented in Table 8.1.2 (below), construction and operation of the Goldboro LNG Project is included in the scope of the updated cumulative effects assessment.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 109

Table 8.1.1 Updates to Past, Present, and Future Projects included in the Scope of the Cumulative Effects Assessment in the 2006 EA Report

Project Overview and Consideration of Relevance for Project Proponent Inclusion in Updated Cumulative Effects Assessment Goldboro LNG Pieridae Energy The Goldboro LNG Project is proposed for the same site as the Project (Canada) Ltd. previously proposed LNG component of the Keltic/Maple Project and is (Pieridae) similar in nature. It will be located in the Goldboro Industrial park, within approximately 1 km of the SOEP Goldboro Gas Plant, the SOEP natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline, and the M&NP system. The proposed Goldboro LNG Project includes the development and operation of a natural gas liquefaction facility and marine terminal with the capacity to receive, liquefy, and export a nominal 10 million tonnes of natural gas per year. The onsite gross LNG storage capacity will be approximately 690,000 cubic metres (m3) in three 230,000 m3 tanks. The Goldboro LNG Project proposal also includes the development of a 180-megawatt onsite gas-fired power plant, as well as construction of a 7-km freshwater supply pipeline from the site to a new intake facility at Meadow Lake, and Route 316 will be re-routed around the LNG facility for safety reasons (Pieridae Energy 2013). Construction is scheduled to commence in 2018 with testing, start-up, and commissioning anticipated to begin in 2022 (Pieridae 2018). Based on the scoping considerations presented in Table 8.1.2 (below), the Scotian Basin Exploration Drilling Project is included in the scope of the updated cumulative effects assessment. Bear Paw Pipeline Bear Paw Bear Paw is proposing to construct a natural gas pipeline to Project Pipeline interconnect the M&NP mainline and other supplies near Goldboro, Corporation Inc. Nova Scotia, to the proposed Bear Head LNG export facility in the Point (Bear Paw) Tupper Industrial Park, near the town of Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia. The Bear Paw Pipeline Project will consist of an approximately 62.5-km pipeline with an outside diameter of 42” and a maximum operating pressure of 9,930 kilopascals; compression, metering and associated facilities; and temporary ancillary facilities and access roads (Bear Paw 2016). Investigations are ongoing to determine the final route of the proposed Bear Paw pipeline (LNGL n.d.). There are two existing pipelines that run from Goldboro to Port Hawkesbury: the SOEP 8” NGL pipeline that connects the Goldboro Gas Plant to the Point Tupper Fractionation Plant, and the M&NP 8” lateral natural gas pipeline to Point Tupper. These buried pipelines were designed and constructed at the same time, positioned within approximately 30 cm of each other, and share common trench, crossing, and cathodic protection designs (Bear Paw 2016). The alignment of the proposed Bear Paw pipeline will parallel these existing pipelines to the extent that is feasible (LNGL n.d.). Approximately 60 km of the corridor that was assessed for the for the Bear Paw Pipeline Project follows the right-of-way (RoW) for these existing pipelines (Bear Paw 2016). Construction of the Bear Paw pipeline is proposed to be carried out concurrently with construction of the Bear Head LNG export facility (P. MacLean, pers. comm. 2018), which has already obtained the initial permits required for construction and is currently in the process of securing the necessary financing (Cape Breton Post 2017). It is anticipated that construction of the Bear Paw pipeline will commence as early as 2020 (P. MacLean, pers. comm. 2018) and will take up to two years to complete (Bear Paw 2016).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 110

Table 8.1.1 Updates to Past, Present, and Future Projects included in the Scope of the Cumulative Effects Assessment in the 2006 EA Report

Project Overview and Consideration of Relevance for Project Proponent Inclusion in Updated Cumulative Effects Assessment Based on the scoping considerations presented in Table 8.1.2 (below), construction of the Bear Paw pipeline is included in the scope of the updated cumulative effects assessment.

In addition to the specific projects and activities identified in Table 8.1.1, the scope of the cumulative effects assessment in the 2006 EA Report also included the following past, present, and future projects and activities in the Study Area:

 offshore oil and gas exploration drilling;  seismic exploration surveys (present and future, only);  marine research surveys;  shipping (domestic and international);  Indigenous and commercial fisheries;  historical commercial whaling;  recreation and tourism;  military activities;  use and occupation of Sable Island;  submarine telecommunications cables; and  long-range transport of air pollutants.

These past, present, and future activities in the Study Area have not substantially changed in nature or extent since the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report. Therefore, the assessment of cumulative effects on each VC in the approved 2006 EA Report remains valid and requires no updating with respect to these activities (refer to Section 8.9 of the 2006 EA Report). These activities are not considered further in the cumulative effects assessment.

The Cohasset-Panuke Project, M&NP and the Keltic/Maple Project are not considered further in the cumulative effects assessment for the reasons provided above in Table 8.1.1.

Table 8.1.2 considers how the residual effects of the remaining projects identified in Table 8.1.1 may interact cumulatively with the residual effects of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on each VC.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 111

Table 8.1.2 Potential Cumulative Interactions with Other Projects and Activities in the Study Area

Valued Components Other Subject to Potential Potential Residual Effects of Other Projects or Activities that have Potential to Interact Project or Scoping Considerations Residual Effects from Cumulatively with Residual Effects of the GEP Decommissioning and Abandonment Activities Activity the Other Project or Activity Sable Offshore  SOEP was initiated in the past (construction began in 1998 and gas production began in 1999),  Marine fish  Adverse change in marine habitat quality and use for marine fish, marine mammals and sea turtles, and Energy Project well plug and abandonment is presently ongoing, and proposed decommissioning activities will marine related birds (including marine species in special areas and including marine fish species of value to  Marine mammals and Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to: (SOEP) continue into the future (scheduled to conclude in 2022). Residual effects from SOEP sea turtles decommissioning activities therefore have potential to overlap temporally with residual effects o noise (including underwater noise), and light emissions from vessels and equipment engaged in offshore from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.  Marine related birds SOEP decommissioning activities o routine discharges from vessels engaged in offshore SOEP decommissioning activities  The distance between the Deep Panuke PFC and the nearest SOEP offshore platform is  Special areas o associated sensory disturbance approximately 25 km, which is a short distance for marine species whose ranges cover a large  Onshore environment extent of the Study Area and can be easily transited by the vessels of fisheries and other ocean  Adverse change in habitat quality for marine fish and benthic organisms (including in special areas and  Indigenous and including marine fish species of value to Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to loss of reef and refuge users. The SOEP gathering pipeline from the Thebaud platform to the Goldboro Gas Plant runs commercial fisheries parallel to the majority of the GEP. The pipelines are generally less than 1 km apart offshore, effects as a result of removal of subsea structures and eventual removal of the safety zones currently and less than 100 m apart onshore (ExxonMobil 2017). The offshore components of the Deep  Other ocean users excluding fishing activity around SOEP platforms Panuke and SOEP developments are both situated in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization  Positive change in habitat quality for marine fish and benthic organisms (including in special areas and (NAFO) Division 4W. Residual effects from SOEP decommissioning activities offshore and including species of value to Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to potential reef and refuge effects onshore in Goldboro therefore have potential to overlap spatially with residual effects from the resulting from the presence of abandoned subsea structures GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.  Adverse change in marine habitat quality and use for marine mammals and marine related birds (including in  Given that the Point Tupper Fractionation Plant is located approximately 45.5 km north of the special areas), and adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine related birds (including in special nearest Study Area boundary, residual effects from onshore SOEP decommissioning activities areas), due to the presence and sound of helicopter traffic (including collision risk for marine related birds) in at the Point Tupper Fractionation Plant do not have potential to overlap spatially with residual support of SOEP decommissioning activities effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities. Onshore SOEP  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine fish (including in special areas and including species decommissioning activities at the Point Tupper Fractionation Plant are therefore excluded from of value to Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to: the scope of the cumulative effects assessment. o potential smothering, crushing, or direct physical interaction with SOEP decommissioning vessels or  The approved 2002 CSR and approved 2006 EA Report assessed cumulative interactions with equipment residual effects from SOEP construction and operations. o eventual removal of the safety zones currently excluding fishing activity around SOEP platforms  SOEP decommissioning activities were not assessed in the 2006 EA Report due to the lack of  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine mammals and sea turtles (including in special areas) available details at that time. The assessment of cumulative effects in the approved 2006 EA due to potential collisions with SOEP vessels and topsides equipment during removal Report requires updating with respect to future SOEP decommissioning activities.  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine related birds (including in special areas) due to: o potential collisions with SOEP vessels and topsides equipment during removal o potential strandings on vessels engaged in offshore SOEP decommissioning activities o potential exhaustion and/or increased exposure to vessel-based threats due to attraction to artificial night lighting o potential exposure to residual hydrocarbons in routine discharges from vessels engaged in offshore SOEP decommissioning activities  Adverse change in access and use of the offshore area by commercial and Indigenous fishers and other ocean users due to: o the ongoing temporary exclusion of fisheries and other ocean users within the safety zones currently surrounding SOEP platforms o potential seabed hazards resulting from the presence of abandoned subsea structures o the increased presence of SOEP vessels and associated navigational obstructions  Adverse change in onshore habitat quality and use due to: o noise, vibration, and light emissions from vehicles and equipment engaged in onshore SOEP decommissioning activities o erosion and sedimentation o sensory disturbance from various sources  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for terrestrial birds and wildlife due to potential direct interactions with vehicles and equipment (e.g., collisions) Hibernia  The Hibernia Express cable was installed in the past (2015), is presently operational, and is  Marine fish  Positive change in habitat quality due to the addition of hard substrate for epifaunal colonization (where the Express anticipated to be abandoned in place in the future (at the end of the 25-year design life of the  Special areas cable is unburied, including at the Deep Panuke offshore GEP crossing location) Submarine cable). Residual effects from the presence and operation of the Hibernia Express cable  Adverse change in the use of the area due to potential seabed hazards for Indigenous and commercial Fiber Optic therefore have potential to overlap temporally with residual effects from the GEP  Indigenous and commercial fisheries fisheries and other ocean users resulting from the presence of the cable (especially where unburied, decommissioning and abandonment activities. including at the Deep Panuke offshore GEP crossing location)

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 112

Table 8.1.2 Potential Cumulative Interactions with Other Projects and Activities in the Study Area

Valued Components Other Subject to Potential Potential Residual Effects of Other Projects or Activities that have Potential to Interact Project or Scoping Considerations Residual Effects from Cumulatively with Residual Effects of the GEP Decommissioning and Abandonment Activities Activity the Other Project or Activity Telecommunic  The Hibernia Express cable crosses the Deep Panuke offshore GEP and SOEP offshore  Other ocean users ations Cable gathering pipeline. Residual effects from the presence and operation of the Hibernia Express cable therefore have potential to overlap spatially with residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.  The Hibernia Express cable has been identified since the 2006 EA Report so was not previously considered in the 2002 or 2006 cumulative effects assessments. The assessment of cumulative effects in the approved 2006 EA Report requires updating with respect to the presence and operation of the Hibernia Express cable. Scotian Basin  The Scotian Basin Project is proposed for the future (2018-2022). Residual effects from the  Marine fish  Adverse change in marine habitat quality and use for marine fish, marine mammals and sea turtles, and Exploration Scotian Basin Project therefore have potential to overlap temporally with residual effects from marine related birds (including marine species in special areas and including marine fish species of value to  Marine mammals and Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to: Drilling Project the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities. sea turtles (Scotian Basin o noise (including underwater noise), and light emissions from the MODU, support vessels, and equipment  The Deep Panuke PFC is located approximately 35 km from BP’s exploration licences, which is  Marine related birds engaged in BP’s offshore exploration drilling and testing activities and VSP operations Project) a short distance for marine species whose ranges cover a large extent of the Study Area and  Special areas o routine discharges from the MODU and support vessels engaged in BP’s offshore exploration drilling can be easily transited by the vessels of fisheries and other ocean users. The Deep Panuke activities Development and the Scotian Basin Project area are both situated in NAFO Division 4W.  Indigenous and o associated sensory disturbance Residual effects from the Scotian Basin Project therefore have potential to overlap spatially with commercial fisheries residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.  Positive change in habitat quality for marine fish and benthic organisms (including in special areas and  Other ocean users including species of value to Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to potential reef and refuge effects  The Scotian Basin Project has been identified since the 2006 EA Report so was not previously resulting from the presence of abandoned wellheads, if left in place considered in the 2002 or 2006 cumulative effects assessments. The assessment of cumulative effects in the approved 2006 EA Report requires updating with respect to all phases of future  Adverse change in marine habitat quality and use for marine mammals and marine related birds (including in Scotian Basin Project activities. special areas), and adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine related birds (including in special areas), due to the presence and sound of helicopter traffic (including collision risk for marine related birds) in support of BP’s offshore exploration drilling activities  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine fish (including in special areas and including species of value to Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to: potential smothering (e.g., with drilling muds), crushing, direct physical interaction with drilling equipment, or exposure to contaminants drilling wastes  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine mammals and sea turtles (including in special areas) due to potential collisions with the MODU, support vessels, or equipment associated with BP’s offshore exploration drilling activities  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine related birds (including in special areas) due to: o potential collisions with the MODU, support vessels, or equipment associated with BP’s offshore exploration drilling activities o potential strandings on the MODU or support vessels engaged in BP’s offshore exploration activities o potential exhaustion and/or increased exposure to MODU- or vessel-based threats due to attraction to artificial night lighting o potential exposure to residual hydrocarbons in routine discharges from the MODU and support vessels engaged in BP’s offshore exploration activities  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine fish, marine mammals and sea turtles, and marine related birds (including in special areas and including marine fish species of value to Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to high underwater sound pressure levels associated with BP’s VSP operations  Adverse change in access and use of the offshore area by commercial and Indigenous fishers and other ocean users due to: o potential seabed hazards resulting from the presence of abandoned wellheads, if left in place o the temporary exclusion of fisheries and other ocean users within a safety zone surrounding BP’s MODU o the increased presence of vessels associated with BP’s offshore exploration drilling activities and associated navigational obstructions

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 113

Table 8.1.2 Potential Cumulative Interactions with Other Projects and Activities in the Study Area

Valued Components Other Subject to Potential Potential Residual Effects of Other Projects or Activities that have Potential to Interact Project or Scoping Considerations Residual Effects from Cumulatively with Residual Effects of the GEP Decommissioning and Abandonment Activities Activity the Other Project or Activity Goldboro LNG  The Goldboro LNG Project is proposed for the future (i.e., construction is anticipated to begin in  Marine fish  Adverse change in marine habitat quality and use for marine fish (including species of value to Indigenous Project 2018 and testing, start-up, and commissioning are anticipated to begin in 2022). Residual and commercial fisheries), marine mammals and sea turtles, and marine related birds (including those that  Marine mammals and frequent the coastal Country Harbour Islands EBSA near the proposed Goldboro LNG facility) due to: effects from construction of the Goldboro LNG Project therefore have potential to overlap sea turtles temporally with residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities. o noise (including underwater noise), and light emissions from vessels and equipment engaged in marine  Marine related birds construction activities Given that Encana anticipates conducting decommissioning activities during the 2018-2021  o routine discharges from vessels engaged in marine construction activities timeframe (Section 2.5), residual effects from the operations phase of the Goldboro LNG Project  Special areas o siltation and sediment resuspension during marine terminal construction and shoreline protection (currently scheduled to begin in 2022) are not anticipated to overlap temporally with residual  Onshore environment activities effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.  Indigenous and o associated sensory disturbance  The Deep Panuke beach valve station, onshore GEP RoW, GEP terminus facility, and commercial fisheries  Adverse change in marine habitat quantity for marine fish and benthic organisms (including species of value associated access roads are located within approximately 1 km or less of the proposed  Other ocean users to Indigenous and commercial fisheries) due to the destruction of benthic habitat within the approximately Goldboro LNG facility as well as a proposed water supply pipeline for the Goldboro LNG Project 2 36,000 m footprint of the proposed marginal wharf (Pieridae Energy 2013). According to the EIS for the that will run adjacent to the M&NP system. The offshore components of the Deep Panuke Goldboro LNG Project, “[n]o dredging is anticipated in the construction of marine facilities. The marginal Development and the Goldboro LNG Project are both situated in NAFO Division 4W. Residual wharf and causeway area will be formed by backfilling rock excavated from the Project area. The LNG effects from construction of the Goldboro LNG Project therefore have potential to overlap berthing docks will be of piled construction” (Pieridae Energy 2013). spatially with residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine fish (including species of value to Indigenous and  The Goldboro LNG Project has been identified since the 2006 EA Report so was not previously commercial fisheries) due to underwater noise from marine pile driving activities considered in the 2002 or 2006 cumulative effects assessments. The assessment of cumulative effects in the approved 2006 EA Report requires updating with respect to future construction of  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine mammals and sea turtles due to: the Goldboro LNG Project. o potential collisions with vessels and equipment engaged in marine construction activities o underwater noise from marine pile driving activities  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for marine related birds (including marine related birds that frequent the coastal Country Harbour Islands EBSA near the proposed Goldboro LNG facility) due to: o potential collisions with vessels and equipment engaged in marine construction activities o underwater noise from marine pile driving activities o potential strandings on vessels engaged in marine construction activities o potential exhaustion and/or increased exposure to vessel-based or construction-related threats due to attraction to artificial night lighting o potential exposure to residual hydrocarbons in routine discharges from vessels engaged in marine construction activities  Adverse change in onshore habitat quality and use due to: o noise, vibration, and light emissions from vehicles and equipment engaged in onshore construction activities o erosion and sedimentation o sensory disturbance from various sources  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for terrestrial birds and wildlife due to potential direct interactions with vehicles and equipment (e.g., collisions)

Bear Paw  The Bear Paw Pipeline Project is proposed for the future (i.e., construction is anticipated to  Onshore environment  Adverse change in onshore habitat quality and use due to: o noise, vibration, and light emissions from vehicles and equipment engaged in pipeline construction Pipeline begin in 2020 and take approximately two years to complete). Residual effects from Project construction of the Bear Paw Pipeline Project therefore have potential to overlap temporally with activities residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities. o erosion and sedimentation o sensory disturbance from various sources  Given that Encana anticipates conducting decommissioning activities during the 2018-2021 timeframe (Section 2.5), residual effects from the operations phase of the Bear Paw Pipeline  Adverse change in risk of injury or mortality for terrestrial birds and wildlife due to potential direct interactions Project (currently scheduled to begin in 2022 or 2023) are not anticipated to overlap temporally with vehicles and equipment (e.g., collisions) with residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.  The Deep Panuke beach valve station, onshore GEP RoW, GEP terminus facility, and associated access roads are located within approximately 1 km or less of the proposed Bear Paw pipeline RoW. Residual effects from construction of the Bear Paw pipeline therefore have potential to overlap spatially with residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 114

Table 8.1.2 Potential Cumulative Interactions with Other Projects and Activities in the Study Area

Valued Components Other Subject to Potential Potential Residual Effects of Other Projects or Activities that have Potential to Interact Project or Scoping Considerations Residual Effects from Cumulatively with Residual Effects of the GEP Decommissioning and Abandonment Activities Activity the Other Project or Activity  Given that the proposed Bear Head LNG export facility in Point Tupper is located approximately 40-50 km north of the nearest Study Area boundary, residual effects from construction of the proposed Bear Head LNG export facility do not have potential to overlap spatially with residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities. Construction activities associated with the Bear Head LNG export facility are therefore excluded from the scope of the cumulative effects assessment.  The Bear Paw Pipeline Project has been identified since the 2006 EA Report so was not previously considered in the 2002 or 2006 cumulative effects assessments. The assessment of cumulative effects in the approved 2006 EA Report requires updating with respect to future construction of the Bear Paw Pipeline Project.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 115

8.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment

The cumulative effects assessment in this section focuses on:

 potential cumulative interactions with other past, present, and future projects and activities in the Study Area that have been identified since the 2006 EA Report (i.e., Scotian Basin Project, Hibernia Express Submarine Fiber Optic Telecommunications Cable, Goldboro LNG Project, and Bear Paw Pipeline Project);

 potential cumulative interactions with other past, present, and future projects and activities in the Study Area that have changed in nature or extent such that potential cumulative effects differ from those previously assessed in the 2006 EA Report (e.g., SOEP); and

 other ways in which cumulative effects of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities may differ from what was previously assessed in the 2006 EA Report (i.e., due to the additional decommissioning details and environmental information that are now available).

The cumulative effects of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities in combination with the presence and operation of the Hibernia Express cable and all phases of the Scotian Basin Project are anticipated to be similar to those that were assessed generally for submarine telecommunications cables and offshore oil and gas exploration drilling activities, respectively, in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report. Thus, the approved 2006 EA Report, which relies substantially on the cumulative effects assessment in the 2002 CSR, generally remains valid in its assessment of potential cumulative effects associated with those activities. Except where otherwise noted below for certain VCs, the approved 2006 EA report requires no further updating with respect to these potential cumulative.

The cumulative effects of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities in combination with the construction of the proposed Goldboro LNG Project are anticipated to be similar to those that were assessed in the approved 2006 EA Report for the Keltic/Maple Project. Thus, except where otherwise noted below for certain VCs, the approved 2006 EA Report generally remains valid and requires no further updating with respect these potential cumulative effects

The significance of potential cumulative effects is determined based on the same VC-specific residual environmental effects evaluation criteria used for the assessment of environmental effects in Sections 8 and 9 of the approved 2006 EA Report.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 116

8.2.1 Marine Fish

The potential effects of proposed GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and proposed SOEP decommissioning activities are each anticipated to be similar to, or less than, the potential effects of their respective construction phases on marine fish. The removal of subsea structures associated with the Deep Panuke and SOEP developments, as well as removal of the safety zones excluding fishing activity around Deep Panuke and SOEP facilities, will result in a cumulative loss in the total amount of marine fish habitat exhibiting reef and refuge effects within the Study Area and will also result in an increased risk of injury or mortality for marine fish (e.g., due to the return of Indigenous and commercial fishing activity). These residual cumulative effects will be localized within the safety zones associated with each offshore development.

Despite these adverse effects on marine fish and fish habitat, decommissioning of the Deep Panuke and SOEP developments will also result in minor positive cumulative reef and refuge effects due to the abandonment of certain subsea structures in place (e.g., pipelines, concrete tunnels, rock, mattresses) and the potential introduction of new substrate that is hard and/or has interstitial spaces (e.g., additional rock filter units and/or concrete mattresses) for stabilization purposes and the mitigation of commercial hazards. The ongoing presence of an unburied section of the Hibernia Express submarine cable that crosses the offshore Deep Panuke GEP and offshore SOEP gathering pipeline also provides hard substrate for epifaunal colonization. Given the proximity of the Deep Panuke and SOEP developments to one another and to the Hibernia Express cable, as well as the temporal overlap of planned decommissioning activities and the ongoing presence of the Hibernia Express cable, these residual effects may interact to cumulatively affect marine fish habitat within the same ecosystems.

For marine fish species whose ranges cover a large extent of the Study Area, individuals may be exposed to routine discharges from multiple projects and activities, as well as various sources of underwater sound, throughout their life cycle. The decommissioning of the Deep Panuke and SOEP developments, the Scotian Basin Project, and marine construction activities associated with the Goldboro LNG Project will each introduce an additional source of regulated discharges and underwater sound that these individuals have potential to encounter. Marine fish may temporarily avoid localized areas subject to degraded water quality and/or underwater sound. The cumulative environmental effects of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities in combination with other projects and activities may therefore include a temporary reduction in the amount of habitat available within the Study Area (i.e., due to temporary avoidance of multiple areas at once).

It is anticipated that routine discharges from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and from other third party projects and activities will be in compliance with the requirements of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (OWTG) (NEB et al. 2010), and/or provincial permitting requirements, as applicable, at levels that are intended to be prevent damage of the marine environment, including fish and fish habitat. Routine discharges are predicted to disperse quickly, causing only localized effects in water quality around the source. Given that the concentrations of individual discharges are expected to be rapidly diluted in the open ocean, and in consideration of the distances between Deep Panuke decommissioning activities and the other projects and activities occurring in the offshore (including the exclusion of fisheries and other users

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 117

within the safety zones surrounding the existing Deep Panuke and SOEP facilities and the MODU for the proposed Scotian Basin Project), Deep Panuke discharges are unlikely to mix or combine with discharges from other projects and activities in the Study Area. Routine discharges from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and other third-party projects and activities are therefore not expected cause a substantial cumulative change in habitat quality and use or risk of health effects for marine fish.

The decommissioning of the Deep Panuke and SOEP developments will each generate underwater acoustic emissions that may result in sensory disturbance to marine fish. Potential VSP operations associated with the Scotian Basin Project and marine pile driving activities associated with the Goldboro LNG Project could also generate underwater sound levels high enough to result in physical damage to fish at very close proximity to the sound source and sensory disturbance to fish at varying distances. However, the possibility of cumulative interaction between underwater acoustic emissions from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and underwater acoustic emissions from BP’s proposed VSP operations is unlikely, given the infrequent nature and short duration (e.g., approximately one day per well) of BP’s proposed VSP operations, which may not be completed for each well (BP 2016). The implementation of ramp-up procedures for BP’s VSP source array, in accordance with the Statement of Canadian Practice with Respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment (DFO 2007), will mitigate potential underwater acoustic effects on marine fish from the Scotian Basin Project (BP 2016). The possibility of cumulative interaction between underwater acoustic emissions from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and underwater acoustic emissions from Goldboro LNG construction-related marine pile driving is similarly unlikely, given the approximately 150-km distance between active offshore Deep Panuke decommissioning activities and nearshore marine construction activities in support of the Goldboro LNG Project.

Other potential cumulative interactions between the residual effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and the residual effects of other projects and activities on marine fish remain generally consistent with those that were previously assessed in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report and require no further updating. In combination with the other projects and activities in the Study Area, including the new projects and activities identified since the 2006 EA Report, and with the application of proposed mitigation and environmental protection measures, the potential residual adverse cumulative effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on marine fish are predicted to be not significant. Potential residual cumulative reef and refuge effects from the abandonment of additional subsea structures in place and the potential addition of new substrate are anticipated to be minor and positive.

8.2.2 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

The presence of vessels engaged in the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities will interact with the presence of vessels engaged in other projects and activities within the Study Area, including the SOEP decommissioning and the Scotian Basin Project, to result in a cumulative change in the risk of injury or mortality of marine mammals and sea turtles due to potential vessel strikes.

The operation of vessels conducting activities in support of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities will represent only a small incremental increase over existing levels of marine traffic in the Study Area, including likely marine traffic associated with the SOEP decommissioning and the Scotian Basin Project, and will therefore only cause a small increase in the cumulative change in risk of injury or mortality

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 118

for marine mammals and sea turtles. In general, the presence of Deep Panuke decommissioning vessels and other vessels in any given area is anticipated to be short-term and transient in nature, thereby limiting opportunities for vessel strikes.

For marine mammal and sea turtle species whose ranges cover a large extent of the Study Area, individuals may be exposed to routine discharges from multiple projects and activities, as well as various sources of underwater sound, throughout their life cycle. The decommissioning of the Deep Panuke and SOEP developments, the Scotian Basin Project, and marine construction activities associated with the Goldboro LNG Project will each introduce an additional source of discharges and underwater sound that these individuals have potential to encounter. Marine mammals and sea turtles may temporarily avoid localized areas subject to degraded water quality and/or underwater sound. The cumulative environmental effects of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities in combination with other projects and activities may therefore include a temporary reduction in the amount of habitat available within the Study Area (i.e., due to temporary avoidance of multiple areas at once).

The analysis of cumulative environmental effects from underwater sound (including underwater sound from VSP operations and marine pile driving) and operational discharges provided in Section 7.2.2 is also generally applicable for marine mammals and sea turtles, except that a cumulative increase in ambient underwater sound levels may adversely affect marine mammals through the masking of biologically significant sounds in addition to causing avoidance behaviours.

Other potential cumulative interactions between the residual effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and the residual effects of other projects and activities on marine mammals and sea turtles remain generally consistent with those that were previously assessed in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report and require no further updating. In combination with the other projects and activities in the Study Area, including the new projects and activities identified since the 2006 EA Report, and with the application of proposed mitigation and environmental protection measures, the potential residual cumulative adverse effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on marine mammals and sea turtles are predicted to be not significant.

8.2.3 Marine Related Birds

The presence of vessels engaged in the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities will interact with the presence of vessels engaged in other projects and activities within the Study Area, including the SOEP decommissioning and the Scotian Basin Project, to result in a cumulative change in the risk of injury or mortality of marine related birds due to potential vessel strikes and strandings, potential exposure to residual hydrocarbons in routine discharges, and potential exhaustion and/or increased exposure to vessel- based threats due to attraction to artificial night lighting.

The operation of vessels conducting activities in support of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities will represent only a small incremental increase over existing levels of marine traffic in the Study Area, including likely marine traffic associated with the SOEP decommissioning and the Scotian Basin Project, and will therefore only cause a small increase in the cumulative change in risk of injury or mortality for marine related birds. In general, the presence of Deep Panuke decommissioning vessels and other vessels in any given area is anticipated to be short-term and transient in nature, thereby limiting

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 119

opportunities for vessel strikes and strandings, exposure to residual hydrocarbons in routine discharges, and exhaustion and/or increased exposure to vessel-based threats due to attraction to artificial night lighting.

For marine bird species whose ranges cover a large extent of the Study Area, individuals may be exposed to routine discharges from multiple projects and activities, as well as various sources of underwater sound, throughout their life cycle. The decommissioning of the Deep Panuke and SOEP developments and the Scotian Basin Project will each introduce an additional source of discharges and underwater sound that these individuals have potential to encounter. Marine related birds may temporarily avoid localized areas subject to degraded air and/or water quality and/or underwater sound. The cumulative environmental effects of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities in combination with other projects and activities may therefore include a temporary reduction in the amount of habitat available within the Study Area (i.e., due to temporary avoidance of multiple areas at once).

The analysis of cumulative environmental effects from underwater sound (including underwater sound from VSP operations) is also generally applicable for diving marine related birds, except that diving marine related birds appear to be less sensitive to underwater sound emissions than fish, marine mammals, or sea turtles (BP 2016); marine related birds are therefore assumed to be less susceptible than other marine wildlife to a potential cumulative change in risk of injury or mortality associated with underwater sound emissions in the Study Area. The analysis of cumulative environmental effects from operational discharges provided in Section 8.2.2 is also generally applicable for marine related birds, except that residual hydrocarbons in discharges released in accordance with MARPOL and/or the OWTG, as applicable, are generally not associated with the formation of a slick (potentially affecting marine related birds) and are therefore unlikely to cause a measurable cumulative change in risk of injury or mortality to marine related birds.

Decommissioning activities will not occur in the vicinity of Country Island and therefore are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative effects in this area. Encana will also continue to adhere to Encana’s Code of Practice for Country Island, including seasonal avoidance. It is assumed that other projects and activities occurring in the vicinity of Country Island (including SOEP decommissioning activities and construction activities in support of the Goldboro LNG Project and the Bear Paw Pipeline Project) will abide by similar restrictions as the decommissioning of the Deep Panuke Development, thereby reducing potential cumulative effects on nesting tern colonies.

Other potential cumulative interactions between the residual effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and the residual effects of other projects and activities on marine related birds remain generally consistent with those that were previously assessed in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report and require no further updating. In combination with the other projects and activities in the Study Area, including the new projects and activities identified since the 2006 EA Report, and with the application of proposed mitigation and environmental protection measures, the potential residual cumulative adverse effects of Deep Panuke decommissioning activities on marine related birds are predicted to be not significant.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 120

8.2.4 Special Areas

There are several special areas located within the Study Area (refer to Section 7.4.1), including:

 the Emerald Bank, Western Bank, and Sable Bank Complex EBSA, which is overlapped spatially by the Deep Panuke Development;  the Middle Bank EBSA, which is overlapped spatially by the offshore portion of the Deep Panuke GEP;  the Sable Shoals EBSA, which is located approximately 15 km from the Deep Panuke PFC; and  the coastal Country Harbour Islands EBSA, which is located in close proximity to the onshore portion of the Deep Panuke GEP and approximately 3.5 km from the onshore Deep Panuke GEP terminus facility.

Given the distance of the area of the Deep Panuke Development from other special areas (Figure 7.4.1), potential cumulative effects related to the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities are generally anticipated to be spatially limited to the four special areas identified above. However, potential cumulative effects associated with the presence and operation of vessels engaged in Deep Panuke decommissioning activities may also affect other special areas within the Study Area.

The assessment of cumulative environmental effects on marine fish, marine mammals and sea turtles, and marine related birds in the 2002 CSR and the 2006 EA Report, and updated in Sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2, and 8.2.3 of this ESA, are also applicable to marine fish, marine mammals and sea turtles, and marine related birds in special areas. In combination with the other projects and activities in the Study Area, including the new projects and activities identified since the 2006 EA Report, and with the application of proposed mitigation and environmental protection measures, the potential residual cumulative adverse effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on special areas are predicted to be not significant.

8.2.5 Onshore Environment

Residual effects from onshore GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities have potential to interact spatially and temporally with the residual effects of onshore SOEP decommissioning activities at Goldboro to cause cumulative adverse effects on the onshore environment, including adverse effects on habitat quality and use, habitat quantity, and increased risk of injury and mortality for terrestrial species. According to the SOEP Development Plan, during decommissioning “[the onshore Goldboro Gas Plant] will be removed and the land restored to a state similar to that which existed before construction began. Onshore pipelines, where buried, will, in general, be flushed internally, capped and abandoned in place. The [RoW] will be revegetated and allowed to return by natural succession. Any above ground structures associated with onshore pipelines will be removed” (ExxonMobil n.d.[c]). The potential effects of proposed GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on the onshore environment and the potential effects of proposed SOEP decommissioning activities at Goldboro on the onshore environment are therefore anticipated to be similar. The potential effects of Deep Panuke and SOEP decommissioning activities on the onshore environment are also anticipated to be similar to, but substantially less than, the potential effects of their respective construction phases.

The cumulative effects assessment for the onshore environment VC in the approved 2002 CSR assessed potential interactions between onshore Deep Panuke construction activities and larger and more substantial onshore construction projects, such as the Hudson Energy Company Power Project and Neptune Subsea

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 121

Electrical Transmission System, both of which were originally proposed to entail construction of natural gas- fired power generation facilities in Goldboro but were subsequently cancelled or put on hold indefinitely (Encana 2006). Potential cumulative onshore interactions between Deep Panuke decommissioning activities and SOEP decommissioning activities are anticipated to be minor in comparison with the cumulative effects that were previously assessed in the 2002 CSR for these larger and more substantial onshore construction projects.

Given the close proximity of the onshore Deep Panuke GEP terminus facility, beach valve station, and above-ground structures associated with the onshore Deep Panuke pipeline; the SOEP Goldboro Gas Plant and above-ground structures associated with the onshore SOEP pipelines; the proposed Goldboro LNG facility; and the proposed Bear Paw pipeline corridor, there is potential for adverse effects to overlap spatially and temporally and result in a cumulative increase in sensory disturbance and/or a cumulative increase in the risk of injury or mortality for terrestrial birds and wildlife. However, the contribution of the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities to these potential cumulative effects will be very minor in comparison to the contribution of other larger and more substantial projects and activities (i.e., construction of the Bear Paw pipeline and onshore components of the Goldboro LNG Project).

The sensory disturbance associated with these projects may result in temporary and localized avoidance of the affected area by terrestrial birds and wildlife, which could reduce the risk of injury or mortality from potential interactions with vehicles and equipment. The various proposed decommissioning and construction projects in the onshore portion of the Study Area are close enough to one another that the spatial extent of bird/wildlife avoidance that may occur as a result of the onshore GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities would not be expected to differ substantially from the spatial extent of bird/wildlife avoidance that may otherwise occur as a result of one or more of the other decommissioning and/or construction projects (i.e., SOEP decommissioning, Bear Paw pipeline construction, and/or construction of the onshore components of the Goldboro LNG Project) being carried out at the same time. The contribution of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities to an adverse cumulative change in habitat quality and use and the adverse cumulative change in risk of injury or mortality is not expected to continue beyond the cessation of decommissioning. Thus, these potential cumulative effects will be localized, temporary, and reversible.

Construction of the Bear Paw pipeline and onshore components of the Goldboro LNG Project will also result in loss of vegetation and terrestrial disturbance, as well as habitat fragmentation. However, for the reasons explained in the following paragraph, these residual adverse effects on terrestrial habitat quality and quantity are not anticipated to interact cumulatively with residual effects from the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities.

Potential cumulative adverse effects of Deep Panuke and SOEP decommissioning activities on the onshore environment will be reduced by abandoning the buried onshore pipelines in place rather than excavating them. Neither decommissioning project is expected to require any appreciable amount of clearing, grubbing, or other ground disturbance outside of previously altered areas; therefore, the potential cumulative loss of vegetation and direct disturbance to terrestrial habitat from Deep Panuke and SOEP decommissioning activities is anticipated to be negligible. The removal of above-ground infrastructure and facilities and the revegetation and restoration of terrestrial habitats as part of Deep Panuke and SOEP decommissioning

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 122

activities will ultimately contribute to a cumulative minor positive effect on terrestrial habitat quality and quantity within the Study Area.

Other potential cumulative interactions between the residual effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and the residual effects of other projects and activities on the onshore environment remain generally consistent with those that were previously assessed in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report and require no further updating. In combination with the other projects and activities in the Study Area, including the new projects and activities identified since the 2006 EA Report, and with the application of proposed mitigation and environmental protection measures, the potential residual cumulative adverse effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on the onshore environment are predicted to be not significant. Potential residual cumulative effects from the removal of above-ground infrastructure and facilities and the revegetation and restoration of terrestrial habitats are anticipated to be positive and minor.

8.2.6 Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries

The establishment of a safety zone at the commencement of Deep Panuke development drilling activities interacted with the existing SOEP safety zones, which had been in place since the commencement of SOEP drilling and production operations, to result in a cumulative reduction of the total area available to Indigenous and commercial fisheries within the Study Area. These existing safety zones will be maintained for the duration of Deep Panuke and SOEP decommissioning activities, thereby causing the past and present cumulative effect of the respective safety zones on Indigenous and commercial fisheries to continue temporarily into the future. The addition of a new safety zone associated with the Scotian Basin Project may overlap temporally, and therefore interact cumulatively, with these existing safety zones to further reduce the total area available to Indigenous and commercial fisheries within the Study Area. However, each of these safety zones are temporary and localized, representing a negligible portion of the total area available for use by Indigenous and commercial fisheries within the Study Area.

The Goldboro LNG Project will entail marine construction activities that will also restrict Indigenous and commercial fisheries access within a portion of NAFO Division 4W. However, given the approximately 150- km distance between active offshore Deep Panuke decommissioning activities and proposed nearshore marine construction activities in support of the Goldboro LNG Project, it is unlikely that the Goldboro LNG Project will displace the same fishers that will be affected by access restrictions associated with the Deep Panuke and/or SOEP safety zones.

The presence and operation of vessels engaged in GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities, SOEP decommissioning activities, the Scotian Basin Project, and marine construction activities in support of the Goldboro LNG Project could result in a cumulative increase in potential navigational obstructions and space-use conflicts affecting Indigenous and commercial fisheries (i.e., by further hindering their access to fisheries resources) within the Study Area. Vessels engaged in the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities are not expected to substantially contribute to space-use conflicts with fishing vessels, as they will generally use existing shipping routes and work within existing safety zones, will represent a minor component of total marine traffic in the Study Area, will occupy a negligible proportion of the total available fishing area in the Study Area, and their presence will be short-term and transient in nature.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 123

The decommissioning of the Deep Panuke and SOEP developments will enable the subsequent elimination of the long-standing Deep Panuke and SOEP safety zones such that Indigenous and commercial fisheries will no longer be excluded from the area. Upon elimination of the Deep Panuke and SOEP safety zones, there may be a residual cumulative change in access and use of those portions of the Study Area by Indigenous and commercial fisheries due to the presence of potential seabed hazards from subsea structures abandoned in place. However, the cumulative area that may be subject to future avoidance by Indigenous and commercial fisheries for this reason will be smaller in size than the cumulative area in which access is currently restricted due to existing safety zones. It is also expected that, following removal of the safety zones, the fisheries output of the areas in which access is currently restricted due to existing safety zones may be higher than surrounding areas due to increased fish aggregation and productivity from reef effects associated with the remaining infrastructure left in place (e.g., rock, mattresses).

The abandonment of the Deep Panuke and SOEP pipelines in place is not anticipated to cause a cumulative change in access or use of the area by Indigenous and commercial fisheries since they are not subject to safety zone restrictions and commercial hazards associated with the pipelines will be mitigated (e.g., through stabilization of pipeline spanning) where required and technically feasible. However, in areas where Indigenous and commercial fish harvesters currently avoid bottom-fishing due to the presence of the existing Deep Panuke and SOEP pipelines, this cumulative effect on access or use of the area by Indigenous and commercial fisheries will continue after the pipelines are abandoned.

Notices to Shipping and/or Notices to Mariners will be issued, as applicable, to inform Indigenous and commercial fisheries operating in the area regarding Deep Panuke and SOEP decommissioning activities and marine construction activities in support of the Goldboro LNG Project. The relevant Canadian hydrographic marine navigational charts provide Indigenous and commercial fisheries with the as-built locations of the Deep Panuke and SOEP pipelines and will be updated when the safety zone restrictions associated with the Deep Panuke and SOEP production facilities are removed.

Potential cumulative effects on marine fish (Section 8.2.1) are also applicable with respect to Indigenous and commercial fisheries, since they may cumulatively affect the availability of fisheries resources.

Other potential cumulative interactions between the residual effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and the residual effects of other projects and activities on Indigenous and commercial fisheries remain generally consistent with those that were previously assessed in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report and require no further updating. In combination with the other projects and activities in the Study Area, including the new projects and activities identified since the 2006 EA Report, and with the application of proposed mitigation and environmental protection measures, the potential residual cumulative adverse effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on Indigenous and commercial fisheries are predicted to be not significant. Potential residual cumulative effects from the restoration of access to areas in which fishing activity currently restricted due to existing safety zones are anticipated to be positive but also not significant.

8.2.7 Other Ocean Users

Similar to the cumulative effects assessed for Indigenous and commercial fisheries, the following cumulative environmental effect mechanisms are also applicable with respect to other ocean users:

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 124

 temporary displacement of other ocean users due to establishment of safety (exclusion) zones around the Deep Panuke PFC, SOEP platforms, and the Scotian Basin Project; and  space-use conflicts between the vessels of other ocean users and vessels associated with the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities, SOEP decommissioning activities, and the Scotian Basin Project.

The analysis of cumulative environmental effects provided in Section 8.2.6 relating to Indigenous and commercial fisheries is also generally applicable for other ocean users.

Other potential cumulative interactions between the residual effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and the residual effects of other projects and activities on other ocean users remain generally consistent with those that were previously assessed in the 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report and require no further updating. In combination with the other projects and activities in the Study Area, including the new projects and activities identified since the 2006 EA Report, and with the application of proposed mitigation and environmental protection measures, the potential residual cumulative adverse effects of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities on other ocean users are predicted to be not significant. Potential residual cumulative effects from the restoration of access to areas in which other ocean uses are currently restricted due to existing safety zones are anticipated to be positive and minor.

9 CONCLUSIONS

Encana Corporation (Encana) proposes to decommission and abandon its GEP and associated facilities located onshore and offshore Nova Scotia. An environmental assessment for the Development (including future decommissioning and abandonment activities) was completed by Encana in 2006 and approved by regulatory authorities in 2007. This report is an Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) to support the regulatory approval processes for the GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities as well as to assist Indigenous groups and stakeholders in identifying potential interests in the decommissioning and abandonment activities.

9.1 Summary of Potential Effects

This ESA Report updates the previous EA in support of additional applications to the NEB required for GEP decommissioning and abandonment. Updates include:

 Additional decommissioning and abandonment details  Changes to the regulatory environment since the approved 2006 EA Report  Changes to the biophysical and socio-economic environment since the approved 2006 EA Report

The preparation of the ESA Report relies heavily on the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report. The EA method is focused on the identification and assessment of potential adverse environmental effects of the technical, regulatory, biophysical, and socio-economic updates or changes on the valued components (VCs) identified in the 2002 CSR and the 2006 EA Report. Based on a consideration of the potential changes to the environment, the following valued components have been selected for consideration in the ESA Report:

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 125

 Marine Fish  Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles  Marine Related Birds  Special Areas  Onshore Environment  Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries  Other Ocean Users

GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities include the flushing and cleaning of the GEP; abandonment of the GEP and associated offshore assets (e.g. tunnels, mattresses, rock) in place; removal of subsea isolation valve; removal of above-ground onshore facilities and abandonment of some onshore buried structures in place. Potential interactions from decommissioning activities may occur from vessel traffic, equipment and structure removal or abandonment, routine noise, emissions and discharges; as well as accidental events.

9.2 Summary of Mitigation

GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities will meet all commitments made in the original NEB Application and 2006-2007 environmental assessment (Section 11.4 of the 2006 EA Report). Decommissioning will be executed in compliance with the NEB regulations as well as all applicable codes and standards. Mitigation identified in the 2006 EA Report related to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities includes:

 Export pipeline cleaned and decommissioned in place  Onshore facilities removed, and land restored in accordance with applicable regulations  Buried onshore pipeline flushed, capped, and abandoned in place  All potential snagging hazards addressed

Additional mitigation details identified in the ESA include:

 Monitoring will be conducted for sheens during decommissioning activities.  Encana will consult with DFO to confirm applicable vessel speed restrictions prior to decommissioning and abandonment activities.  Encana will continue ongoing communication with Indigenous groups and stakeholders during decommissioning and abandonment activities.  Notices to Shipping and/or Notices to Mariners will be issued, as applicable, to inform fish harvesters operating in the area regarding Encana’s decommissioning activities  Implementation of the Deep Panuke Emergency Management Plan (DPEMP)  Once decommissioning is complete, the relevant Canadian hydrographic marine navigational charts will be updated to indicate that the safety zone has been removed and the gas export has been abandoned.

9.3 Summary of Residual Effects

Table 9.3.1 summarizes the significance of residual effects for each VC for GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities and cumulative effects.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 126

Table 9.3.1 Summary of Residual Environmental and Cumulative Effects

GEP decommissioning and Cumulative Effects abandonment activities VC Significance of Residual Significance of Residual Environmental Effect Environmental Effect Marine Fish N N Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles N N Marine Related Birds N N Special Areas N N Onshore Environment N N Indigenous and Commercial Fisheries N N Other Ocean Users N N Key: N = Non significant residual environmental effect (adverse) S = Significant residual environmental effect (adverse

The modifications assessed in this ESA Report have resulted in the same conclusion as the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA with respect to GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities; i.e., no significant effects are likely on any of the VCs.

In general, the assessment of GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities in the approved 2002 CSR and 2006 EA Report remains valid and requires no updating. Residual effects from GEP decommissioning and abandonment activities are expected to be similar to, or less than, those from construction and operation activities. Decommissioning and abandonment is expected to result in some positive changes since there will be less noise and emissions following decommissioning activities. A minor positive effect on marine habitat will remain associated with the reef and refuge effect from subsea infrastructure left in place (e.g., rock, concrete mattresses and tunnels, and the GEP).

Following decommissioning and abandonment activities, the safety zone will be removed, and the area will be re-opened to fishing and navigation.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 127

10 REFERENCES

Personal Communications

Paul MacLean, Strategic and Regulatory Affairs Advisor, Bear Head LNG Corporation. Personal Communication. May 3, 2018.

Literature

AMEC. 2006. Petrochemicals and Liquified natural Gas Facility: Environmental Assessment Goldboro, Nova Scotia. Report for Keltic Petrochemicals Inc.

AMEC. 2013. Goldboro Liquefies Natural Gas Facility and Marine Terminal Environmental Assessment, Goldboro, Nova Scotia. Final report.

Anaconda Mining. 2018. Goldboro Project. Available from: https://www.anacondamining.com/goldboro- project. Accessed June 2018.

Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team. 2006. Recovery Strategy for Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, vi + 45 pp

Bear Paw (Bear Paw Pipeline Corporation Inc.). 2016. Bear Paw Pipeline Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Available from: https://novascotia.ca/nse/ea/bear-paw- pipeline.asp.

Beauchamp, J., H. Bouchard, P. de Margerie, N. Otis, J.-Y. Savaria. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Northwest Atlantic population, in Canada [FINAL]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. 62 pp.

Bowyer, R.T., V. Van Ballenberghe, and J.G. Kie. 2003. Chapter 45 Moose: Alces alces in Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. 2nd edition. G.A. Feldhammer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds. 1216 pp.

BP (BP Canada Energy Group ULC). 2016. Scotian Exploration Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Available from: https://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/116118.

BP (BP Canada Energy Group ULC). 2017. BP in Nova Scotia. Available from: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp- country/en_ca/canada/documents/BP%20in%20NS%20newsletter_Oct2017.pdf.

Broders, H.G., A.B. Coombs, and J.R. McCarron. 2012. Ecothermic responses of moose (Alces alces) to thermoregulatory stress on mainland Nova Scotia. Alces. 48: 53-61.

Canadian Coast Guard. 1994. Sable Island Emergency Contingency Plan. May, 1994. Transport Canada Coast Guard Maritimes. Dartmouth, NS.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 128

Canadian Wildlife Services (CWS). 2004. Environmental Assessment Best Practices Guide for Wildlife at Risk in Canada. First Edition: 27 February 2004.

Cape Breton Post. 2017. Bear Head LNG and Bear Paw Pipeline sign MOU with Nova Scotia Community College. Cape Breton Post. Published September 13, 2016 and updated October 2, 2017. Available from: http://www.capebretonpost.com/news/local/bear-head-lng-and-bear-paw-pipeline- sign-mou-with-nova-scotia-community-college-12659/.

CNSOPB (Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2014. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Offshore Petroleum Exploration Activities. Eastern Scotian Shelf – Middle and Sable Island Banks. Available from: https://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/15581_75354.7.1_sea_- _eastern_scotian_shelf_and_slope_middle_and_sable_island_banks_2012_final_reportsphase1a _10032012.pdf. Accessed March 2018.

CNSOPB (Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2018a. Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board Issues BP Canada Approval to Drill a Well. Available from: https://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/news/canada-nova-scotia-offshore-petroleum-board-issues-bp-canada- approval-drill-well.

CNSOPB (Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2018b. Weekly Operations Report: Well Activities (April 26, 2018). Available from: https://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/April2618.pdf.

CNSOPB (Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board) and C-NLOPB (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board). 2017. Compensation Guidelines Respecting Damages Relating to Offshore Petroleum Activity. Available from: https://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/compensation_guidelines-final- november_7_2017_-_includes_isbn.pdf

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2007a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Roughhead Grenadier Macrourus berglax in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 40pp. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2007b. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 45 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2007c. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Red Knot Calidris canutus in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 58 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2007d. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 25pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2007e. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 25 pp.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 129

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2008a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Roundnose Grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 42pp. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2008b. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Killer Whale Orcinus orca (Southern Resident population, Northern Resident population, West Coast Transient population, Offshore population and Northwest Atlantic / Eastern Arctic population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 65pp. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2008c. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 24 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2008d. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 35 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2009a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the American Plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides (Maritime population, Newfoundland and Labrador population and Arctic population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 74pp. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2009b. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 48 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2010a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Deepwater Redfish/ Acadian Redfish Complex Sebates mentella and Sebates faciatus, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 80pp. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2010b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias (Atlantic population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 50pp. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2010c. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar (Nunavik population, Labrador population, Northeast Newfoundland population, South Newfoundland population, Southwest Newfoundland population, Northwest Newfoundland population, Quebec Eastern North Shore population, Quebec Western North Shore population, Anticosti Island population, Inner St. Lawrence population, Lake Ontario population, Gaspé-Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population, Eastern Cape Breton population, Nova Scotia Southern Upland population, Inner Bay of Fundy population, Outer Bay of Fundy population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xlvii + 136 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 130

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2010d. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii+ 75pp. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 37 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Smooth Skate Malacoraja senta in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xix + 77 pp. Available from: http://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_raie_queue_velours_smooth_skate_1012_e.pdf.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the American Eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 109pp. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012c. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis in Canada. Ottawa. x + 44 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012d. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens in Canada. Ottawa. x + 39 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2013a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Bank Swallow Riparia riparia in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 48 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2013b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus, Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis and Tri-colored Bat Perimyotis subflavus in Canada. Ottawa. xxiv + 93 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus in Canada. Ottawa. x + 52 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 64 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2017. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 64 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2018.Species at Risk Public Registry. Available from: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm. Updated March 2018.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 131

Denny, S. 2014. Mi’kmaq Traditional Knowledge: Eels and the Bras d’Or Lakes. Available from: https://www.dal.ca/sites/fishwiks/news- events/2014/05/01/mi_kmaq_traditional_knowledge__eels_and_the_bras_d_or_lakes.html. Accessed May 2018.

Denny, S. K., Fanning, L. M. 2016. A Mi’kmaw Perspective on Advancing Salmon Governance in Nova Scotia, Canada: Setting the Stage for Collaborative Co-Existence. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 7(3) Available at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=12 94&context=iipj.

Denny, S., A. Denny, K. Christmas, and T. Paul. 2015. Plamu Mi’kmaq Ecological Knowledge: Atlantic Salmon in Unama’ki. Available at: http://www.uinr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Salmon-MEK- WEB.pdf. Accessed May 2018.

Desorbo, C.R; R.B. Gray; J. Tash; C. Gray; and K.A. Williams. 2014. Offshore migration of Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus) along the Atlantic Flyway. Chapter 17, Wildlife Studies on the Mid- Atlantic Continental Shelf Biodiversity Research Institute 2014 Annual report.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007. Statement of Canadian Practice with respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment. Available from: http://waves-vagues.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/Library/363838.pdf.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2010. Recovery Strategy for the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), inner Bay of Fundy populations [Final]. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. xiii + 58 pp. + Appendices.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2013a. Aquatic Species at Risk-Acadian Redfish (Atlantic population). Available from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/acadia- redfish-sebaste-acadie-eng.html#information.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2013b. Aquatic Species at Risk-American Plaice (Maritime population) Available from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species- especes/american-plaice-plie-eng.htm.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2014a. Offshore Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the Scotian Shelf Bioregion. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2014/041.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2014b. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 68 pp.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2014c. Regional Oceans Plan (Maritimes Region) – Background and Program Description. Available from: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/365205.pdf.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 132

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2014d. Regional Oceans Plan (Maritimes Region) – Implementation Priorities: 2014-2017. Available from: http://waves-vagues.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/Library/365207.pdf.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2014e. Offshore Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the Scotian Shelf Bioregion. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2014/041.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2016a. Aquatic Species – Lumpfish. Available from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/lumpfish-lompe-eng.html.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2016b. Recovery Strategy for the Northern Bottlenose Whale, (Hyperoodan ampullatus), Scotian Shelf population, in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 70 pp.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2017a. Management Plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Atlantic population in Canada, Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series, DFO, Ottawa, iv +38 p.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2017b. Management Plan for the Sowerby’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon bidens) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iv + 46 pp.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2018a. Aquatic Species at Risk – North Atlantic Right Whale. Available from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/rightwhaleNA- baleinenoireAN-eng.html.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2018b. Aquatic Species – Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles – Right whale deaths in Gulf of St. Lawrence. Available from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species- especes/mammals-mammiferes/narightwhale-baleinenoirean/2017/index-eng.html.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2018c. Eastern Shore Island AOI. Available from http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/oceans/aoi-si/easternshore-ilescoteest-eng.html. Accessed April 2018.

Doherty, P., and Horsman, T. 2007. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas of the Scotian Shelf and Environs: A Compilation of Scientific Expert Opinion. DFO Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2774: 57 + xii pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2007. Management Plan for the Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Eastern Population, in Atlantic Canada and Québec. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa. vii + 32 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2010. Amended Recovery Strategy for the Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa. vii + 36pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2011. Management Plan for the Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), Eastern Population, in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa. iv + 15 pages.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 133

EC (Environment Canada). 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus melodus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa. v + 29 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2014a. Recovery Strategy for the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa. iv+ 21 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2014b. Management Plan for the Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. iv + 22 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2015. Recovery Strategy for Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), and Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa. ix + 110 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2016a. Management Plan for the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa. v + 35 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2016b. Recovery Strategy for the Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa. vii + 49 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2016c. Recovery Strategy for the Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa. vii + 52 pp.

EC (Environment Canada). 2016d. Recovery Strategy for the Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa. vii + 56 pp.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2016. Recovery Strategy and Management Plan for the Red Knot (Calidris canutus) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa. ix + 54 pp.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2017. Management Plan for the Peregrine Falcon anatum/tundrius (Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa. iv + 28 pp.

Encana (Encana Corporation). 2002. Deep Panuke Offshore Gas Development. Comprehensive Study Report.

Encana (Encana Corporation). 2006. Deep Panuke Offshore Gas Development Environmental Assessment Report. Available from: https://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/pdfs/1.pdf

Encana (Encana Corporation). 2017. 2016 Offshore Environmental Effects Monitoring Annual Report. Available from: https://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/2016_eem_report_dmen-x00-rp- eh-90-0033.02u.pdf.

ExxonMobil (ExxonMobil Canada Properties). 2017. Sable Offshore Energy Project Decommissioning Phase Activities. Available from: http://soep.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/WP02353_SableOpenHouseDisplays.pdf. Accessed April 2018.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 134

ExxonMobil (ExxonMobil Canada Properties). 2018. Sable Offshore Energy Project Leave to Abandon Application for Goldboro Gas Plant and 26” Gathering Pipeline. Available from: https://apps.neb- one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/File/Download/3537148.

ExxonMobil (ExxonMobil Canada Properties). n.d.[a]. Sable Project – About the Project. Available from: http://soep.com/about-the-project/. Accessed April 2018.

ExxonMobil (ExxonMobil Canada Properties). n.d.[b]. Sable Project – Timeline. Available from: http://soep.com/about-the-project/timeline/. Accessed April 2018.

ExxonMobil (ExxonMobil Canada Properties). n.d.[c]. Development Plan. Available from: http://soep.com/about-the-project/development-plan-application/.

GCIFA (Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen Association). 2014. GCIFA Website. Available from: http://www.gcifa.ns.ca/Fisheries.html. Accessed June 2018.

Hastings, K., M. King, and K. Allard. 2014. Ecologically and biologically significant areas in the Atlantic coastal region of Nova Scotia. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3107: xii + 174 p.

Horsman, T.L., and Shackell, N.L. 2009. Atlas of Important Habitat for Key Fish Species of the Scotian Shelf, Canada. DFO Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2835 viii + 82pp. Available from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/337080.pdf

Kulka, D., C. Hood, and J. Huntington. 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.

Laist, D.W., A.R., Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and whales. Mar. Mammal Sci., 17(1): 35-75.

LNGL (Liquefied Natural Gas Limited). n.d. Project Description. Available from: http://www.lnglimited.com.au/irm/content/project-description3.aspx?RID=456.

Maguire, J.J., and B. Lester. 2012. Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in Atlantic Canadian Waters: Biology, Status, Recovery Potential, and Measures for Mitigation. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/002: vi + 28pp.

McGregor Geosciences Ltd. 2015. Offshore Environmental Effects Monitoring for Deep Panuke. Program Annual Report 2015. 171 pp. + Appendices.

McNeil, J. 2013. Action Plan for the Recovery of Eastern Moose (Alces alces americana) in Mainland Nova Scotia. Mainland Moose Recovery Team and Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. Kempt, Nova Scotia. v + 21 pp.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 135

MELC (Mi’kmaq Environmental Learning Centre). 2014. Malikewe’j Understanding the Mi’kmaq Way. Available from: http://www.uinr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Mala-FINAL-WEB1-1.pdf. Accessed May 2018.

MGC (Membertou Geomatics Consultants). 2008. Deep Panuke Offshore Gas Development Project. Mi’kmaq Ecological Knowledge Study.

MGS (Membertou Geomatics Solutions) and UINR (Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources). 2016. Traditional Use Study. Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik Fisheries. Scotian Basin Exploration Drilling Project.

MLS. (Maritime Launch Services). 2018. Maritime Launch Services Set to Submit Environmental Assessment Report for Nova Scotia Spaceport. Available at: http://spaceq.ca/maritime-launch- services-set-to-submit-environmental-assessment-report-for-nova-scotia-spaceport/. Accessed June 2018.

MMS (Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region). 2002. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2003-2007. Final Environmental Statement. Volume 1. Chapters 1-10. Section 4.2.1.8 Impacts on Coastal and Marine Birds.

MODG (Municipality of the District of Guysborough). 2016. Municipality of the District of Guysborough website Natural Advantages. Available from: http://www.municipality.guysborough.ns.ca/business. Accessed June 2018.

MODG. 2017. Municipality of the District of Guysborough Strategic Plan 2017-2022. Available from: http://www.modg.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/MODG%20Strategic%20Plan%20-%20Final_1.pdf. Accessed June 2018.

NEB (National Energy Board). 1996. Pipeline Abandonment – A discussion Paper on Technical and Environmental Issues. Available from: https://www.neb- one.gc.ca/prtcptn/pplnbndnmnt/pplnbndnmnttchnclnvrnmntl-eng.html.

NEB (National Energy Board). 2017. Filing Manual – Guide B – Abandonment Funding and Applications to Abandon. Available from: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/xxnmblsblffshr/index- eng.html. Updated July 12, 2017.

NEB (National Energy Board). 2018. ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. – Sable Offshore Energy Project – Abandonment of Gathering Pipeline and the Goldboro Gas Plant. Available from: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/xxnmblsblffshr/index-eng.html. Accessed April 2018.

NEB, C-NLOPB, and CNSOPB (National Energy Board, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2009. Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines for Drilling and Production Activities on Frontier Lands. iii + 13 pp. Available from: http://www.C-NLOPB.nl.ca/pdfs/guidelines/ocsg.pdf.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 136

NEB, C-NLOPB, and CNSOB (National Energy Board, Canadian Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board). 2010. Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines. Available from: http://www.C-NLOPB.nl.ca/pdfs/guidelines/owtg1012e.pdf.

NSDNR (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources). 2007. Recovery Plan for Moose (Alces alces americana) in Mainland Nova Scotia. v + 38 pp.

NSFA (Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture). 2014. Statistical Profile of Guysborough County. Available from: http://nsfa-fane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Statistical-Profile-of-Guysborough- County.pdf. Accessed. June 2018.

Parker, G. 2003. Status Report on The Eastern Moose (Alces alces americana Clinton) in Mainland Nova Scotia. 77 pp.

PEI Fishermen’s Association. 2012. Tuna – PEIFA Submission. Available at: http://www.peifa.org/members/news/TUNA---PEIFA-submission/no/14. Accessed May 2018.

Pieridae Energy [Pieridae Energy (Canada) Ltd.]. 2013. Environmental Assessment (Class 2 Undertaking): Goldboro LNG Project Natural Gas Liquefaction Plant & Marine Terminal. Prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, September 2013. Available from: https://novascotia.ca/nse/ea/goldboro-lng.asp.

Pieridae (Pieridae Energy). 2018. Goldboro LNG Newsletter, Winter 2018. Available from: http://goldborolng.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-01-23-Newsletter.pdf.

Ronconi, R.A., J.R. Stephens, Z.J. Crysler, I.L. Pollet, D.T. Fife, A.G. Horn, and P.D. Taylor. 2016. Distribution, abundance and trends of gulls and terns breeding on Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. Waterbirds. 39: 44-56.

Ronconi, R.A., K.A. Allard, and P.D. Taylor. 2015. Bird interactions with offshore oil and gas platforms: review of impacts and monitoring techniques. Journal of Environmental Management. 147: 34-45.

Simpson, M.R., J. Gauthier, H.P. Benoît, D. MacDonald, K. Hedges, R. Collins, L. Mello, and C. Miri. 2016. A pre-COSEWIC assessment of the Common Lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus, Linnaeus 1758) in Canadian Atlantic and Arctic waters. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2016/068. v + 135 p.

Stantec (Stantec Consulting Ltd.). 2014. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Offshore Petroleum Exploration Activities. Western Scotian Slope (Phase 3B). Prepared for the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Halifax, NS. iv + 282 pp.

Thomson, A. 2017. ‘Harsh conditions’ help force shutdown of Sable Island wind project. CBC News. Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/sable-island-wind-project- discontinued-1.3990349. Published and updated February 19, 2017.

Tufts, R. W. 1986. Birds of Nova Scotia. 3rd ed. Nimbus Publishing Ltd. N.S. Museum. Halifax, N.S. 478 pp.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 137

UINR (Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources). 2015a. Fact Sheet for Katew – Eel Anguilla rostrata. Available at: http://www.uinr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Katew-Eel-Fact-Sheet.pdf. Accessed May 2018.

UINR (Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources). 2015b. Fact Sheet for Plamu – Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Available at: http://www.uinr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Plamu-Atlantic-Salmon-Fact- Sheet.pdf. Accessed May 2018. van der Hoop, J.M., A.S.M. Vanderlaan, and C.T. Taggart. 2012. Absolute probability estimates of lethal vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales in Roseway Basin, Scotian Shelf. Ecolog. Applic., 22(7): 2021-2033.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and C. T. Taggart. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Mar. Mammal Sci., 23: 144-156.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., J.J. Corbett, S.L. Green, J.A. Callahan, C. Wang, R.D. Kenney, C. T. Taggart, and J. Firestone. 2009. Probability and mitigation of vessel encounters with North Atlantic right whales. Endang. Species Res., 6: 273-285.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Taggart, C.T., Serdynska, A.R., Kenney, R.D., and Brown, M.W. 2008. Reducing the risk of lethal encounters: vessels and right whales in the Bay of Fundy and on the Scotian Shelf. Endang. Species Res., 4: 282-297.

Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., Rosel, P.E. (eds.). 2015. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments -- 2014. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 231; 361 p. Available from: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm231/71_killerwhale_F2014July.pdf

Weir, C.R. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacles: a review of the state-of-the- art and solutions. Can. Wildl. Serv., Ont. Reg., Ottawa. 85 pp.

Wiese, F.K., Montevecchi, W.A., Davoren, G.K., Huettmann, F., Diamond, A.W., and Linke, J. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 42: 1285-1290.

Deep Panuke Pipeline Abandonment ESA • June 2018 138 APPENDIX A Encana’s Environment Policy

Environment Policy

Encana recognizes that responsible environmental practices contribute to long-term shareholder value creation and that strong environmental performance is both a core value and common goal of Encana’s leadership and staff. This Environment Policy articulates our commitment to environmental stewardship where our staff is empowered and expected to comply with the requirements of this policy. Encana will: . comply with or exceed all environmental laws and regulations, requirements and recognized industry standards and practices applicable to our activities . identify and assess environmental risks and impacts arising from our activities and adopt technically sound and economically practicable measures to avoid or mitigate risks and negative environmental impacts . strive to reduce emissions intensity and increase the energy efficiency of our operations . source, handle and dispose of water responsibly . commit to pollution prevention and waste minimization . minimize habitat disturbance and protect plant and animal populations through effective planning and responsible resource development . commit to the continual improvement of our environmental programs by setting achievable environmental objectives and targets, and by regularly assessing our progress

. expect our staff, including employees and contractors, to comply with our established environmental practices, and provide the tools and training for them to do so . proactively participate in environmental initiatives and in the development of guidelines and legislation proposed by federal, state/provincial or local government entities

. communicate our commitment to environmental stewardship to our stakeholders, including employees, investors, contractors and the local communities . integrate responsible environmental stewardship into our business planning and decision- making processes, and monitor, measure and communicate to stakeholders our environmental performance Encana is committed to implementing this Environment Policy by the active participation of our leadership and staff and through the integration of Ethos, our Environment, Health & Safety Management System, into our day-to-day operations and decision-making processes.

Effective: May 1, 2013

*Terms bolded and italicized in a policy or practice are defined in the Policies & Practices Glossary and such definitions are incorporated by reference into such policy or practice to the extent used therein.

1 | Environment Policy

APPENDIX B Environment Codes of Practice

Code of practice for Sable Island

Encana has developed, as part of its environmental protection planning, a code of practice to protect the uniqueness and integrity of Sable Island (see area reference map). This code is not a regulatory requirement and is indicative of Encana’s environmental stewardship philosophy and corporate policies. Sable Island is approximately 42 kilometres (km) (26 miles) in length and is located 290 km (157 nautical miles) southeast of Halifax. The island is composed of sand and is the only emergent portion of the Sable Island Bank. It supports a fragile ecosystem consisting of diverse flora and fauna; the best known components being the feral horses, seal populations, the rare Ipswich (Savannah) sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis princeps) and the endangered Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii). Legislation to formally protect Sable Island as a National Park Reserve under the Canada National Parks Act was passed in June 2013. Access and activities on the island are administered by Parks Canada. Nesting tern colonies on the island have also been designated as critical habitat for Roseate terns under the Species at Risk Act. Encana is represented on the Sable Island Stakeholder Committee chaired by Parks Canada. Parks Canada’s website and the Guide to Sable Island National Park Reserve 2013-14 provide important information about the island, safety information, and guidelines for visiting Sable Island. The Sable Island Green Horse Society website also contains additional information about the island.

As part of its environmental stewardship with respect to Sable Island:

. Encana will not conduct exploration, development or production activities within 2km (one nautical mile) of Sable Island.

. Encana vessels and aircraft are not permitted within 2km (one nautical mile) of the Island. However, this restriction does not apply in the case of an emergency situation, for access required as part of an approved environmental monitoring program or for special trips approved by Parks Canada. All Encana activities on Sable Island must receive approval from Encana senior management and Parks Canada and will comply with all applicable guidelines including Parks Canada’s visitor information and registration requirements.

. Encana will include discussion of this code of practice in its environmental awareness training program for its personnel. Encana intends this code to be a living document and will review and update it as required. This code of practice is also publicly available on the Encana website and the site’s Deep Panuke Pages.

1 | Code of practice for Sable Island Code of practice for the Gully Marine Protected Area

Encana has developed, as part of its environmental protection planning, a code of practice to protect the uniqueness and integrity of the Gully Marine Protected Area (MPA) (see area reference map). This code is not a regulatory requirement and is indicative of Encana’s environmental stewardship philosophy and corporate policies. The Gully is a large submarine canyon approximately 40 kilometres (km) (21.6 nautical miles) east of Sable Island on the edge of the Scotian Shelf. It is unique among canyons of the Eastern Canadian margin because of its depth, steep slopes and extension back into the continental shelf. The Gully contains a rich diversity of marine habitats and species, including deep-sea corals and the endangered northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus). The area is nationally and globally acknowledged as an important and exceptional marine habitat. The Gully has been designated by the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) as an MPA under the Oceans Act in 2004, and comprises an area of 2,364 square km (913 square miles). The MPA regulations prohibit the disturbance, damage, destruction or removal of any living marine organism or habitat within the Gully. The MPA contains three management zones, each providing varying levels of protection based on conservation objectives and ecological sensitivities. The regulations also control human activities in areas around the Gully that could cause harmful effects within the MPA boundary. Encana is represented on the Gully Advisory Committee chaired by DFO.

As part of its environmental stewardship with respect to the Gully MPA:

▪ Encana will not conduct activities inside the Gully MPA. In addition, no vessels are permitted within the Gully MPA and aircraft in regular transit to and from any vessels, drilling units, or facilities are restricted to flying at a height of at least 500 metres (1640 feet). These restrictions apply unless it is required for purposes of safety or safe operation of a vessel/aircraft or as part of an approved environmental monitoring program.

▪ Encana will include discussion of this code of practice in its environmental awareness training program for its personnel. Encana intends this code to be a living document and will review and update it as required. This code of practice is also publicly available on the Encana website and the site’s Deep Panuke Pages.

1 | Code of practice for the Gully Marine Protected Area Code of practice for Country Island

Encana has developed, as part of its environmental protection planning, a code of practice to protect the uniqueness and integrity of the Roseate tern colony of Country Island (see area reference map). While the focus is on Country Island, the code will also serve to protect nearby seabird colonies. This code is not a regulatory requirement and is indicative of Encana’s environmental stewardship philosophy and corporate policies. Country Island is a 19 hectare (ha) island, located approximately eight kilometres (km) (five miles or 4.3 nautical miles) offshore from Goldboro, Nova Scotia (45º06’N, 61º32’W). The island hosts a sizeable breeding colony of Common and Arctic terns and has provided a nesting opportunity for the endangered Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) for many years. The Roseate is the tern species most at risk in northeastern North America. There are about 3,000 pairs in the northeastern United States and less than 60 pairs in Atlantic Canada, mostly in one or two colonies, including between 15 – 30 pairs on the Country Island complex. Country Island has been identified as critical habitat for the Roseate tern by Environment Canada in its recovery strategy (Amended Recovery Strategy for the Roseate Tern [Sterna dougallii] in Canada, 2010) under the Species at Risk Act. This designation includes the entire terrestrial habitat of the island as well as aquatic habitat extending 200 metres (656 feet) seaward from the mean high tide line.

As part of its environmental stewardship with respect to Country Island:

▪ Encana will not fly over, disembark or approach within 2km (one nautical mile) of Country Island (which encompasses the Roseate tern designated critical habitat) unless it is required for purposes of safety or safe operation of a vessel or aircraft or as part of an approved environmental monitoring program.

▪ Encana will include discussion of this code of practice in its environmental awareness training program for its personnel. Encana intends this code to be a living document and will review and update it as required. This code of practice is also publicly available on the Encana website and the site’s Deep Panuke Pages.

1 | Code of practice for Country Island

APPENDIX C Engagement Material

Deep Panuke Information Update | March 2018

OVERVIEW Encana Corporation (Encana) is the owner and operator of the Deep Panuke natural gas development, located in the marine environment approximately 175 kilometres (km) offshore Nova Scotia. The development includes facilities required to produce natural gas from the Deep Panuke field, such as the offshore platform (production field centre or PFC), subsea wells, flowlines, control umbilicals and protection structures for subsea equipment. Natural gas is processed offshore and transported via a subsea pipeline to shore near Goldboro, Nova Scotia for further transport to markets using the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NP). The Deep Panuke development is reaching the stage of declining production; therefore, Encana has begun to plan decommissioning activities. DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS It is currently Encana’s plan to generally complete the decommissioning of the Deep Panuke development as follows:

• cessation of production operations • decommissioning of the offshore platform (PFC), subsea structures, flowlines, umbilicals, gas export pipeline, and onshore facilities • well plugging and abandonment • PFC removal and final field survey 1

Deep Panuke Information Update | March 2018

DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES

Production Field Centre (PFC) typically a combination of steel plugs with Decommissioning and Removal cement on top. Decommissioning of the PFC (i.e., the The subsea trees (structure that sits atop the platform) will essentially be a reverse of the wellhead to control the flow of production installation process. The PFC and the fluid) will be removed by either a drilling rig processing equipment will be shutdown, as part of the well plugging and flushed, and cleaned. The PFC will then be abandonment scope, or by a construction disconnected from the subsea infrastructure, support vessel (CSV) as part of the subsea jacked down, and removed from the site via decommissioning activities (see below). barge or de-installation vessel. Subsea Facilities Wells Plugging and Abandonment The well flowlines will be depressurized, For each of Deep Panuke’s four subsea flushed, and cleaned, and disconnected from production wells and one subsea injection the PFC riser. Flowlines and umbilicals, well, a drill rig will install a series of which are trenched (buried), will be permanent barriers to plug and isolate the abandoned in place below the seafloor. producing/injection zones; these barriers are

2

Deep Panuke Information Update | March 2018

Gas Export Pipeline (GEP) The offshore GEP, approximately 175 km in length, will be abandoned in place after it is depressurized, flushed, and filled with seawater. Stabilization features (mattresses, grout bags, concrete tunnels, rock, etc.) will be left in place on the seabed and provide habitat for fish and invertebrates (“reef effect”) as documented during Encana’s annual environmental effect monitoring surveys. An example of “reef effect” is shown in the images to the right. Additional stabilization features (e.g., rock bags and/or concrete A typical concrete mattress, pre- and mattresses) will be added to secure items post-deployment, is shown in the above abandoned in place, as required. images (arrow points to a lobster).

Onshore Facilities Decommissioning Aboveground structures associated with the onshore pipeline, such as the beach valve station and the GEP terminus, will be removed. The buried onshore pipeline will be flushed, water removed, capped, and abandoned in place. Plugs will be installed at strategic locations to prevent ground subsidence and unnatural drainage of wet areas. The onshore pipeline right-of-way was re-vegetated after construction in 2010 and has been allowed to return to a natural state.

Onshore, aboveground infrastructure is Top left photo: GEP terminus building shown in the image to the right. Top right photo: GEP terminus connection to M&NP Bottom photo: GEP terminus pig receiver

3

Deep Panuke Information Update | March 2018

REGULATORY PROCESSES CONTACT Decommissioning of the Deep Panuke A key component of this information update development will require approvals from the is to provide up-to-date information on key Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum activities. Encana is available to meet with Board (CNSOPB) and the National Energy interested groups that would like to discuss Board (NEB). The CNSOPB will issue potential effects, concerns, and interests Operations Authorizations and well related to the decommissioning activities so approvals to approve the decommissioning that these may be considered in the of Deep Panuke facilities. The NEB will issue decommissioning planning process. a Leave to Abandon for the Deep Panuke For additional information, please feel free to gas export pipeline and onshore facilities. contact: Decommissioning activities were previously Jay Hartling assessed and approved as part of a 2006- 2007 Environmental Assessment (EA) by the Advisor, Indigenous Relations Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Proposed decommissioning [email protected] activities remain the same as described in Christine Jeans the 2006-2007 EA and will meet all commitments made in the original Engagement Support assessment. [email protected] Encana will prepare an Environmental Study (ES) to update the 2006-2007 EA. While proposed decommissioning activities remain the same as in the 2006-2007 EA, additional project details and environmental information are now available. It is anticipated that the preparation of the ES report will meet regulatory requirements for both the CNSOPB and the NEB. SCHEDULE While Encana has not set a date for the cessation of production operations or for the formal commencement of decommissioning activities, Encana anticipates conducting decommissioning activities during the 2019- 2021 timeframe.

4

Deep Panuke Decommissioning Information

June 06 | 2018

1 Deep Panuke Decommissioning

Agenda • Deep Panuke Development Overview • Decommissioning Overview and Process • Regulatory Processes • Schedule • Engagement • Discussion

2 Deep Panuke Development

Overview • Natural gas production on Scotian Shelf – Water depth 45 m – 250 km southeast of Halifax, NS – ~25 km from Alma (nearest Sable Offshore Energy Project platform) • 172 km offshore pipeline to landfall in Goldboro, NS • 3 km onshore pipeline with interconnect to Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline 3 Deep Panuke Development Decommissioning Overview

Removal of Production Field Centre (platform) • PFC decommissioning essentially reverse of installation process • PFC processing equipment shutdown, flushed, and cleaned • PFC then disconnected from subsea infrastructure, jacked down, and removed from site via barge or de-installation vessel

5 Decommissioning Overview

Well and Subsea Facilities • Four production wells and one injection well • Each well permanently plugged • Subsea trees recovered • Piles cut below seabed • Wellhead protection structure Typical Subsea Tree recovered • Trenched flowlines flushed, cleaned and abandoned in place

Wellhead Protection Structure

6 Decommissioning Overview

Gas Export Pipeline (GEP)

• GEP depressurized, flushed, filled with seawater, and abandoned in place

7 Decommissioning Overview

Lobster Additional Assets • Left in place Typical Concrete Mattress (Pre- and Post-Deployment)

Typical Concrete Tunnel (Pre- and Post-Deployment)

8 Typical Rock Filter Unit (Pre- and Post-Deployment) Decommissioning Overview

Onshore Facilities • Remove above ground infrastructure

9 Decommissioning Regulatory Processes

• Required approvals – CNSOPB Operations Authorizations and well approvals – NEB Leave to Abandon – Other (Navigation Protection, etc.) • Decommissioning activities assessed in 2006-2007 Deep Panuke Environmental Assessment (EA) under CEAA • Encana will meet all commitments made in approved 2006-2007 EA related to Deep Panuke decommissioning activities • In Nov 2017, CEAA confirmed that decommissioning scope does not need to be assessed under CEAA 2012

10 Decommissioning Regulatory Processes

• Proposed decommissioning activities remain same as assessed in 2006-2007; however, additional decommissioning details and environmental information now available, such as: – Pipeline span status data – Onshore pipeline plugs – New disposal well blowout modeling data – Updated species-at-risk status and Special Areas (EBSAs) – Updated Indigenous fishing data and commercial fishing data • Currently undertaking Environmental Study to assess updates since 2006-2007 EA was approved • Information collected in Environmental Study will be used to satisfy CNSOPB and NEB approvals

11 Schedule

• Permanently ceased production from Deep Panuke on May 7, 2018 • Anticipate conducting decommissioning activities during 2018-2021 timeframe

12 Indigenous and Stakeholder Engagement

• Notifications sent to: – Indigenous groups (Mi’kmaq of NS, NB & PEI and Maliseet of NB) – Key stakeholders, including: • Fisheries groups • ENGOs • Other operators • Regular information updates on decommissioning process • Meetings to provide overview and hear preliminary concerns/comments • Ongoing communication for decommissioning activities with Indigenous groups and key stakeholders

13 Commercial Fisheries Data Invertebrate Trawl

14 Commercial Fisheries Data Sea Cucumber

15 Commercial Fisheries Data Scallop

16 Commercial Fisheries Data Offshore Clam

17 Commercial Fisheries Data Snow Crab

18 Inshore Lobster

19 Offshore Lobster

20

APPENDIX D Indigenous Commercial Communal Licences

Table 1 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities

Indigenous Group / Species Fished Licence Area Description ACADIA FIRST NATION Groundfish, unspecified Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Lobster Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 33, 34 Sea Scallop Scallop Fishing Area (SFA) 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D, 29 Snow Crab NAFO 4X Jonah Crab LFA 33 Herring Herring Fishing Area (HFA) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Mackerel Mackerel Fishing Area (MFA) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Ocean Quahaug SFA 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 7C Tuna, unspecified NAFO 4VSWX, 5Z PAQ’TNKEK (AFTON) FIRST NATION Sea Urchins Guysborough County Indian Harbour ANNAPOLIS VALLEY FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 34, 35 Sea Scallop SFA 29; SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D Sea Urchins Digby Annapolis Kings County APAQTUKEWAG FISHERIES Snow Crab Crab Fishing Area (CFA) 24 Lobster LFA 27 Mackerel Unspecified Sea Urchins Richmond Squid, Unspecified Unspecified BEAR RIVER FIRST NATION Lobster LFA 34, 35 Tuna, Unspecified NAFO 4VSWX, 5Z POTLOTEK (CHAPEL ISLAND) BAND COUNCIL Snow Crab CFA 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring/Mackerel Unspecified Lobster LFA 28, 29 Sea Urchins Richmond Shrimp Fishing Areas - Louisbourg Hole 1; Misaine Hole 14; Canso Shrimp, Pandalus Borealis Hole 15 ESKASONI FIRST NATION Snow Crab CFA 23, 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Table 1 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities

Indigenous Group / Species Fished Licence Area Description Lobster LFA 28, 29 Mackerel Unspecified Shrimp Fishing Areas - Louisbourg Hole 1; Misaine Hole 14; Canso Shrimp, Pandalus Borealis Hole 15 FORT FOLLY FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Lobster LFA 35 Sea Scallop SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28B, 28C Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE GLOOSCAP FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4X, 5Y, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Lobster LFA 34 Mackerel MFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Marine Worm Marine Worm Harvest Area 1 Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Unspecified NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE KINGSCLEAR FIRST NATION Rock Crab LFA 36 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4X, 5Y Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 36, 38 Sea Scallop SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28B, 28C Sea Urchins Sea Urchin Fishing Areas 36, 38 MEMBERTOU BAND COUNCIL Rock Crab LFA 27 Snow Crab CFA 23 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4T, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 27 Mackerel MFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Sea Scallop SFA 29; SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D Sea Urchins Cape Breton Shrimp Fishing Areas - Louisbourg Hole 1; Misaine Hole 14; Canso Shrimp, Pandalus Borealis Hole 15 Tuna, Unspecified NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE MILLBROOK FIRST NATION Jonah Crab LFA 32 Snow Crab CFA 23, 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Table 1 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities

Indigenous Group / Species Fished Licence Area Description Hagfish (Slime eel) NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 32, 35 Mackerel Unspecified Halifax County East of Pennant Point; Guysborough County East of Sea Urchins Port Bickerton Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Unspecified NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE MIME'J SEAFOODS LTD. (NCNS) Jonah Crab LFA 33 Snow Crab NAFO 4X, CFA 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4T, 4VN, 4X, 5Y Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 27, 29, 33, 34 Mackerel Unspecified Marine Worm Marine Worm Harvest Area 4 Sea Scallop SFA 29 Squid, Unspecified Unspecified Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE NB ABORIGINAL PEOPLES COUNCIL Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 36, 38 Mackerel Unspecified Sea Scallop SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28B, 28C OROMOCTO FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4X, 5Y Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 36 Sea Scallop SFA 29; SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D Sea Urchins Sea Urchin Fishing Area 36 SIPEKNE’KATIK (SHUBENACADIE) BAND COUNCIL Snow Crab CFA 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Lobster LFA 32, 33, 34, 35 Sea Scallop SFA 29; SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D Sea Urchins Halifax County East of Pennant Point Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Table 1 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities

Indigenous Group / Species Fished Licence Area Description ST. MARY'S FIRST NATION Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 36 Sea Scallop SFA 29; SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D Sea Urchins Sea Urchin Fishing Area 36 Shrimp, Pandalus Borealis Shrimp Fishing Areas 4X/5Z - 16 Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE TOBIQUE FIRST NATION Jonah Crab LFA 38 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4X, 5Y Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 38 Mackerel Unspecified Ocean Quahaug Unspecified Sea Scallop SFA 29; SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D Sea Urchins Sea Urchin Fishing Area 38 WAGMATCOOK FIRST NATION Snow Crab CFA 23 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring Unspecified Lobster LFA 27 Mackerel Unspecified Sea Urchins Victoria South of Cape North Squid, Unspecified Unspecified Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE WAYCOBAH (WE’KOQMA’Q) FIRST NATION Snow Crab CFA 23, 24 Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5Y, 5ZE Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 27, 29 Mackerel Unspecified Sea Urchins Victoria South of Cape North Seal Skins/Harp/Rag.Jacket (NO.) Unspecified Shrimp Fishing Areas - Louisbourg Hole 1; Misaine Hole 14; Canso Shrimp, Pandalus Borealis Hole 15 Swordfish NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE WOODSTOCK FIRST NATION Groundfish, Unspecified NAFO 4X, 5Y Herring HFA 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lobster LFA 36, 38 Table 1 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Maritimes Region for Indigenous Communities

Indigenous Group / Species Fished Licence Area Description Sea Scallop SFA 29; SFA (Bay of Fundy) 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D Sea Urchins Sea Urchin Fishing Areas 36, 38 Swordfish NAFO Divisions 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Tuna, Restricted NAFO 3L, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3PS, 4VN, 4VS, 4W, 4X, 5ZE Bolded text indicates licences that overlap the Deep Panuke Development area

Table 2 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Gulf Region for Indigenous Communities

Aboriginal Organization / Species Fished Licence Area Description TOBIQUE FIRST NATION Groundfish NAFO 4X, 5Y Lobster LFA 38 Scallop SFA 28B, 28C Herring HFA 17, 22 Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs, 4X, 5 PABINEAU FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs, 4X, 5 ESGENOÔPETITJ FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 ELSIPOGTOG FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 INDIAN ISLAND FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 NB ABORIGINAL PEOPLES COUNCIL Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 BOUCTOUCHE FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 EEL RIVER BAR FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 PICTOU LANDING FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 ABEGWEIT FIRST NATION Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 LENNOX ISLAND FIRST NATION Groundfish NAFO 4Vn Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 NATIVE COUNCIL OF PEI Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 GLOOSCAP FIRST NATION (MARITIMES REGION) Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 ST. MARY'S FIRST NATION (MARITIMES REGION) Tuna NAFO 4W, 4Vs 4X, 5 Table 2 Commercial Communal Licences Issued by DFO Gulf Region for Indigenous Communities

Aboriginal Organization / Species Fished Licence Area Description Bolded text indicates licences that overlap the Deep Panuke Development area

APPENDIX E Commercial Fisheries Figures

Figure 1 Inshore Lobster

Figure 2 Snow Crab

Figure 3 Sea Cucumber Fishing Areas

Figure 4 Sea Scallops

Figure 5 Crab (Other)

Figure 6 Offshore Clams

Figure 7 Groundfish

Figure 8 Wolffish

Figure 9 Swordfish

Figure 10 Bluefin Tuna

Figure 11 Tuna (Other)

Figure12 Large Pelagics (excludes Bluefin Tuna)